Acros and XTOL: confusing test results

I've been meaning to give Acros a try to replace APX100 in 120, but judging by the results of the testing I've done this week, it seems as if it does not like me: shadow details seems impossible to get unless I shoot at an EI of 25, EVEN THOUGH a densitometric reading indicates an EI of 100 as optimal. Here are the details of the testing which brings me to this confusing conclusion:

Efke R25/Rodinal 1+50 (8mins)
FP4+/XTOL 1+1 (8mins)
Acros/XTOL 1+1 (8 mins)
Acros/Rodinal 1+50 (10 mins)

I exposed a grey card for Zone I, focussing on infinity, and filling up the frame of my camera, a Yashica-D TLR. It was biting cold that day, but all the films were subject to the same temperature. I waited two days before developing them, so they were at room temperature.

I took exposures of the card at ISO -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3 relative to box speed, and used the remainder frame to take a shot of the same subject at ISO -3, 0, +3. That means that for, say, Acros, I have shots at EIs 50, 100 and 200 of the same subject.

The grey card is held in the exact same light as the subject, so I use the meter reading I have from the card to expose the subject.

I went to my favorite lab to have the Zone I measured by an X-Rite visible light transmission densitometer. The lab is a respectable pro one where I have seen customers entrusting them a full banker's box of 4x5. The person who did the measurements is an ex-Kodak employee.

The results for Efke and FP4+ were rather predictable: given a target density of 0.10 above fb+f, I should use an EI of 50 for Efke R25, and one of 250 for FP4+. Rodinal 1+50 gives a speed increase, and so does XTOL 1+1 according to each developer's documentation.

I looked at the pictures of the subject I took at these EIs and it gives me excellent shadow details for each film. Once I test for the highlights, I should have an optimum dev time for each combo. Densitometry agrees with Eyeballs.

The real problem is with Acros. With XTOL the densitometric reading gives me an EI of 100 for a density of 0,13 above fb+f. Had I tested more precisely, an EI of 125 would have probably been right on the money. However, when I look at the picture I took of the subject at EI 100, I have ZERO, nada, zilch, rien, in the shadows. The film is severly underexposed, and it's only at EI 25 that it looks normal. With Rodinal the problem is similar.

I am absolutely befuddled: why is it that Acros would react properly with a grey card and not with a real subject under the same light? If the densitometry had agreed with the actual subject shot, then it would make sense, but here it does not.

I checked my record, and in the exact same conditions I exposed FP4+ and Acros at f/8, 1/125s, so there couldn't be more than a stop of difference between shadow details in either film if the densitometer is to be trusted. They were even developed together in the same tank, so they were subjected to identical agitation patterns. There's no streaking, so development looks uniform. Thus, THEORETICALLY they should give proximate EIs, and similar shadow details. Practically, they don't.

My XTOL is good, based upon the FP4, my Rodinal is good based upon my Efke, everything else is normal except Fuji's film. Why, oh why??

I guess I need to re-test Acros and see if I can reproduce this problem, but right now I have no clue as to which variable I should control: Dev time or exposure?

Michel,
I'm not a densitometer type of guy, but since no one has yet replied, I'll share my empirical experience. When I shoot Acros in sheet film, on a tripod I rate it at 16 or 32 depending on degree of development contraction. I can't see rating Acros at more than 32 if you want adequate shadow detail. When shooting in 35mm I "cheat" and rate it at an ei of 50. Even at 50, the shadow detail is a little thin, but at least I can handhold.
Acros has an incredibly clear film base, could this be part of the measurment problem?

Take care,
Tom

rodinal 1:100 semi-stand will bring in the shadows with acros. I think i was shooting at 60. Interestingly enough I had a hard time controlling the highlights, it seemed to just continue building contrast, perhaps 150:1 or 200:1 would be better.
I found efke 25 easier to control, the grain was almost identical although I give a nod to the efke grain being a little smoother. I think that you could get really good results with semistand but I shoot on a tripod so no real benefit compared to efke so I stopped experimenting with it.

Wow...my experience with Acros in Xtol (always 1+3 with an eye on the minimum amounts of stock) in both 120 and 35mm have given me and EI of either 80 or 100 depending on the meter I use. Decent shadow densities.

With Perceptol 1+3 I find an EI of 80 or 64 to get decent shadow densities. (I don't use Rodinal so can't comment)

With Pyrocat-HD (1+1+100) and minimal agitation I get an EI of 64 and great shadow details.

(all developed with a diffusion head enlarger in mind)

Thanks for the answer all, when I went to bed last night I could not help but keep thinkin g about it and wondering if I did not simply put the wrong settings on my camera when switching from the grey card to my subject... I looked at my Yashica and it was left at f22 1/500, which could be part of the problem... (argh!)

I could be wrong this time, then, but I did notice in previous circumstances thin shadow details on Acros.

Tom -- The Acros had a slightly higher fb+fog density than Efke, so I think the clear base can be ruled out.

Avandesande -- I really like Efke too for the minimum hassle it costed me in finding a right EI/dev time balance. J&C's indications seems right on the money, and the tones are just gorgeous in 120. How long did you develop Acros in 1+100 ?

Dave -- Have you used it in 120 or in 35mm? Fuji gives slightly different times for either format. I'd be curious to know what time do you use for Xtol 1+3 ? Have you compared Pyrocat-HD with Rodinal?

Thanks all very much for your useful answers, Acros is really an intriguing film for me, and I'm keen on making it work!

