Film Report: Arista.EDU Ultra 200 (Fomapan 200 Creative)

[bmattock]

First of all, our own Walker (doubs43) has reported on this film already, back in May. His report prompted me to order some for myself, but I just got around to using & processing it. Short version - I like it.

This film is sold by Freestyle Photographic Supplies out of Hollywood, CA (Freestyle Photo (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/)). Usual disclaimer - I don't work for Freestyle or have any connection with them whatsoever except as a retail customer. Arista is their 'house brand' name for their budget supplies - film, paper, chemistry, and so on. They don't make any of it themselves, it is all supplied by outside vendors and relabeled. Freestyle usually also sells the 'branded' version of the same thing - generally for a bit more. Freestyle most generally will not tell you what the 'generic' house brand really is - but it usually not very hard to find out.

Arista label film comes in several flavors - Arista Professional, Arista II, Arista.EDU, and Arista.EDU Ultra (whew!). Usually, a clue to the actual manufacturer can be found by the statement of origin, if one is provided. It would appear that Arista.EDU Ultra is made in the Czech Republic. Well, there is only one producer of B&W film in the Czech Republic that I am aware of, so that would mean that Arista.EDU Ultra 200 is in fact Fomapan 200 Creative (Fomapan 200 Creative (http://www.foma.cz/foma/produkt/foto.asp?seznam=cernob_fot)). Full disclosure - I have no connection to Foma, either (grin).

Now, I have had some experience with Freestyle's Arista.EDU (Fortepan) and I found that I didn't care to continue using it. Oh, the film itself is lovely, a bit on the grainy side but I like that - but the danged stuff is so curly you will not believe it - almost impossible to get the 120 roll film onto a reel to develop and it WILL NOT lay flat for insertion into a scanning carriage, either 35mm or 120. Even if you put a brick on top of it for a couple of weeks, it curls right up again. Terrible.

However, the Arista.EDU Ultra is NOT like that! Happy am I over that alone! It has some longitudinal curl - but no more than, say, Ilford HP5 Plus. It does not have that 'wrap around the axle' curl that I hate.

Now, the review part...sorry for the nonsense getting here...

I took some of this film with me on vacation to Gettysburg a couple of weeks ago. Just got around to processing the film today. I did 10 rolls of various types and speeds of B&W films. I ended up using good old Kodak D-76 mixed 1+1 because it was the only one that had times listed for each of the films I shot, so I would not have to fool around guessing at dev times or taking a chance on blowing my processing on these important (to me) negs. Next time I use this film, I'll try something more exotic and fun to process it with!

I had some difficulty with this film today. You see, when I process my film, I do it in the kitchen, and then after I wash the negs, I squeegee them and hang them up on a clothes hanger with a clippy thing on the bottom and I take them into my bathroom and hang them up to dry. But today, after I squeegeed my very important Gettysburg B&W shots on my Arista.EDU Ultra 200 film, I, uh, dropped the wet neg strip.

In the cat's litter box.

We have three cats.

Yikes.

My precious neg looked like Shake-n-Bake chicken just before you put it in the deep fat fryer. All covered in breading. Well, not breading. But it kinda looked like it.

I believe I yelled. No, actually, I think I shrieked. Like a little girl. I'm so ashamed.

Thinking quickly (well, as quickly as I could think with several beers in me), I gathered up my neg strip, scaring my cats in the process, and ran back into the kitchen.

I dumped the neg strip unceremoniously into the sink and began running cold water over it.

At which time, my beloved wife, who was on the phone with the pizza place ordering us dinner, asked me what I wanted on my pizza. I was not hearing her, being deeply fuh-tutzed over my gritty negs, and I thought she asked what was on my negs.

I replied "Cat turds!"

"On your pizza?"

"What?"

"What do you want on your pizza?"

"I don't care, I have cat turds on my negatives!"

Which caused her to drop the phone and laugh like a mad thing. She does that sometimes. She says I'm insane and she loves it. Whatever.

So, I washed my negs again. Squeegeed them again. Hung them up CAREFULLY.

I guess a got a couple of keepers out of the roll. Damned good thing, too.

Taken with a Bessa R and Canon 50mm f1.4 lens, yellow filter. It was an overcast day, as you'll be able to see.

I really like the film. The negs looked very thin next to my Ilford HP5 Plus negs, and my Agfa APX 100 negs. In fact, I thought I had blown the dev times badly. But no, they scanned up really well. It seems to have great tonal range, good accutance, and some grain, but more middle-of-the-road than heavy or light grain. Less than old Tri-X, more than Delta 100. Somewhere in there.

I used a KM SD IV, Vuescan/Linux, as generic color, saved as TIFF. Then adjusted levels in Gimp/Linux (very little needed to be done), desaturated to B&W, got rid of a few cat turds, oops, I mean dust specks, resized, and applied USM. Then saved as JPG and here you go.

