# 200 feet of film on its way!



## Compaq (Mar 24, 2015)

I just ordered 100 feet of Ilford Pan-F Plus 50 and 100 feet of Arista EDU ultra 200, along with a bulk loader. This will be my first time loading bulk film. At least I won't run out of film in a while!

Has anyone tried the Arista EDU films?


----------



## limr (Mar 24, 2015)

Not the 200 ISO. The last time I bought Arista in 35mm, it was rebranded Tri-X, so I liked it just fine. Hmm, but I think that was the Premium? Can't remember, it was a while ago. The 200 ISO in medium-format is rebranded Fomapan (not sure if it's the same for 35mm), and I must say it's not my favorite film. Emulsion is kind of soft, harder to get nice contrast out of it. Seems to respond better to stand development. I think you can get very good results out of it, but it might take a few rolls to figure out how best to develop it.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 24, 2015)

fancy party streamers?


----------



## PWhite214 (Mar 24, 2015)

I like Arista EDU.  I use both 35 mm and 120, and buy all three ISO's for various conditions.  I have not tried pushing any Arista, but tend to stand develop using Legacy Pro L110, same formula as Kodak HC-110 but lower viscosity.  Dilution 1 part developer, 100 parts filtered water, approximately 68 Deg F, 1 hour, no agitation.  If using stainless steel tanks, I put the tank in a water bath and monitor temperature to minimize temperature migration, the Patterson tanks seem to hold the temperature pretty well. Often I mix ISO's and may have a roll of Tri-X in the same tank.  

Phil


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 25, 2015)

Compaq said:


> I just ordered 100 feet of Ilford Pan-F Plus 50 and 100 feet of Arista EDU ultra 200, along with a bulk loader. This will be my first time loading bulk film. At least I won't run out of film in a while!
> 
> Has anyone tried the Arista EDU films?



I've used arista 100 in 4x5 sheets and like it. 

The problem I see with your situation is that you have 2 types of film and only 1 bulk loader.  You may want to get a second bulk loader so you don't have to mess around with switching films in the bulk loader when you want to use the other kind.


----------



## limr (Mar 25, 2015)

Or just load the entire 100 feet of one film and then the other. I find bulk rolling kind of fussy so I prefer to just do all of it at once and be done with it for a while.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 25, 2015)

Light Guru said:


> Compaq said:
> 
> 
> > I just ordered 100 feet of Ilford Pan-F Plus 50 and 100 feet of Arista EDU ultra 200, along with a bulk loader. This will be my first time loading bulk film. At least I won't run out of film in a while!
> ...


Having only 1 loader is no good when you can pick them up for next to nothing, I'm greedy I've got 4 on the go


----------



## Compaq (Mar 26, 2015)

I bought the bulk loader new, which maybe was not so smart; I see they are quite inexpensive at the 'bay. Anyway, I was planning on just loading the entire thing. I have the cassettes and canisters.

Anyway, if I ever want to pick up another bulk loader, which one should I buy used?


----------



## gsgary (Mar 26, 2015)

You can only get 100' in most loaders


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 26, 2015)

gsgary said:


> You can only get 100' in most loaders


That's not an issue. The op is NOT getting one reel of 200 feet.


----------



## PWhite214 (Mar 26, 2015)

Compaq said:


> Anyway, if I ever want to pick up another bulk loader, which one should I buy used?



From my use I would recommend Watson, Alden and Burke & James loaders. 
I have a couple by Western.  The Western is considerably lighter than the others, which not mean anything.
No problems with any of them, but I use the first three more.



limr said:


> Or just load the entire 100 feet of one film and then the other. I find bulk rolling kind of fussy so I prefer to just do all of it at once and be done with it for a while.



I check my box of "short rolls" when I load a new bulk supply.  I load several 12 exposure rolls first, then finish the bulk with 36 exposure rolls.  I use the "short rolls" for testing lenses or bodies I pick up or repair.

Phil


----------



## gsgary (Mar 27, 2015)

Light Guru said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > You can only get 100' in most loaders
> ...


I forgot to re read his post where he was getting 2 rolls so 2 loaders are definitely needed


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 27, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I forgot to re read his post where he was getting 2 rolls so 2 loaders would be preferred.



Fify.


----------



## limr (Mar 27, 2015)

Two loaders are not needed. Two loaders would make it possible to have different films at the ready for rolling on demand if you are the kind of person who loads canisters as needed. If you don't care about that, just load one film, roll the entire 100 feet into canisters, then do the same with the second film.

Fer cryin' out loud.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 27, 2015)

limr said:


> Two loaders are not needed. Two loaders would make it possible to have different films at the ready for rolling on demand if you are the kind of person who loads canisters as needed. If you don't care about that, just load one film, roll the entire 100 feet into canisters, then do the same with the second film.
> 
> Fer cryin' out loud.



