Acros II - What speed are you getting?

[faberryman]

Unless you have a reason to believe that a manufacturer doctored data, ISO film speed is the speed you ALWAYS use when metering. That's the explanation they need. That's the end of story.

You may want to tell them why. You also may want to tell them that film and digital systems are different and why. You also may want to tell them that you will teach them about when and why they may want to use a different ISO setting with film later in the semester.

 

[Walter61]

Fuji Acros a confronto: la vecchia 100 contro la nuova Acros II - Analogica.it

64 iso
IC 0,5
Devloped 20° D76 1+1 6'30sec

 

[Steven Lee]

Fuji Acros a confronto: la vecchia 100 contro la nuova Acros II - Analogica.it

64 iso
IC 0,5
Devloped 20° D76 1+1 6'30sec

Thank you. Here's my answer, and it's perfectly consistent with my observations. Relevant screenshot, comparing ISO speed of the original Acros vs Acros II:

 

[bluechromis]

My understanding was also that prior to 1960 most cameras/people did not have light meters and were estimating exposure. There was more danger of underexposure in those circumstances. Meters were becoming more common in the 60's and exposure could be determined more accurately than previously. Thus the need for the safety factor could be removed and the film speeds increased.

The change had nothing to do with the film, but with the rise of more accurate metering.

I have also heard the theory that the fudge factor was especially desirable with box cameras, like Hawkeye Brownies, that had no exposure adjustments. As those because less common there was less need for the fudge factor.

 

[bluechromis]

Exactly. This is exactly what I was asking, because not all manufacturers adhere to the ISO standard. Foma 400 never reaches its stated ISO speed even in Microphen, for example. And that is what I was asking: whether Acros offers honest ISO 100 or not, and in what developers.

There was no need to bring exposure into the conversation, as Matt was suggesting. Photrio loves going on tangents in threads, which can be fun at times, but it's not always helpful.

Perhaps not by folks on this forum, but there indeed is confusion out there about the difference between ISO and personal E.I. I have seen web reviews that, for example, claim that Delta 3200 and Tmax P3200 have NO ISO, though the manufacturers list it in the data sheets. What they may be getting at is that because these films were designed to be pushed, the reviewer feels that they don't have enough contrast when shot at ISO speed.

I am glad you mentioned the case of Foma using Microphen to establish ISO. There may be even a greater lack of awareness that ISO is established in relation to a specific developer, and if one uses a different developer, the results may be different. A novice may be forgiven because it may be that ISO is usually measured with a typical D-76 type developer.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just read the fine print on the Tech sheets. Delta 3200 does have a "official" speed rating around 1000. But it was designed to be usable at higher speeds with only moderate loss to shadow detail. I personally rate it at 800 for sake of PMK pyro and full scale tonality. The case with TMZ is analogous, and also confessed in fine print. So both of these are representative instances of the nominal speed on the box being a marketing ploy - not a falsehood, but certainly a stretching of the rubber band.

 

[faberryman]

Perhaps not by folks on this forum, but there indeed is confusion out there about the difference between ISO and personal E.I. I have seen web reviews that, for example, claim that Delta 3200 and Tmax P3200 have NO ISO, though the manufacturers list it in the data sheets. What they may be getting at is that because these films were designed to be pushed, the reviewer feels that they don't have enough contrast when shot at ISO speed.

You are being entirely too forgiving of the writers who say that Delta 3200 and TMax P3200 have no ISO. They say that because the ISO is not printed on the box, and they are too lazy to read the datasheet, where it couldn't be clearer. One wonders where they find the recommended developers and development times for processing the films when shot at higher EIs. Probably the MDC. God forbid that the have to read the datasheets.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Just read the fine print on the Tech sheets. Delta 3200 does have a "official" speed rating around 1000. But it was designed to be usable at higher speeds with only moderate loss to shadow detail. I personally rate it at 800 for sake of PMK pyro and full scale tonality. The case with TMZ is analogous, and also confessed in fine print. So both of these are representative instances of the nominal speed on the box being a marketing ploy - not a falsehood, but certainly a stretching of the rubber band.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

You are being entirely too forgiving of the writers who say that Delta 3200 and TMax P3200 have no ISO. They say that because the ISO is not printed on the box, and they are too lazy to read the datasheet, where it couldn't be clearer. One wonders where they find the recommended developers and development times for processing the films when shot at higher EIs. Probably the MDC. God forbid that the have to read the datasheets.