I will be buying more of this film. I believe I paid $1.99 per roll. Well worth it. I like it as well as my Ilford HP5 Plus, and better than my Agfa APX 100.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[Gabriel M.A.]

I really like the results. That was hilarious, the turd story.

Well, try having a cat, like I do, that is very intrigued by hanging negatives; I have to literally ban him from my work area otherwise he'll try to: run away, pick up some speed, come back and fly by and knock them over. When I do anything with negatives (cutting them, uncurling them, drying them, you name it) he has a "can I play too?" look on his face. Not cute when it's a 2-hours' hard work worth of looking at the clock or stopwatch and pouring and rinsing and hunching over.

Good work.

[foon]

The tone is really nice, I will definetly give that a try. Has anyone tried it with HC110? It seems foma doesn't suggest developing with it.

Nice story too! Luckily my cat isn't particularly interested in any of my photography related stuff, but it's kinda annoying when she walks on the keyboard while you're working.

[tubems]

i tried this film with perceptol and daylight shots had great detail to the whites...very happy. did it 1:3 12min 22.4 deg...had this nice old style look to it...

[mfogiel]

The only thing I do not like about this film, is the blue base, which whitens the sky excessively. I think it is a great film for studio work, portraits or object photography, and for me it really excels in FX39 (I have tried this following Roger Hick's advice)
Here's a sample:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/2890914239_93de4a7b71_b.jpg

[notturtle]

the blue base should not lighten blue sky, surely. The light hits the emulsion with the base behind it so it will not act as a blue filter. This film is panchromatic unlike the slow Efke films, so I am a little confused. Anyone else noticed lighter blue skies?

[Roger Vadim]

So where's the pictures?
Great story!

[martin s]

Good story, I like the review. But when you said it curls similarly to HP5+, it's my favorite film and all, but I find the curl to be pretty annoying. How does it compare to APX 100? I've been using a lot of APX 400 lately, since it's so easy to process.

martin

[venchka]

I bought a 100 sheet box of 4x5 Arista.EDU Ultra 200 from another Rangefinder Forum member. Here are two negatives from the first batch I developed. E.I. 100, Xtol 1:3, 12 minutes @ 68F, continous agitation in a Jobo 3010 tank. I will try 10 minutes next time.

Yellow-Green filter:

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/155661-2/Zedler+Mill-3.jpg

Yellow-Orange filter:

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/155665-2/Zedler+Mill-1.jpg

I like this film.

[ClaremontPhoto]

This is the best film review I have ever read.

Thank you.

[bmattock]

No problem - but I wrote it in 2005. I have no idea how it got resurrected.

[dfoo]

Strange things going on around here! So ... do you still like the film?

[bmattock]

Strange things going on around here! So ... do you still like the film?

What's film?

[bmattock]

Just kidding. Yes, I do. Haven't ordered any lately - been shooting Tri-X and my own secret stash of expired Chinese film. But I shoot less and less film, outside of MF.

[CK Dexter Haven]

I'm glad this thread came back. I missed it way back when. That is a great 'review,' and i'm still laughing at Gabriel's reply. I just lost my cat, and it's nice to be able to remember her in this sort of context.


"Well, try having a cat, like I do, that is very intrigued by hanging negatives; I have to literally ban him from my work area otherwise he'll try to: run away, pick up some speed, come back and fly by and knock them over."

[Tom A]

Dont know what is it with cat's and darkrooms. Our former cat was all black and loved to hide in the darkroom when he saw me gathering up film for processing. You are standing there with reels and film and you hear "Mweew" and he would jump up on the counter and shed!!!!
Mr B likes to play with hanging film. He found out that if you slap the weights at the bottom, it will make an interesting sound - both from the weights clashing together and from me! He also likes the cut-off pieces that end up on the floor - proudly carries them around and drops them everywhere. You look on the bedroom floor and there are cut off leaders on it. "How the hell did they get here?" and you start checking the soles of your shoes. He does not seem to have a preference - though the Agfa Scopix X-ray film attracts him - it is tough enough to chew on!
He was cured from the chemistry cabinet though. Bit through the bottom of a 6lb bag of Sodium Sulphite and did not like the taste - which he indicated by spreading about a 1lb on the floor!
Cats also have ballistic hair - they can target a nice, smooth mid tone area and deposit a hair right on it!
I should gather up cut off's and see if he has a preference for the Arista versus the Tri X or the Legacy pro versus the Neopan Presto 400 as part of a filmtest too.

[Chris101]

That's funny Tom. Mr. Black is the name of my darkroom dwelling and shedding cat too.

And cat preference would indeed be a good way of finally settling the "is Arista Premium 400 the same as trix" question.

