Fuji Acros with which developer?

Olivinyl · 2013-02-25T15:41:37+00:00

Noch ein Nachtrag: Laut Datenblatt ist der Acros feinkörniger als Tmax 100 und Delta 100, das deckt sich mit meinen Erfahrungen. Das Auflösungsvermögen von...

Olivinyl

Hello everyone, How would you develop Acros 100 as a 35mm film? I have Rodinal, Xtol and A49 available. What have you used to achieve decent results with a reasonable exposure (I don’t need it to have fine grain)? A few specific times would also be helpful, as I find the times on http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php far too vague in some cases. Best regards, Oliver

hagee

Hi Oliver, Acros works well in Rodinal 1+75, 64 ASA, 18 minutes. But that’s only 19 DIN/64 ASA. Since you’ve got XTOL at home anyway, I’d suggest using XTOL 1+1 or 1+2. Diafine for 2 x 5 minutes at 200 ASA also works, but it has a tendency to produce very high levels of density in the highlights. Best regards and good light, Hans

Olivinyl

Hi Hans, thanks for your reply. No, not Diafine. I was given two rolls of film. I’d like to achieve the best possible exposure and development for these two rolls without doing a test print first. I’ve never used Acros before. If I like this film, I’ll do a proper test print with it. How does it compare to Tmax 100 or Delta 100? If I’ve understood correctly, Acros is something between a classic emulsion and a flat-crystal film. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Best regards, Oliver

pittyman

Hello Oliver, The surest way to get the information you’re looking for is to develop the film yourself using different developers. Don’t underestimate your own subjective perception! What seems too grainy to one person might just be starting to look interesting to another, and vice versa. This is how I do it: I load the film into the camera and mount it on a tripod. Expose the entire roll with the same subject at the same aperture and shutter speed. In the darkroom, I then cut off just a small section of the exposed film (the rest is packed away in a light-tight container) and develop it in the respective developer for the specified time. I then make the relevant notes on the dry film strip. Next: Print onto your paper in a size that makes sense to you. Once you’ve gone through all the developers, lay your test prints side by side and you’ll be worlds wiser!! With 35mm film, you’ve got 36 negatives at your disposal. You could even try out different development times in each developer if the ones circulating online don’t work for your process. Have fun testing the new film! Dirk

hagee

Hi Oliver, As far as I know, Acros isn’t a flat-crystal film like Tmax100 or Delta 100, but has a classic cubic crystal structure. What makes it special (or is supposed to – I haven’t noticed any difference in practice) is its sensitisation, which is said to be neither pan- nor orthochromatic. With only two films, I’d develop one in Rodinal and the other in XTOL. Perhaps even start with XTOL, which should give the finest fine grain at true 100 ASA. If that works out, you can fine-tune the process for the second film. The times from ‘Digitale Wahrheit’ for Acros in XTOL all look plausible. Due to the tendency towards high density in highlights described, I recommend a dilution of at least 1+2. That’s why it turns out so beautifully in Rodinal 1+75 as well. Acros is a bit of a fussy film, isn’t it? But you don’t look a gift horse in the mouth... Enjoy, Hans

Gast

Hi Oliver, As far as I know, Acros isn’t a flat-crystal film like Tmax 100 or Delta 100, but a classic cubic-crystal film.

You’re wrong there! What Kodak calls ‘Tmax’ and Ilford call ‘Delta’ is known as ‘Sigma Crystal Technology’ at Fuji. Unlike Kodak and Ilford films, however, the Acros is relatively forgiving when it comes to exposure (highlights don’t blow out as easily) Have a go with: Xtol 1:3 – 9 minutes at 24°C (at 64 ASA) 30 seconds of constant agitation, followed by 3 tilts at the start of every minute (high sharpness) or (best all-rounder): Xtol 1:1 – 11 minutes at 20°C (100 ISO) 30 seconds of constant agitation, followed by 3 tilts at the start of every minute. or: Tetenal Neofin Blaue – 6 minutes at 20°C (100 ASA) Constant agitation for the first minute, followed by 5 seconds (3 tilts) at the start of every minute (best sharpness) Best regards, Wolfgang

