• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Acros - Double XX - Pan F

OptiKen

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
1,054
Location
Orange County
Format
Medium Format
Characteristically, how do these 3 films differ in the prints that they will render.

Contrast?
Grain?
Acutance?
Ability to yield true whites and blacks?

Obviously, the true test will be for me to shoot all three in similar situations and to develop and print them identically which I plan to do, but I was hoping to gather some opinions from those who know.
 

See the links to the "norwegian film test" posted recently on APUG. It allows you to compare Pan F to Acros.
 
It would be hard to list three more dissimilar films. Each one has a specific purpose. You need to determine yourself what fits your style the best.

BTW, the attributes that you list like contrast are not necessarily a function of a film.
 
Gerald is right! Also, format size might make a difference too. I know that in 35mm I would take Acros over PanF+. Double XX I can't comment on.
 
I very like PanF+ devloped with Rodinal, Works very good in 35 mm, sharp, contrasty, moderate grain.
 
Contrast and Black and White levels are up to you.

In order of grain and sharpness for films around that speed I've compared.

T-Max > Delta > Acros > Pan F+ > GP3 > FP4+ > DoubleX

Rollei Retro 80s is in front of T-Max in terms of grain.. a lot finer, sharpness is very similar, but it has more contrast. Exposing at 50 has good detail while still being a punchy film, much preferable to Pan F+ imho.
 
Above I said I'd take Acros over PanF+ since those were the choices the OP listed. Truth is I just switched or have decided to make Delta 100 my "film of choice" for 35mm B&W. I was using PanF+ for 35mm, but as some folks suggest here I might be better off with one of the finer-grained ISO 100 films. I bought several rolls of Delta 100 and started testing. My results show me that I really gain nothing by using the slower emulsion PanF+ over Delta 100. Do they "look" different in print? A little, but nothing bad or good either way. I'm sure I could have been happy with 35mm Acros also and someday might give that a try, but for right now I'll stick with Delta 100 for 35mm. 35mm cameras were made to be hand-held and the extra speed over PanF+ does certainly help in that department.
 
Thanks John. I'll order some Delta 100 to put in the mix when I do my testing. The extra speed is why I had included the DoubleX so adding a 100 ASA will let me test 64, 100, 125, 250 ASA to determine what works best to my liking for a day-to-day film given my subjects and developing/printing processes.
 
I wasn't trying to sell you on Delta 100. I was just sharing my experience with PanF+ vs. Delta 100. I bet you'll be scratching your head as to which you like best...............Ilford Delta 100 or Fuji Acros 100. Heck, you might even pick PanF+ as your all-around-film?
 
I'd like to put in a plug for Eastman 5222 Double X. I like this film very much and use it almost exclusively. It is finer grained than Tri-X with an RMS granularity of 14 (very fine). There are several places on the web that sell it either spooled in cassettes or as 100 foot lengths for about $90. Check the site below. I use an EI of 400 for a bit more contrast; develop it in HC-110 1+49 for 8.5 min @ 21C or in Rodinal 1+49 for 7.5 min @ 21C. You certainly cannot beat the price.

Dead Link Removed
 
I'm anxious to try the 5222 Double X. I just ordered a few re-rolls from Photo Warehouse(UltraFineOnLilne) for $6 ea
 
'Just 'cause I haven't said so before - I love your signature line, OptiKen.
 
HiHoSilver said:
'Just 'cause I haven't said so before - I love your signature line, OptiKen.
Click to expand...

LOL
Thanks - It came to me out of frustration one night while going through some negatives looking for something to print.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register