Or...... keep the boxes and plastic bags the film came in, and swap film between the loader and the boxes as needed.

Inconvenient?  Heck yea.  Possible?  Absitively posilutely!


----------



## Compaq (Apr 17, 2015)

So I find a guy who gave away an old film loader; a Western Daylight loader made in USA. Works like a charm! So now I actually have two loaders: one brand new that cost me $30, and one that cost me nothing.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2015)

Compaq said:


> So I find a guy who gave away an old film loader; a Western Daylight loader made in USA. Works like a charm! So now I actually have two loaders: one brand new that cost me $30, and one that cost me nothing.



And so it goes with a lot of darkroom and film-related accessories. One tip: keep your film cartridges in a clean, dust-free storage place before and after use. You want to try to keep the felt lips CLEAN. If the cartridges have press-fit, metal caps, be very careful of dropping them on the floor--they can pop open. After you have shot a roll of film and rewound it and removed it from the camera, make sure it's put into a film cannister or baggie, never into a pants or jacket pocket. Some of the plastic ones have a thread-on retainer cap. ENJOY!

And please, try and get a good developer, one that will not build massive grain. Skip the Rodinal, and get something good. If you want grainy, in the future, you can always add grain effects in software: I expect that future grain effects will look even better and more genuine in origin than they do today.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 17, 2015)

Rodinal it awful look at the grain 400asa pushed to 800







and the print


----------



## gsgary (Apr 17, 2015)

Another rodinal neg steer clear of Rodinal for sure


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2015)

Why I think Rodinal is Not A Good General-Use Developer:

Yes, Rodinal has exaggerated coarse, large, visible grain structure, but it is a grain that shows *high acutance*; the grain it gives is* large,sharp-edged, and crisp*. It once made sense to use Rodinal, on 4x5 or medium-format negatives shot with cheap to average-performing lenses,when the negatives would be printed using old, 1940's and 1950's era diffusion enlargers, on grade 2 papper. Rodinal had a reason for its existence...its high-acutance grain looks decent on BIG negatives, printed with low-contrast, scratch-hiding diffusion enlargers, which were popular 70 years ago, and into the 1970's.

Rodinal had its day in a bygone era, using wet printing on low-contrast enlarging paper, often on diffusion enlargers, with rollfilm, and crappy lenses. Today...most film is scanned, or printed on inkjet, or ultra-high resolution capable $80,000 Noritsu machines. What today's worker wants is a "cleaner", sharper negative, which will be output using 21st century machinery. When the basis of reproduction is a big rollfilm negative, printed on #2 low-contrast paper, using a diffusion enlarger, the high-acutance grain Rodinal is known for helps create the illusion of "sharpness". At one time, that made sense, for bigger negatives like 4x5, 2x3 sheet film, and 120 and 620 rollfilm.

There are MANY developers that give finer grain than Rodinal. Rodinal is sort of the current hipster developer flavor of this decade. While it does have its uses--like say, the smooth metal, low-detail shot gsgary posts above of an engine, which has basically zero fine, high-frequency detail to ruin with grain, it's a poor general-purpose or all-around developer for many subjects. But yeah, as gsgary wrote,"steer clear of Rodinal for sure" as a general-use developer, ESPECIALLY if you want to use 35mm format or slow-speed, fine-grained films.

For landscapes, portraiture, scientific, documentary, beauty work, all that, get a fine-grained developer that will not brand all your images with coarse, high-acutance* grain that overwhelms the image* on the negative, unless of course you actually WANT the grain to be the star of the shot, so it screams, "look-it's film, and I souped it in Rodinal--see the emphasized, high-grit grain?"  When I was 24 I shot a year's worth of images and souped them in Rodinal, and man, I am so,so,so sorry I did. I regret terribly not having souped all that film in HC-110 dilution B, or D-76.


----------



## raytoei (May 3, 2015)

Arista Premium 400 (discontinued) = Tri-x
Arista Premium 100 (discontinued)  = Plus-x
Arista EDU 100/200/400 = Fomapan 100/200/400

Fomapan is an Eastern European film. Good for general use, doesn't push well and usually rated at one stop slower than box speed. 

here's an example of fomapan 100 with 50f1.5 canon ltm on the m3ds:


----------



## timor (May 3, 2015)

FOMA is company in Czech Republic. It's emulsions are from early 60-ties, like Adox, but without much improvement. Many people like them, especially in large format. It's true, EI should be lower, than suggested by ISO rating.


----------



## Gary A. (May 3, 2015)

35mm Tri-X, pushed to ASA 1600, developed in HC110.


----------



## timor (May 3, 2015)

Very nice. Impressive.


----------