ThomasPauly

Fuji Acros 100 has two unique selling points: (1) It is orthopanchromatic (similar to the discontinued Rollei 100 Tonal), and is said to offer a highly nuanced rendering of greys in green tones that closely matches what the eye perceives. As the maximum sensitivity is shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum compared to standard panchromatic films, blue skies tend to appear brighter and skin tones may be accentuated. The film is therefore the exact opposite of the Rollei materials produced from super-panchromatic aerial photography films. (2) It is highly resistant to the Schwarzschild effect. No extension of the measured exposure time is required up to 120 seconds. For comparison: APX 100: 1 sec => +1 stop, 10 sec. => +2 stops, 100 sec => +3 stops. My experience with developers is limited to ID-11 1+1 (100 ASA) and CG-512 (50 ASA), with times as per the data sheet. I have mainly used the Acros 100 for evening architectural photography. Its tolerance regarding the black shield effect was also confirmed in practice. The overall quality of the results was, as expected, high, though the fine grain of comparable Kodak and Ilford flat-crystal films was not achieved. The base is clear, which is practical for large enlargements and low-speed warm-tone papers, but it is not made of polyester, so a light-guiding effect (as with the Rollei materials derived from Agfa Aviphot mentioned above) does not occur. However, Silvermax also offers this advantage. My personal conclusion: Ideal for long exposures, but otherwise no compelling reason to switch from other (and often cheaper) ISO 100 films. Regards tepe

Olivinyl

I always find it good and interesting to hear so many different opinions. Dirk: The result and the impression it gives are really a matter of personal preference. I think I’ll develop the first roll of Acros in Xtol 1+1 and the second in Rodinal 1+50 for 13 minutes. I think I read that Acros doesn’t produce such a fine grain as Tmax 100, but has a lower exposure error speed than Tmax 100. Wolfgang confirmed that about the exposure errors. Tmax 100 in Rodinal isn’t really a good match – I’ve already tried it and it just doesn’t work (subjective impression). I only like Tmax 100 in Xtol 1+1 for 9:30 minutes, with an exposure at 60–64 ASA. Extremely creamy, grain-free, with fine grey gradations and a gamma of approx. 0.51. Very nice for portraits (as a scan or print). I don’t like it for all other ‘snaps’, even though Tmax 100 (calibrated and developed to perfection) is a top-class film. You simply can’t see any grain with the grain sharpener, and in 6x6 at the same print size, it’s even worse ;-) I tend to prefer APX/Tura 400 in Xtol or Rodinal. Kentmere 400 in Rodinal or APX 100 in Rodinal. And the ADOX CHS 100 in Rodinal is (or was) not to be sniffed at either. So, crisp and with good granularity! In the meantime, thanks to Uwe’s tip, I’ve also tweaked the Rollei Retro 400S / Agfa ASP 400S in A49 to 80 ASA, which is already quite of fine grain. I’m hoping that Acros will be a bit ‘crisper’ than Tmax, which is why I’m wondering about using Rodinal for the Acros. Cheers, Oli

sputnik

I’m hoping that Acros will produce a slightly ‘crisper’ image than T-Max, which is why I’m wondering whether to use Rodinal with Acros. Best wishes, Oli

If you want a film to be crisp, you have to develop it crisply. Blindly trying out different films with random development times and then comparing them is pure luck, so it’s pointless and teaches you absolutely nothing about the films in question! Trust me.

pittyman

I’m hoping that Acros will be a bit ‘crisper’ than T-Max, which is why I’m wondering about using Rodinal with Acros. Best wishes, Oli

Hello Oliver, Even sharper than the TMAX100? This film is already considered one of the high-resolution films still available on the market. Of course, the adjective ‘sharp’ is also subjective, but I fear there isn’t much more to be gained there. I’ve already mentioned this in another post, but I make a clear distinction between a pleasant analogue sharpness and those super-crisp (often over-sharpened) digital images on monitors. One shouldn’t be misled by them, and as Master Adams once said: “There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Best regards, Dirk