I invert a couple of times every 5 minutes for a total of 30 minutes.

I've shot a little Acros. Because of it's short toe, it's extremely important to give enough exposure. Even with longer toe films, many experts recommend giving significantly more exposure than the .1 above fb+f. In any event, it's the prints that matter, and so rate the film at what gives you good shadow separation with a normal contrast printing paper.
I always shot Acros at ei 50.

I'd say you screwed up your lightmetering
Acros seems to be close to 100, with 80 or so being a sweet spot.

I'd kill another roll and retest.

PS. I prefer shooting a grayscale than a card.

Peter De Smidt said:

I've shot a little Acros. Because of it's short toe, it's extremely important to give enough exposure.

Click to expand...

Why does the short toe necessitate more exposure? I would have thought this is a requirement only for longer toe films (i.e. it takes more light to stay clear of the toe portion).

titrisol said:

I'd say you screwed up your lightmetering

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good explanation! I'll re-test when I have some time and some light.

Cheers,
MHV

Hi Michel; I shoot Acros @ e.i. 50, and develop in Rodinal 1:100 for 17 min./ 20 deg.C, agitating 15 sec. for first three minutes, then one gentle inversion every three minutes. It gives extremely nice results, and shadow detail is fine too. Of course shadow detail is only going to be as good as it's metered/placed.

ACROS IE

Hello,

When im testing with a densito, Acros in rodinal (1+50) i obtain a Z1 density of .11 when rated at 32 ISO.
Hope this result can help you.
You have to test and test again mesuring a black card better for Z1.
Regards from France
Patrick

mhv said:

I checked my record, and in the exact same conditions I exposed FP4+ and Acros at f/8, 1/125s, so there couldn't be more than a stop of difference between shadow details in either film if the densitometer is to be trusted. They were even developed together in the same tank, so they were subjected to identical agitation patterns. There's no streaking, so development looks uniform. Thus, THEORETICALLY they should give proximate EIs, and similar shadow details. Practically, they don't.

My XTOL is good, based upon the FP4, my Rodinal is good based upon my Efke, everything else is normal except Fuji's film. Why, oh why??

I guess I need to re-test Acros and see if I can reproduce this problem, but right now I have no clue as to which variable I should control: Dev time or exposure?

Click to expand...

I know this is something Kodak keeps silent, but I know this from experience of researching on developer chemistry for years. I strongly suggest not to mix different film types when developing in XTOL or DS-10. This may very well be a consequence of film formula change in late 1990s or 2000s, but it's hard to tell at this point.

Combination like FP4 Plus and Acros can cause trouble and give you perfect neg on FP4+ but very thin neg on Acros. Same thing can happen when you mix TMX and Tri-X, for example. Even if the processing time is same, run each film in separate tank or run!

Hope this helps.

Ryuji said:

II strongly suggest not to mix different film types when developing in XTOL or DS-10.

Click to expand...

My local Pro lab uses X-tol in their dip & dunk. Are you saying that the same problem will occur in this situation. I'm assuming that you were referring to home based small 1-2 reel tanks.

Paddy said:

My local Pro lab uses X-tol in their dip & dunk. Are you saying that the same problem will occur in this situation. I'm assuming that you were referring to home based small 1-2 reel tanks.

Click to expand...

I use Paterson 5 reel tank with 1.5 liter solution, but if I mix TMX and TX, or Acros and TX, I see that problem happening. In a deep tank, whether this is any better, I haven't tested, but I wouldn't be surprised if something happens.

On the other hand, if I make a slightly different developer, which is more analogous to D-76 but using ascorbate in place of hydroquinone and also with necessary adjustments, I don't see this problem even in small tanks.

Not to mix film types in a same tank is a small precaution one can use to ensure good image quality, especially with XTOL and DS-10.

Michel,

I have switched to ACROS from Delta 100 for my medium speed film because I've been getting very good results that are very printable with full range of shadow and highlight detail.

I rate it at 50 because I most often shoot with a yellow filter-- I find it gives me a more "natural" look to my photos. So without a filter, I'd say ISO 80 would be about right for my setup.

I develop in a homebrew I call PCC (Phenidone, Vitamin C, Sodium Carbonate) for 7' 15" at 70 degrees (Fahrenheit--22 Celsius).

Formula for PCC:
4g (1/2 teaspoon) Vitamin C (ascorbic acid)
5 g (1 tsp.) Sodium Carbonate
2.5 ml 1% Phenidone stock solution

Larry

I shoot Acros 100 with an EI of 80, mix Microdol-X and water 1:3 (75 degrees), develop it for 17 minutes with five inversions per minute, and get phenomenal negatives, whether I expose it outside or expose it inside with flash.

Ryuji said:

I know this is something Kodak keeps silent, but I know this from experience of researching on developer chemistry for years. I strongly suggest not to mix different film types when developing in XTOL or DS-10. This may very well be a consequence of film formula change in late 1990s or 2000s, but it's hard to tell at this point.

Combination like FP4 Plus and Acros can cause trouble and give you perfect neg on FP4+ but very thin neg on Acros. Same thing can happen when you mix TMX and Tri-X, for example. Even if the processing time is same, run each film in separate tank or run!

Hope this helps.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty sound advice, and I've never heard anything like that before about XTOL, so I'll keep it in mind next time I'm developing.

Titrisol pointed out correctly that I screwed my exposure, so all that long-winded inquiry must fall back upon my poor head, but I'm glad everyone chipped in with their dev time and combos!