Acros II at ISO 50

[agentlossing]

Hello all, I threw a roll of (one year expired, so probably no biggie at all) Acros II into my big, comfortable Pentax Z-1p to test the performance of a new-to-me F 50mm f1.7 lens. I put a yellow #2 filter on and decided to shoot ISO 50, though I've only shot ISO 100 film at 100 or faster hitherto. Now that I've been out and about and filled the roll, I'm deciding how to develop it. I have Adox Rodinal and TMAX developer on hand, and the Lab-Box to develop it in.

What do you suggest? According to the "shoot for the shadows and develop for the highlights" idea, I've given a little space for the shadows to be more open. Should I just reduce development time a bit to keep the shadows in good shape, or will the exposure difference not be enough to lose detail with Acros II? I've had good results with Rodinal and this film, while TMAX has been producing some good results with films like Kentmere. Conditions were partly cloudy/mostly sunny, though not exceptionally strong sun this time of year.

 

[blee1996]

In my experience, Rodinal works well with Across II 100. 1+50 or whatever your precious dilution that gives you good results.

I don't think you need to change development time or temperature. You already factored in the filter factor by shooting at ISO 50.

Since you mentioned the day was a bit dull, you could optionally increase the development time slightly.

 

[agentlossing]

In my experience, Rodinal works well with Across II 100. 1+50 or whatever your precious dilution that gives you good results.

I don't think you need to change development time or temperature. You already factored in the filter factor by shooting at ISO 50.

Since you mentioned the day was a bit dull, you could optionally increase the development time slightly.

Thanks, I was leaning towards normal development time to account for the filter; while I've seen sources say that you don't need to compensate for a yellow filter, I am guessing it wouldn't hurt.

Rodinal 1+50 is indeed pretty nice with this film in my experience.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You shot the film at EI 50, do more detail will be apparent than if you shot it at box speed. Development time will affect the higher values more than the lower values, so I would reduce your development time slightly to compensate. The #2 filter is quite light, so I wouldn't worry about it darkening shadow areas so much. You're shooting roll film, so you have the luxury of bracketing. Either developer would be fine, but I would probably lean toward Rodinal at 1+50, since you have experience with that combo

 

[agentlossing]

You shot the film at EI 50, do more detail will be apparent than if you shot it at box speed. Development time will affect the higher values more than the lower values, so I would reduce your development time slightly to compensate. The #2 filter is quite light, so I wouldn't worry about it darkening shadow areas so much. You're shooting roll film, so you have the luxury of bracketing. Either developer would be fine, but I would probably lean toward Rodinal at 1+50, since you have experience with that combo

How would you define reducing "slightly?" Like 5-10%?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

How would you define reducing "slightly?" Like 5-10%?

Something like that. Maybe even 8% less.

 

[jimjm]

I've had really good luck with the Acros/Rodinal combo, although it was the original version of Acros. Hopefully Acros II is not too much different.
For night photography it's my favorite.
I'd generally develop for the normal time in Rodinal 1:50 and had no problem retaining enough shadow detail
In this 10 second night shot I think I metered the upper gray arch at about Zone VI and the deeper shadows fell in Zone II and III. Starting out with a low-contrast print I had plenty of room to increase the contrast until I got nice transitions to black. The only areas burned were the deep shadows on the ground. I did bracket shots, but they were all pretty usable.

 

[pentaxuser]

I've had really good luck with the Acros/Rodinal combo, although it was the original version of Acros. Hopefully Acros II is not too much different.

jimjm, from what Henning Serger has said based on detailed testing, Acros II is exactly the same - just appreciably more expensive

pentaxuser

 

[agentlossing]

I developed the roll last night, and got some of it into the scanner this morning before work. I am pretty impressed with the results! I used Rodinal 1+50 and decreased about 45 seconds from the recommended 13 minutes. The level of detail is pretty impressive and clean. I'll see if I can post a few shots later on.

I was relying on aperture mode on my Pentax Z-1p, as well as autofocus with the F 50mm f1.7, and the combo did a pretty good job. Nice to have both well-exposed and -focused shots, and good developing.

 

[agentlossing]

Came out very nice, I think.

 

[blee1996]

Yes very nice: I saw you darkened the sky to show the clouds, without losing details in the street shadows.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes very nice: I saw you darkened the sky to show the clouds, without losing details in the street shadows.

Maybe not? Across seems to act like it has a light yellow filter for me and that, along with excellent reciprocity response makes it a very likable film.

 

[agentlossing]

Maybe not? Across seems to act like it has a light yellow filter for me and that, along with excellent reciprocity response makes it a very likable film.

You are correct, I did bring the overall exposure down just a tad from the default scan, but the differentiation in the sky was there, seems to be a good result from using the yellow filter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Acros II has a slightly steeper toe to its characteristic curve than original Acros, so you should get a little better shadow gradation. I rate it either at box speed of 100, or more cautiously in high-contrast scenes at 50, which was my default routine speed for older regular Acros. The typical yellow filter has a filter factor of about 1 stop, so it sounds like your own exposure expectations are realistic.

But the spectral sensitivity of Acros has been tweaked a little bit more, so you might get slightly darker blue skies when using a yellow filter than you did with original Acros. Both versions are reduced-red-sensitivity Othopanchromatic anyway, not typical Panchromatic.

I use PMK pyro development in conjunction with Acros films, so can't comment on the developers you have chosen.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Now I cannot wait to take out both versions of Acros...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Too bad the II version never came out in sheet version. But I doubt even the roll version will get coated again due to the staggering price increase.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Too bad the II version never came out in sheet version. But I doubt even the roll version will get coated again due to the staggering price increase.