Gast

One more thing: According to the technical data sheet, Acros has a finer grain than Tmax 100 and Delta 100, which is consistent with my own experience. The resolving power of Acros and Tmax is the same at 200 l/mm. The Delta 100 performs ‘worse’ in this respect at 160 l/mm. Acros 100 Granularity: 7 RMS Resolution: 200 l/mm Tmax 100 Granularity: 8 RMS Resolution: 200 l/mm Delta 100 Granularity 8 RMS Resolution: 160 l/mm RMS =http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Film_grain

sputnik

Hmm. Fine grain wasn’t the aim, and now that we’re talking about resolutions of 200 lp/mm, I’d like to start asking about the potential subject, its lighting, and the lens and tripod used. Mirror lock-up goes without saying at this level. I think one should keep the OP’s question in mind when answering. :spudnikhattip:

Olivinyl

Hello everyone, I didn’t express myself clearly; instead of ‘crisp’, I meant more like ‘grainy’ or, better still, ‘crisp-grainy’. I suppose I caused a bit of a stir with that. I did confirm that when developed properly, the Tmax 100 is crisp and has a fine grain, and that I prefer the Tmax 100 ‘underexposed and softly washed’. I had no idea that the Acros was even finer-grained than the Tmax 100. As I mentioned before, I would have placed it somewhere between FP4+ and Delta. @ Sputnik: In that case, the film would almost certainly be a candidate for a tripod, remote release and mirror lock-up – if the lens can keep up at all. I’ll go and have a look for the perfect subject then. Best regards, Oli Edit:[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-seri Dirk says: " ...[/colo[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-seri but I make a clear distinction between a pleasant analogue sharpness and..."[/colo ...[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-seriand I’d add to his statement that analogue sharpness means visible, sharp grain![/colo

Rotti

If you’re looking for a ‘crisp, granular’ look, Acros isn’t the right film. It’s not bad, but TRI-X, Plus-X, or older APX or ADOX50 films do a better job of meeting those requirements. So far, I’ve found Acros works best for me in Tanol Speed. It goes without saying that it doesn’t reach its rated sensitivity, but that’s actually independent of the developer used.

Morte

On the subject of orthopanchromatic or not, or whatever the current thinking is: In Wollstein’s column, I once read an interesting comparison between the [font=arial, helvetica, sans-seriMACO PO 100c (Rollei Retro 100 Tonal) and the Neopan 100 Acros. You can still find the rather detailed article here: http://www.fotografie-in-schwarz-weiss.de/sw-fotografie/kolumne/126-wollstein28.html

pittyman

Edit:[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif Dirk says: " ...[/colo[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif but I make a clear distinction between a pleasant analogue sharpness and..."[/colo ...[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-seriand I would add to his statement that analogue sharpness is characterised by visible, sharp grain![/colo

Dear Oliver, whenever I talk about analogue film, I ALWAYS mean visible grain. I’m happy to develop it in Rodinal and print it on baryta paper using a condenser. Because if I don’t want to see any grain, (which is almost never the case) I simply reach for my digital camera. Stone me, but I wouldn’t bet where the aim is to distinguish a digital print from a print made from TMax 100. Without touching it and from a normal viewing distance, of course.

ThomasPauly

From a photochemical point of view, is there actually a plausible reason why orthopanchromatic sensitisation should have a positive effect on resolving power? In any case, when I used the Maco PO 100c back in the day, I couldn’t visually detect any superiority over ‘ordinary’ panchromatic films of the same speed. I therefore filed the claim of 260 L/mm away as one of those advertising exaggerations (and decided against testing the new edition as Rollei Retro 100 Tonal). Both films are now history, so the question is no longer relevant in practice, but I would still be curious to know the answer. tepe

sputnik

More "grainy" or, better still, "crisp and granular"

Yes. Then use the Acros for playing around or give it away. For shooting, go for TX400 or HP5 in D76. Perhaps the Fomapan 100 might be something for you too. But I can only speculate, as I don’t use it myself.