[Turtle]

Despite thinking that Foma 200/Arista Edu Ultra 200 is the prettiest film in the world, I am done with it. Too many QC issues and I cannot rely upon it. I gave up in 120 ages ago, but having found my last batch of 35mm cleaner I perservered. In the beginning I saw the issues as very minor and rare, but they keep on repeating from roll to roll. So far out of my last three rolls I have had the following:


Marks on the emulsion (look like specks) - every roll. Prob about 50% of frames affected. Most could be sptted on the prints with ease. They tend to be tiny and are easy to miss.
Scratches in the emulsion. Two frames in three rolls.
Dark vertical bands that on one or two frames (not a camera fault) on each roll. In different places and often only partially thru the frame. vary in thickness.
A horizontal band on every single frame of the last roll, necessitating me to crop about 3mm off any frame showing a clear sky. Its a slight density change and with 600ml of dev in a tank requiring only 375ml and well honed dev routine, it is clear as day a coating issue.
Surge marks. These were severe when I tested with a 5 min dev time and 4 inversions per minute, but when I diluted to give an 8 min time and did 2 very gentle inversions they were still there. I have never in my life had surge marks (around sprocket holes) with any film, period.
On a previous roll I had some horizontal marks too (reduced density running horizontally but only partially across a frame shaped like a very narrow triangle.


It is such an awful shame. IMHO this film is capable of subtle old school tones that no other film seems to produce. Generously exposed and with reduced development the results are simply breathtaking, but what can you do when it is utterly unreliable? Its frustrating as this film is so unique and can produce such subtle and glowing tones.

FWIW, the Foma 100 I have has NONE of the above issues and is frame perfect, but is more conventional in look. Still, it is very nice indeed with lovely tight crisp grain and only 1/3 stop slower than the 200 in use. The probs with the 200 make me not want to trust the 100 either past this batch. I might buy one big bulk 100 batch and test it. If it is clean, I will use it but if not, there endeth my flirtation with Foma. The 200 I will keep for absolute emergency use (like if I run out and aliens land on earth)

Most of the above issues are invisible if you shoot frames without even sky, but still.....

Back to Fp4+ it is.

[Fotohuis]

Fomas Q.C. improved a lot in the last 10 years.

About curl: The 120 roll film version curls more because it's polyester based. The 35mm version is on tri-acetate so will always have less curl.
Fomapan Creative 200 is a special film. It has hexagonal and triangle silver halide crystals and is a kind of mix of cubical and T grain type crystals.

Here an 35mm example made with the M7 and the Elmarit 2,8/28mm + Yellow filter (Heliopan).
The Fomapan Creative 200 film is developed in R09 (Para-amino Phenol).

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/63/190902192_030e349c4c.jpg

[Fotohuis]

From all Fomapan films the Creative 200 is my favorite film. Only in speed you will get less then iso 200.
In Rodinal type developer it's iso 125, in RHS/AM74 it's iso 160 and this is a speed enhanced developer.
The film is very sharp in Para-amino Phenol and with a regular crispy grain so that's my favorit combo.

Here another (35mm) example of Creative 200 in Para-amino Phenol.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/57/190902189_6ae2a9a45a.jpg

[Fotohuis]

If you want to suppress all grain from this " iso 200 " film I am using the old W665 developer (Windisch) based on Ortho Phenylene Diamine. (A kind of Microdol-X but even less grain).
Creative 200 react excellent on this Ultra Fine Grain developer.
Here a (35mm) test sample in W665 which gives you a nice tonal range and a neglectible grain even in 35mm format. E.I. 100, 9:45 minutes at 20 degrees C.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3574/3426183001_27cc69a22d.jpg

[Fotohuis]

But at the end you do not want a scan but a nice (wet print) photo in the album.
Fomapan Creative 200 (R09) printed on MG IV via the split grade printing method. Size 20x25cm and for this RFF scanned in 300 dpi.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/92/213110408_5c06ace002.jpg

[Turtle]

I guess there are good and bad batches out there, but i have 25 rolls rolls of 120 that shows terrible QC and 9 rolls of 35mm from a different batch went in the trash a few days ago. These are the only two batches of the film I have ever bought, one branded Foma 200 (120) and the other Arista Edu ultra 200 (35mm). Both have had good rolls, but plenty of dogs. I won't ever tempt fate with it again.

The 100 that I have is another matter (in 120 and 35mm) and internet anecdotes suggest better QC, or at least fewer issues, with the 100. In Xtol 1+2 it is beautiful with a lovely tonal scale. Not as 'special' as the 200, but then again there is nothing special about black marks and scratches on your film not matter the tonal qualities!

I might buy a 100 roll batch of the 100 speed and so if it is bad it is more cost effective to return it and if good, I at least know I have 99 more rolls to go. Its very cheap and very pretty and IMHO more interesting than FP4+

[Fotohuis]

If you think you have a bad batch Fomapan film you can always sent back the films to Hradec Kralové (Czech Republic) and in case of a failure Foma will replace the defective film material.

