100 Tmax vs. 100 Acros

Bruce Watson · May 1, 2006

My 5x4 Kodak readyload holder died. This means that I get to choose films again. I'm considering what I can get in readyload/quickload form, so I'm limited to either 100Tmax or 100 Acros.

I'm using these films for landscape work, often in low light conditions. Both have excellent reciprocity characteristics. Both give a pretty linear response. Both have interesting tonality.

Can some of you with experience with both these films help me out with some pros and cons?

avandesande · May 1, 2006

The only downside to tmax is the uv blocking coating, if you ever want to do alt processes. Some people say acros is soft but it is nowhere near efke films in this respect. Other than that it is personal taste.

dancqu · May 1, 2006

Bruce Watson said:
...so I'm limited to either 100Tmax or 100 Acros.

I'm using these films for landscape work,
often in low light conditions. Both have excellent
reciprocity characteristics.

I also am interested in countering what I call
sudden-shadow-drop-out when doing landscapes.
Acros 100 is on my short list. So much has been said
of it's superior reciprocity behavior. Just how far will
it go? I'm accustomed to the 1/2 second limits of
many films. Could I expect 2 maybe 4 seconds
of linear behavior? Dan

Petzi · May 1, 2006

Check the data sheet. Acros is linear up to 2 minutes, and you need a half stop of correction for 2 - 16 minutes. That's pretty good reciprocity behaviour, isn't it?

dancqu · May 1, 2006

Petzi said:
Check the data sheet. Acros is linear up to 2
minutes, and you need a half stop of correction
for 2 - 16 minutes. That's pretty good reciprocity
behaviour, isn't it?

Did Check the data sheet. Fantastic! I'll have to
load up on a few rolls. I've been working under a
handicap under the forest canopy. And it can be
quite dark in the Deep Dark Forest. Dan

Mongo · May 1, 2006

I've used both, and prefer the look of Acros. I have no hard, scientific reason for this...I just like the look of the finished print more.

However, two things stop me from using Acros. First, Acros is only available in Quickloads locally. Since I don't hike long distances, the bulk of some extra film holders doesn't bother me nearly as much as the huge difference in price. (I know that I can order loose sheets from Japan, but I just won't be bothered to do that. If it wasn't for the next issue, I might be willing to try it.)

The other thing that I dislike about Acros: Each sheet has a small hole punched in the film, actually in the image area. The hole is for hanging the film to dry, but I absolutely loathe it. It means that part of my image is of no use to me, because I have to crop out part of the image on each sheet when I print it (unless I want a perfectly circular black hole in the corner of each shot). Why Fuji (a company that apparently puts some thought into what photographers want in a film) punches a little hole in each sheet of film is beyond me.

Some of my best work in 120 has been done on Acros, and I really wish I could use the same film across formats. But as long as I have to pay for Quickloads, and that inflated cost comes with a hole in each sheet, I won't be shooting much Acros. (Just the occasional fun shot until I get through the rest of the box that I have.)

Best of luck to you. Maybe you can find some nice people nearby to loan you the film holders and a few sheets of film to try out.

Be well.
Dave

L Gebhardt · May 2, 2006

The newer ReadyLoad holders work very well for the Quickload films. So I would get another and you can shoot either. I also loath the little hole in the corner of Fuji's negative films (it is also in NPS color print film and I think Pro S).

I like both TMax and Across about the same. I like FP4 much better, but you can't get it in a packet system.

Tom Stanworth · May 2, 2006

Acros, no question.

I have shot a fair bit and also think the final image is so much more lively than TMax. Cannot understand why as would prefer TMax to be better as so much cheaper in quickload! Tmax to me is awful apaprt from techie images and Acros quite nice in pyro devs, but still not as nice as plain old FP4 or such.

For me, I will pay double for a film supposedly almost identical to Tmax but in fact VERY different to me.

Tom
Tom

Peter Schrager · May 2, 2006

Acros

My take is that Acros is everything Tmax was supposed to be. It's a no brainer.
Acros is not that amenable for Alt Process as I have tried it in 4x5. The 120 stuff is killing me it's so good. The reciprocity factor is just icing on the cake..
Peter

ChrisW · May 2, 2006

Considering Kodak, in their infinite wisdom, have publicly stated that they are abandoning film for digital, the decision should be easier. Acros is a better film, and Kodak will announce the end of TMax sales three day before inventory runs out. Finer grain and higher resolution. The 4x5 hole issue is a bit puzzling, though.