EI not ISO. The nominal speed should be what the ISO would be if it was done to the ISO standard. Odds are they didn't complete some part of the standard like testing film from multiple batches over the course of a number of months. Every other value would have to be an EI even if they did.

 

[bluechromis]

Just read the fine print on the Tech sheets. Delta 3200 does have a "official" speed rating around 1000. But it was designed to be usable at higher speeds with only moderate loss to shadow detail. I personally rate it at 800 for sake of PMK pyro and full scale tonality. The case with TMZ is analogous, and also confessed in fine print. So both of these are representative instances of the nominal speed on the box being a marketing ploy - not a falsehood, but certainly a stretching of the rubber band.

I just visited three D 3200 reviews that praise it's "wide ISO range," and some say it can be pushed to "ISO 3200". It annoys me is that reviewers sometimes imply that because the films have a wide exposure latitude, they are categorically different than other films, hence the fallacy that they have "no fixed ISO". There might be a kernel of truth that films are distinct in being intended to be pushed. But in the end, I think it is misleading to describe them that way. P3200 shot at E.I. 3200 is a two-stop push. The difference between it at 800 and 3200 is similar in character to the difference between HP-5 shot at 400 and shot at 1600. There will be a loss of shadow detail, more grain etc. with both. The trade-offs are similar. A push is a push and D 3200 and P3200 are not entirely different than other films in this respect.

 

[faberryman]

EI not ISO. The nominal speed should be what the ISO would be if it was done to the ISO standard. Odds are they didn't complete some part of the standard like testing film from multiple batches over the course of a number of months. Every other value would have to be an EI even if they did.

"It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards." sounds pretty clear to me. Perhaps you think the statement is ambiguous.

 

[DREW WILEY]

D 3200 does have a rather long toe allowing you to capture at least something down there with under-exposure, if not ideally. I don't use it for that reason, but at realistic speed, and mostly during walks in the rain under soft lighting, when it's nice to quickly pull out my Fuji 6X( RF from under my rain for a quick shot. It can be lovely film for those conditions.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

"It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards." sounds pretty clear to me. Perhaps you think the statement is ambiguous.

It said in a manner. If the standards are not followed exactly you cannot include the ISO prefix. Kodak probably only followed the sensititetric exposure and processing part, which is enough to achieve a film speed value. If they did the work, they would have included the prefix.

 

[Steven Lee]

@DREW WILEY how do you work with the giant shoulder of Delta 3200? I have not spent much time learning this film, but every time I shoot some, I struggle with the toe vs shoulder trade-off. It his highly nonlinear. Using regular development (Xtol-R or 1+1), I ended up treating it as a ISO3200 film eventually. I accepted some crushed shadows but the rest of it looks rather nice. It shows that Ilford really wants you to expose it this way.

But when I expose to get more shadow detail, the highlight compression gets rather extreme. People look flat-faced, for example. Do you do anything special during processing, or off-loading this to printing?

 

[faberryman]

It said in a manner. If the standards are not followed exactly you cannot include the ISO prefix. Kodak probably only followed the sensititetric exposure and processing part, which is enough to achieve a film speed value. If they did the work, they would have included the prefix.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps something else. Anything is possible. Well, perhaps not anything. But maybe.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I already implied it. I mainly use Delta 3200 only for moderate contrast scenes, and at a speed of 800. That way I'm only skating at the safe center of the ice rink, and not on either the toe or shoulders. And staining pyro development also helps with respect to retaining highlight detail.