[Turtle]

I work in Afghanistan so thats not practical unfortunately and being out of pocket by $75 is not the problem either, its not being able to rely on the material. Because there are good rolls in bad batches, testing 5 random rolls out of 50 roll to be sure that the batch is a good one is not practical either. I can't reshoot my shots and I need to be sure that what goes into my camera is so reliable that all I need to worry about is the idiot behind the camera!

For this reason I make darned sure I have plenty of ilford FP4+ and Neopan 400 etc about so that I am never without a totally dependable film. My Foma 100 batch I know to be spot on and I remain hopefull that I can get more of the same, but retrying the 200 would be madness at this point. I am gutted, because no other film around has the same look.

[Fotohuis]

Well, the last Fomapan failure on a batch was in 2004 and all EU Foma distributors were informed about the failure and batchnr.
Up from 2005 we haven't had any reclamation on Fomapan films. IMO Foma made a tremendous improvement in their Q.C. system.

[Turtle]

Well, the last Fomapan failure on a batch was in 2004 and all EU Foma distributors were informed about the failure and batchnr.
Up from 2005 we haven't had any reclamation on Fomapan films. IMO Foma made a tremendous improvement in their Q.C. system.


Whatever the cause, if is crystal clear that the Foma 200 120 from B&H bought about 12 months and the Arista Edu Ultra 200 35mm bought from Freestyle about six months ago show all the signs of awful QC/manufacturing defects for the reasons already stated. Both are effectively unusable, unless you shoot busy frames with lots of chaotic detail in which case most (but not all) the defects would be hidden. Regardless of what Foma say, the evidence was staring me in the loupe on quite a few occasions that I used the film. Its possible that the film I used was all cut from an earlier master roll from the last bad batch, but judging by the expiry date, this would seem unlikely.

Maybe I will give it a year or two and then try some 200 again, but I am in no rush. I've had to throw a fair amount of film and had some excellent frames ruined or seriously affected because I thought earlier rolls showing faults were the freaks when in fact it was the whole lot. Its a double shame because I wasted time getting my E&D spot on. It was the last roll for me that really set me off. Four frames I will be exhibiting all on the one roll - it is rare for me to hit such a success rate - two of which are seriously affected and will force me to crop when I don't want to. The other two I might be able to get away with, but if not, I will have to crop them too. I wish to goodness I had been shooting FP4+ instead that day.

[remegius]

I replied "Cat turds!"

"On your pizza?"

"What?"



OMG...I was laughing so hard my wife wanted to know if I was OK. Forget the film reviews. Give us some more stand up.

Cheers...

Rem

[morback]

I processed a roll of Foma 200 last week, and besides my high base fog issue I thought it was a really good film. I'm currently debating Foma vs Efke as my Agfa APX replacement.

Foma seems to have really nice gradation, very nice even and visible grain and great definition/sharpness. I want to say "soft sharpness", and ideal companion for Sonnars...

[Fotohuis]

besides my high base fog issue I thought it was a really good film

The higher base fog is caused by the blue dye inside the film emulsion which is part of an effective A.H. layer.
You can not wash it out.

[jpa66]

Photohuis,

Those photos are excellent! I'm looking to expand my film palette, and I've got to try this stuff.

[Fotohuis]

Fomapan 100 (E.I.80) in Rodinal
Fomapan 200 (E.I. 125) in Rodinal
Fomapan 200 (E.I. 160) in Xtol

are certainly recommended film - developer combinations.

Fomapan 100 (E.I.80) and Rodinal is very close to APX100 (Rollei Retro 100) and Rodinal, which was a very good combo.

If you want more speed you can try above films with RHS/AM74 on iso 100 and iso 160.

Here an updated Foma developing chart:
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Ontwikkeltijden.pdf

[morback]

Foma 100 & 200 in R09 stand development achieves their box speed. I'm actually even tempted to underxpose them because I find the highlights to be too closed.

I'm sold on Foma. It's a really beautiful film than scans like no other. My perfect APX replacement.

[Turtle]

Foma 100 & 200 in R09 stand development achieves their box speed. I'm actually even tempted to underxpose them because I find the highlights to be too closed.

I'm sold on Foma. It's a really beautiful film than scans like no other. My perfect APX replacement.

don't underexpose to deal with highlights. They are best dealt with by a reduction in development.

[morback]

Thanks Turtle, 50mn seem to be doing the trick. I'm bummed you don't trust this film, as you've observed yourself there's something unique about its looks. To me it's almost like medium format in 35mm.

The only alternative film I know to have character is the Efke/Adox series. But it doesn't seem to scan too well.

I should try stand development with it again. Agitation or lack thereof seems to have a huge effect with Rodinal / R09 and I might have over-agitated my first rolls of Adox/Efke.