My post was mainly intended as mild provocation to see if anyone could offer up anything about the film that's aesthetically distinctive...
All films are part of the tool kit, but some are rather easier to get distinctive, expressive results from. A lot is down to the skill of the printer & I think people would be amazed at how well some awful negatives can be printed. If the the light & everything else is under control, then making stunning prints becomes massively easier, but the film will still have an influence. I just happen to find most other films than Acros rather more inspiring to print from - don't get me wrong, I've made some of my favourite images on Acros, but I sometimes wonder if I'd like them even more if I'd made them on Delta 100 instead...
As I wrote just a few posts above your last, I feel that Acros has a unique look. Maybe not in every pictures taken, but when those blacks become an important part of the picture it shines. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned that. On social media I saw other people, who observed the same.
I have to admit to not having played with TMX so far, but a roll for 135 and 120 are right in front of me, now. I have used Delta100 in 120, but for reversal only. I have a roll of it in 135 in the fridge, left from an Ilford sampler. I'll have to try that too. But I never saw anyone mention out there in the internets, nor here, that any film does replicate the Acros look. Not on its own, anyway.
I have used two or three rolls of PanF+ before. That one shares the characteristic of quickly loosing shadows, without much gradient leading into those black holes, when underexposing them just a bit too much. But I haven't noticed that silky black feature with it. That gives me only the disadvantage of Acros without its advantages. Maybe it just wasn't the right subjects.
So for me what I loose with that film is indeed the look. As much as I dislike that word. Those blacks and the clarity resulting from the fine grain and sharpness. While it shares that clarity with a well done digital image (especially MF Acros), there is more to it. It's especially amazing when printed on Fomatone MG 332 (RC, matte). I just don't think I'm good enough in digital post processing to replicate that with my digicam.
So yes, I'm going to miss that unique look that I see in it. Really the only film that has an actual look, that I recongnise. All other films have their own qualities, but I couldn't say that I've ever looked at a picture and said that is film XXX. Only with Acros does this happen. Not always and I'm not alway right, of course. But more so than with others. Digital images do sometimes get close enough to fool me.
The excellent reciprocity is just a nice add on. I've only used it once, so far. And for my pinhole I didn't want to pay the price for Acros, thinking it'd be a waste to use such an excellent film for it. Now I'd rather spend the money for stocking up on Acros rollfilms.