If I want a long scale film with some high speed capacity, more suitable for higher contrast scenes, I'd rather shoot TMax 400 at 800 instead, and settle for a stop of bold shadow loss, but with everything above that having crisp gradation. But really, TMY at actual 400 speed is only one stop slower than what I find to be the real-world speed of D3200, namely 800. It just enjpy fooling around with the different looks of various films. TMax 400 is way more versatile, however, being much finer grained and available in sheet film version too.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Well, I already implied it. I mainly use Delta 3200 only for moderate contrast scenes, and at a speed of 800. That way I'm only skating at the safe center of the ice rink, and not on either the toe or shoulders. And staining pyro development also helps with respect to retaining highlight detail.

If I want a long scale film with some high speed capacity, more suitable for higher contrast scenes, I'd rather shoot TMax 400 at 800 instead, and settle for a stop of bold shadow loss, but with everything above that having crisp gradation. But really, TMY at actual 400 speed is only one stop slower than what I find to be the real-world speed of D3200, namely 800. It just enjpy fooling around with the different looks of various films. TMax 400 is way more versatile, however, being much finer grained and available in sheet film version too.

The characteristic of the time / gradient curve can be of additional help, and it's a little discussed topic.

Films with high velocities reach normal contrast fairly quickly. The developer may have insufficient time to adequately develop the sub latent image in the halide crystal which can result in lower effective film speeds. A 400 ISO film could have an EFS of 100 in a high velocity film/developer situation.

A lower velocity combination would reach normal contrast with sufficient time to allow for more complete development of the shadow values. This will more than likely result in a film with an EFS closer to the ISO.

A film with a high gamma infinity makes for a versatile film. It is able to handle a greater range of pushing. However, when pushing for speed, a low velocity/ low gamma infinity film would work best. The longer development times will give greater speed potential and the lower gamma will restrict excessive contrast.

Films with a low velocity are good for less precise systems or for an amateur just learning to process film. The allowable error in development is higher for the same level of precision control than with a high velocity film/developer (see example). The origin of the myth that one film is contrastier than another film in a given chemistry perhaps comes from this point.

 

[pentaxuser]

Chuck,

Once a beginner spends a weekend on photrio, I suspect they'll need some kind of a "jargon detox" to clean up their minds before they're able to ingest new information.

There's another similar confusion that hits everyone: the pushing and pulling. 9 out of 10 believe that pushing happens by tweaking the ISO dial on a camera. They show up at the lab here proclaiming "here! I pushed this film two stops! now develop it!".

So how well do we do in explaining these matters to the beginner? Pretty badly I'd say. If someone manages to use a few easy to understand sentences that encapsulate a necessary concept well in order to enable the newcomer to learn and move forward at a pace commensurate with his existing knowledge the thread moves on quickly to "confusion freeway" where we undo whatever good work was done

We never test whether what we have told the beginner has been understood or not that I have seen

pentaxuser

 

[john_s]

So how well do we do in explaining these matters to the beginner? Pretty badly I'd say. If someone manages to use a few easy to understand sentences that encapsulate a necessary concept well in order to enable the newcomer to learn and move forward at a pace commensurate with his existing knowledge the thread moves on quickly to "confusion freeway" where we undo whatever good work was done

We never test whether what we have told the beginner has been understood or not that I have seen

pentaxuser

Having started by following the manufacturers' directions to the letter many years ago, by "straying" from them my negatives are now clearly better and easier to print. In the days before the internet it was a longer process than it would be today, and longer than it would have been if I was a bit smarter, but it boiled down to experience, my own and that of some other people. In my case, the secret was half box speed and less development than recommended. I have refined it a bit since then.

I mention it only in the context of the post above wondering about helping beginners. They will receive conflicting advice, depending on various advisors' experiences. A different approach to metering can lead to different advice about film speed... and so it goes.