Jim Noel · May 2, 2006

I don't understand why you say Acros is not good for alt processes. I use it regularly and have printed kallitypes, platinum/palladium and even albumen from the negatives.

Jim

Peter Schrager · May 2, 2006

Acros

Jim -I need to clarify my statement- my issue was with longish printing times. How are yours? Just tried it once though.....
Peter

john_s · May 2, 2006

Mongo said:
...........The other thing that I dislike about Acros: Each sheet has a small hole punched in the film, actually in the image area. The hole is for hanging the film to dry, but I absolutely loathe it. It means that part of my image is of no use to me, because I have to crop out part of the image on each sheet when I print it (unless I want a perfectly circular black hole in the corner of each shot). Why Fuji (a company that apparently puts some thought into what photographers want in a film) punches a little hole in each sheet of film is beyond me.
........
Dave

I used to use 4x5 film with a tiny hole in the corner that I actually liked. I think it was Agfa 100 (maybe pre APX?). It was just big enough for a bent paper clip, and I used it for drying.

I take it that the hole in Acros is further in from the corner. How far in is it?

Mongo · May 2, 2006

I'm unsure how far in the hole in Acros is...maybe 1/8th of an inch, maybe 1/4. I don't have a sheet here to measure. It doesn't matter to me though...it's in the image area, which means that my image has a hole in it, which means that I won't use the film.

It's a personal thing for me...I find the hole in every sheet of Acros as annoying as I would find emulsion imperfections in a film. I know why it's there and I know that some people like it, but personally it's a complete deal-breaker for me.

agGNOME · May 2, 2006

Out of curiosity can someone post a full flatbed scan of the Across sheet showing the hole? I haven't used it in 4x5 ,but would be interested because of it's reciprocity characteristics. thanks, cameron

Jim Noel · May 3, 2006

Peter,
I find my print times for salt, albumen, plat/palladium to be slightly shorter than for FP4+ because of the very clear film base and good clearing of the anti-halation layer.

When I first began using Acros I over-exposed it about 1/3-1/2 a stop. This was causing the shadows to be too dense.

By the way, I always pre-soak for 5 minutes regardless of the development method or developer. This seems to make for a very clear base.

JIm

Peter Schrager · May 3, 2006

Thanx

Jim-thanks very much I'll retry because it is my favorite film of all.....
Peter

Mongo · May 3, 2006

I apologize that I can't scan an Acros negative to show you the hole at this time. I'm moving house soon and all of my negatives are packed away safely for the move. I hope someone else can jump in here with an example...or I'll be happy to at a later date.

(Although I've mentioned my distaste for the hole, it is only fair to mention that plenty of people are very happy with Acros irrespective of the hole in the film. I will say that I absolutely love the look of Acros...just personally won't accept the hole.)

Dave

agGNOME · May 3, 2006

Thanks Darr! I'm sure that will help inform many here; it's unfortunate , but not as bad as I suspected. Strange, it seems like it could be placed such that it would intrude less into the image area and still serve it's function effectively.

Ken Lee · May 5, 2006

Is the hole only on quick-load film ?

Pete H · May 5, 2006

No, it's in the imported sheet film too. Grrr

Sal Santamaura · May 5, 2006

Pete H said:
No, it's in the imported sheet film too. Grrr

All Fuji negative sheet films, color or black and white, Quickload or not, 4x5 or 8x10, include the drying hook hole. Its degree of intrusion into the image area depends on where the sheet ends up in your holder.

With Quickload holders, as they get older (and if you pull harder when withdrawing the sleeve to expose) the hole intrudes more. In conventional holders it varies with vertical/horizontal orientation and somewhat randomly with motion during handling before exposure.

Ken Lee · May 5, 2006

What a shame.

I guess if you scan your negatives, you can always correct the problem in an editing tool - but if you use analog methods, you're obliged to make sure that all your subjects contain a pure black area in one corner.

Sal Santamaura · May 5, 2006

Ken Lee said:
What a shame.

I guess if you scan your negatives, you can always correct the problem in an editing tool - but if you use analog methods, you're obliged to make sure that all your subjects contain a pure black area in one corner.

If Fuji asked I'd tell them to lose the hole, but I'm not sure why it's such a problem. Either one likes the film or not. If so, Acros is well able to stand a tiny bit more enlargement than most other emulsions. Why not just put a line on the ground glass and print from a negative that's a few mm shorter?

100 Tmax vs. 100 Acros

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency