Acros 100 and Delta 100

[dpgoldenberg]

Hi,
I was wondering if anyone has directly compared Acros 100 and Delta 100 and can share their impressions. I have been using Delta 100 as my primary film for a few years, and I have generally been quite satisfied, but I sometimes wonder about alternatives.

I am primarily using 120 in a Mamiya 7 and have a distinct weakness for sharpness in details and textures. I have been developing the Delta 100 with Crawley's FX-37, a developer that leans towards accutance. I scan my negatives (with a Nikon Coolscan 8000) and make inkjet prints. The grain is with Delta 100 is rarely an issue, but I do wonder if Acros 100 might offer a bit more detail.

Any thoughts on the difference between these two films would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
David

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have used Delta 100 and really like it, but it's a tad bit more expensive then Acros. So, I don't use Delta 100 in 120 anymore, but still use it in 35mm. I have settled on Acros as my standard 100 speed 120 B&W film. I have souped it in Rodinal 1:100 stand developed and in Ilford Perceptol 1:3 and both are great with Acros, but from what I hear Acros is good in just about any developer. I made some scans from Acros souped in Perceptol 1:3 on my Nikon 8000 and can tell you that you will have no problem with grain. I shot these with Acros rated at ISO160 in my Rollei 3.5E Planar and can also tell you the detail in the shot(Steam locomotive) was as good as anything I have ever seen come out of that camera. The negatives were slightly on the thin side and scanned just perfect while retaining all the shadow detail the scene needed. I have some Ilford DDX I'm going to try next, but I can't believe it will work any better than Rodinal or Perceptol. Acros is a very nice film at a very nice price. JohnW

 

[dpurdy]

Acros is finer grained than the Delta and works well in Beutlers or Rodinal.

 

[Neal]

Dear David,

There is no magic in the choice between these products. In any comparison between the sharpness in details and textures, technique will dramatically trump any differences.

Of course there is the inherent enjoyment of putting a different product through its paces so....

Neal Wydra

 

[pgomena]

I find Acros has more flexibility in N+ and N- development than Delta 100. It also has a different spectral response, rendering greens a bit lighter. Delta is excellent film and I have used it for several years, but I lean toward Acros these days because of its flexibility and excellent reciprocity characteristics.

Peter Gomena

 

[sanking]

Delta 100 is an excellent film but I prefer Acros primarily because of its low reciprocity failure.

Acros really sings in Pyrocat-HD. I develop it with minimal agitation (four total agitation cycles) with the 1:1:100 dilution and with two-bath Pyrocat-HD or -MC. With these combinations I have made prints up to 35"X45" from 6X7cm negatives that look like they were made from 4X5". Both of these methods give enhanced adjacency effects and very high sharpness.

Sandy King

 

[dpgoldenberg]

Thanks very much to everyone for their comments, which seem to confirm my impression that there isn't very much difference between these films. But, the comments have perked my interest in Pyrocat again, so I may try to get over my fears of its toxicity and give it a try.

David

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Both are superb. I find D100 has greater inherent bite but a touch more grain than acros. I like D100 in mixed Xtol and Rodinal. More bite than xtol alone but without the pronounced rodinal look - more of a balance. I used 1+2 Xtol with rodinal added on a 1:100 or 1:200 basis. just adds a bit more edge.

When I return to civilisation I will return to pyrocat HD for much of my work.

 

[Russ - SVP]

Delta 100 snap.

Kiron Kid

 

[haryanto]

Delta100 4x5 and pyrocatMC (1+1+100: 27 minutes, semistand) print on gallerie never failed me, the sharpest among my films