100TMX compared with 100 Acros question.

I mostly use Ilford films in 35mm and 120 rolls, but for convenience with 4x5 would like to use either Readyloads or Quickloads to save me from loading and carrying extra DDS. The price of 100 Acros is vastly more than for 100TMX.

www.teamworkphoto.com

Is there any significant differences between these two films?:confused:

Keith Tapscott. said:

I mostly use Ilford films in 35mm and 120 rolls, but for convenience with 4x5 would like to use either Readyloads or Quickloads to save me from loading and carrying extra DDS. The price of 100 Acros is vastly more than for 100TMX.

www.teamworkphoto.com

Is there any significant differences between these two films?:confused:

Click to expand...

Dear Keith,

In my own limited experience it is vastly easier to get good tonality out of TMX than Acros, though I'm sure others will say the exact opposite -- and I'd add that I get better tonality from 4x5 FP4 than from either.

Most people who have done serious sensitometric testing find Acros to be the slowest 'ISO 100' film, but as it's also the finest grained, this is no surprise. Again some will tell you the exact opposite.

Personally I go for the DDS and Ilford.

Cheers,

R.

TXMX VS. ACROS

I have always found it easier to get nice tonality out of ACROS than TMX. When I started to develop TMX in undiluted Microphen my results improved. Every time I read a posting about ACROS someone states that it doesn't reach box speed in th developers they use. I like to develop ACROS in undiluted Fuji Microfine. This gives me full box speed and grain which is at least as fine as anything I have seen with TMX. I have used these films in 35mm and 120 sizes.

If you can learn to live with TMX then I don't think you will see a very big difference in grain or sharpness using 4X5 film unless you make enormous enlargements. Microphen will also work well with ACROS and might even give you just slightly more than box speed but grain will not be as fine as with Microfine. If I were using 4X5 film and did not have to go beyond 16X20 I think I would prefer Ilford FP4+. It's easier to work with than TMX or ACROS.

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Keith,

In my own limited experience it is vastly easier to get good tonality out of TMX than Acros, though I'm sure others will say the exact opposite -- and I'd add that I get better tonality from 4x5 FP4 than from either.

Most people who have done serious sensitometric testing find Acros to be the slowest 'ISO 100' film, but as it's also the finest grained, this is no surprise. Again some will tell you the exact opposite.

Personally I go for the DDS and Ilford.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

I am at present using FP4+ & HP5+, for some reason the FP4+ negs are showing signs of dust specks despite vacuum cleaning the changing bag and brushing the DDS, the problem is not showing with the HP5+, this is puzzling and annoying me. Also, the RL`s & QL`s are more convenient.
The price difference between 100TMX and 100 Acros is ridiculous, so it looks like I will be choosing the Kodak system although I wanted to get some feedback first before buying a suitable sheet film holder.
I wish Ilford would produce 4x5 films that are compatible with the Readyload system.

The price difference in the online-shop you mention is ridiculous, indeed... Have you checked elsewhere ?

Roger, what is "tonality" ??

George Papantoniou said:

The price difference in the online-shop you mention is ridiculous, indeed... Have you checked elsewhere ?

Roger, what is "tonality" ??

Click to expand...

Dear George,

Good question. It's a lot easier to recognize than to describe. Allied terms are 'glow', 'richness' and even just 'look'. 'Sparkle' is related but has been quantified by both Zeiss and Ilford as very high MTFs at relatively low frequences.

Basically, it's what's left when you take away all the easily measured criteria such as grain, speed and sharpness, and concentrate on the way the film records tones, dark, medium and light. That's as printed, if course, and paper makes a difference.

We're all familiar with 'muddy-looking' pics, and with 'soot and whitewash' contrast. These are perhaps the extremes of tonality. Good tonality is somewhere between these. When we compare two prints, it's normally easy to say which has the tonality we prefer, but explaining why is another matter.

I wish I could be more specific, but it's a slippery concept. I hope this helps a little.

Cheers,

R.

Part of the problem with the cost is that Fuji will not import Quickload Acros (or LF of any kind) into the UK, so it is privately imported adding substantially to the cost. I have used Tmax100 Readyloads but have let my fridge stocks die down. I figure I'm better off sticking with FP4+ in normal holders - a bit heavier but an extra kilo or two in the backpack makes little difference unless you are trekking it all up a fell-side.

Cheers, Bob.

George Papantoniou said:

The price difference in the online-shop you mention is ridiculous, indeed... Have you checked elsewhere ?

Roger, what is "tonality" ??

Click to expand...

Yes I have tried else where George, Robert White`s is even more expensive for the Fuji stuff.
As for tonality, I think it`s probably when you like the `pictorial qualities` of a particular film and developer combination although I don`t think it`s one of those terms that is easy to quantify, if at all.
Thanks.

Bob F. said:

Part of the problem with the cost is that Fuji will not import Quickload Acros (or LF of any kind) into the UK, so it is privately imported adding substantially to the cost. I have used Tmax100 Readyloads but have let my fridge stocks die down. I figure I'm better off sticking with FP4+ in normal holders - a bit heavier but an extra kilo or two in the backpack makes little difference unless you are trekking it all up a fell-side.

Cheers, Bob.

Click to expand...

I wouldn`t disagree Bob, but I`m a lazy ******.