Don't say that, Drew!

 

[Henning Serger]

I've had really good luck with the Acros/Rodinal combo, although it was the original version of Acros. Hopefully Acros II is not too much different.

jimjm, from what Henning Serger has said based on detailed testing, Acros II is exactly the same - just appreciably more expensive

pentaxuser

You can find my detailed test report here:

Fujifilm Neopan Acros II: Test Report

Holy Moly your Ladner Creek Trestle image looks like mine! Great minds thing alike! I was thinking of you when I posted that. Can't take that photo anymore, they have put up a fence at the end of the bridge.

www.photrio.com

The differences between Acros I and II are really only very small nuances in two parameters, and for most applications negligible.

Concerning the price:
Here in Germany Acros II is meanwhile cheaper than Kodak TMX (in 135). And the price difference to Delta 100 has also become significantly smaller in the last years since the introduction of Acros II.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

But I doubt even the roll version will get coated again due to the staggering price increase.

Drew, that is fortunately wrong. There is a new production run in the works. I've got this info from a very reliable source.

Concerning the price: It depends on the market, and on the film type. E.g. here in Germany Acros II in 135 is meanwhile cheaper than TMX, and in 120 the price difference has become much smaller due to Kodak's price increases.
And:
Price is what you pay, value is what you get: Acros II is the only BW film with this absolutely outstanding reciprocity characteristic: no correction needed up to 2 minutes exposure time - really a huge difference to all other BW films.
It is also the finest grained ISO 100/21° BW film - but here the difference to TMX and Delta 100 is small.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Milpool]

That’s interesting. I haven’t tried the (Harman) Acros II so I wasn’t aware of the price. It’s too bad because in the old days of the original Fuji Acros I remember at some retailers at least, the 35mm rolls were cheaper than either TMX or Delta 100.

Too bad the II version never came out in sheet version. But I doubt even the roll version will get coated again due to the staggering price increase.

 

[blee1996]

Acros II is the only BW film with this absolutely outstanding reciprocity characteristic: no correction needed up to 2 minutes exposure time - really a huge difference to all other BW films.

Thank you Henning for this information, I never knew that and will definitely keep Acros II for those occasions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here the price hike from my last purchase of regular Acros only two years earlier was 500% !! It's distinctly more expensive than TMax here. I find TMX100 more versatile in terms of the range of lighting conditions it can competently handle, while the appeal of Acros is its Orthopan spectral signature, which I came to like back when it was still being offered in convenient 4x5 Quickload sleeves, along with its straightforward reciprocity characteristics. I've worked with the original recipe in formats all the way from 35mm to 8X10 sheet version, so got to know it pretty well. The last of my regular 4x5 sheets (non-sleeve) will probably be used up within a month from now.

Acros cannot be developed to as steep a gamma as TMax films or D100 if necessary, but is otherwise fairly versatile in outdoor lighting. The new II version is in fact capable of handling a little bit longer contrast range than the original version due to a slightly steeper toe - something I confirmed once again a week ago successfully developing some long scale shots containing both very deep shadows and especially brilliant highlights which would have frustrated the original version. Therefore I regard the revised emulsion to in fact be a minor improvement on an already outstanding product.

I certainly hope they do keep producing Acros II, and I'd be willing the pay the extra for some of my 120 film usage at least. But around here the rolls are just sitting on the store shelves, with seemingly nobody willing to pay that kind of premium price, particularly since there is no discount on 5-packs of 120 rolls.

 

[Prest_400]

Drew, that is fortunately wrong. There is a new production run in the works. I've got this info from a very reliable source.
(...)
Price is what you pay, value is what you get: Acros II is the only BW film with this absolutely outstanding reciprocity characteristic: no correction needed up to 2 minutes exposure time - really a huge difference to all other BW films.
It is also the finest grained ISO 100/21° BW film - but here the difference to TMX and Delta 100 is small.

Best regards,
Henning

Thanks for the news as well. When it comes to reciprocity, the Fuji films are fantastic and it's overall a bit of a puzzling availability Fuji wise.

As of the use of Yellow filter, I have observed darker skies with good separation in Acros, TMX and Delta. I find that the trio of Tabular grain films do not need it due to adjusted/"improved" spectral response, though it is just Kodak pitching this in their datasheet.
I had a couple of people ask about the filter I had used for the skies in different prints!

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's a fact. Just look at the spectral response curves (noting the lighting K color temp standard involved, of course, whether tungsten or daylight). But you can't lump either version of othopan Acros in with pan TMax or Delta, and even the two latter films significantly differ from one another in terms of green sensitivity, along with blue to a lesser extent. The impact of a light yellow filter with respect to needed filter factor compensation is about the same with all of them. With green or red filters, the practical distinction becomes more prominent, depending.

Price-wise, since I'm back to the coast approaching the start of summertime fog season, I'll continue shooting my older stock of 120 regular Acros for awhile. I'm reserving my new II version for higher contrast purposes, although my serious choice for that kind of application remains either TMX100 or TMY400. Acros II would be a better fit if long exposures were also in mind.

 

[loccdor]

I've had good luck finding the original Acros on the expired film market for less than $10 for a 135-36 roll. That expired stock can usually be shot well at 100 but looks a little better at 50. There is a lot of it still floating around. The quality has been good.

I have tons of it in 120 that I bought in 2013. So much of the old stuff is around that I haven't tried the new film.