Olivinyl

Edit:[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-seri Dirk says: " ...[/colo[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-seri but I make a clear distinction between a pleasant analogue sharpness and..."[/colo ...[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-seriand I would add to his statement that analogue sharpness is characterised by visible, sharp grain![/colo
Dear Oliver, whenever I talk about analogue film, I ALWAYS mean visible grain. I’m happy to develop it in Rodinal and print it on baryta paper using a condenser. Because if I don’t want to see any grain, (which is almost never the case) I simply reach for my digital camera. Stone me, but I wouldn’t bet where the aim is to distinguish a digital print from a print made from TMax 100. Without touching it and from a normal viewing distance, of course.

I agree 100% with Dirk. When I was still working with a hybrid system (Reflecta RPS 3600 Pro), APX 100 and 400 in Rodinal looked like a lunar landscape and were almost unusable, so I added Xtol and the scans became more bearable. When I then got the Durst M301 with Trinar and multigrade filters, the results looked a bit smoother, but still not satisfactory. It’s only the Kaiser VCP 3501 I bought four weeks ago—now converted to a VCP 6001 with Rodagon lenses—that really gets my heart racing, and I’m talking about a massive leap in image quality that puts a smile on my face. Beautiful, sharp film grain on the paper! I love it :-) A print from a Kodak TP developed in Rodinal is certainly nothing to be sniffed at either. Over the last few weeks, I’ve been making prints with the Kaiser VCP from films that I stubbornly developed according to the package instructions years ago, but also from films that I’ve measured with a densitometer over the last five months and exposed and developed accordingly – and there’s been a huge gulf between the different results. I shoot almost exclusively in black-and-white analogue. The formats are 35mm and now also medium format, thanks to a Rolleicord Va I inherited. The odd colour negative or slide film does find its way into my analogue setup. Otherwise, for colour I prefer my digital cameras (feel free to stone me for that). A black-and-white image from a digital camera lacks the charm of an analogue image and is too smooth and lacking in texture for my liking. That’s why I use analogue almost exclusively for black-and-white. I started taking photographs 30 years ago with a Voigtländer Vito CL, which I still use to this day. Back then, I had a lot of exposure to Agfa 100 & 400 Pro CN film, and after the Agfa Ultra 50 came out, I made that my top favourite (though that was also partly because my uncle worked at Agfa in Lev). In between, I tried a bit of FP4 and Neopan 400 in the school lab, but with limited success. I added a Yashica FR1, FX 103 and Nikon F80 to my collection, and in 2007 I decided to buy a D200 and D80, as the quality of the prints in the lab had unfortunately deteriorated significantly and optical printing was hardly used anymore. I also like to experiment: mixing Caffenol, Rodinal with Xtol for stand development, leaving a film in 1+200 Rodinal in the fridge all night, but also bathing 30-year-old Orwo NP27 in A49 and seeing what actually comes of it. Just for fun and out of curiosity. That’s why I’m asking here in the forum – I simply want to read about other users’ experiences. Subjective or not. If someone tells me, for example, that Acros in Rodinal produces nice grey gradations, has a slightly steep curve, is only 50 ISO, but has too much grain yet has good sharpness, that’s a personal opinion, but one I can work with. If the tank size, agitation rhythm and time are also provided, then as a reader I have a starting point to work with – not 100% certain, but a reliable one – and might achieve quite good results. If I’m happy with the result, I can always buy 10 films and test them using my process. Unfortunately, though, I so often read: ‘Here’s the datasheet, have a look at Digitruth’, but very few people share their results with others, or at least not in full. I sometimes get the impression that the path to the perfect negative is a great secret that must be closely guarded. What a shame! Best wishes, Oli

Olivinyl

More "grainy" or, better still, "crisp and granular"
Yes. Then use the Acros for playing around or give it away. For shooting, go for TX400 or HP5 in D76. Perhaps the Fomapan 100 might be something for you too. But I can only speculate, as I don’t use it myself.

I just get the impression that my enquiry about Acros is really getting on your nerves. You’re talking about TX400 and Ilford HP5 and Kodak D76 developer. But that wasn’t what I was asking about in general. You’re recommending Foma 100, but you don’t back it up, as you have no experience with the film. Sorry, but what’s that all about? Best regards, Oliver

Nächste Seite »