Acros Thoughts?

clayne · Aug 12, 2009

Robert Budding said:
Lacks character? You are kidding, right?

"Lacks a bit of character" - meaning it's rather pedestrian in some ways. When I think of films with unique traits, I think of APX, Tri-X, Delta 3200, Neopan, etc. They're all films with characteristics which some might deem less than perfect - but to me it's what makes them what they are.

ACROS is just a bit too perfect, was what I was trying to say.

BetterSense · Aug 12, 2009

I understand what you are trying to say. I feel the same way about tmax, kind of, except I like Acros better.

Sirius Glass · Aug 12, 2009

clayne said:
"Lacks a bit of character" - meaning it's rather pedestrian in some ways. When I think of films with unique traits, I think of APX, Tri-X, Delta 3200, Neopan, etc. They're all films with characteristics which some might deem less than perfect - but to me it's what makes them what they are.

ACROS is just a bit too perfect, was what I was trying to say.

I feel the same way, too.

Steve

sperera · Aug 13, 2009

Im using Acros all the time now and to me is similar in look to T-Max 100....i cant tell them apart myself....

pgomena · Aug 13, 2009

I'm getting the impression that some folks regard Acros as "pedestrian" because of it's lack of apparent grain in many applications. The films listed above as having "character" also are grainier. I tend to think any film will render good results if properly handled. Pedestrian to me brings to mind images without character, which to me means lack of good lighting or lighting control, poor composition, exposure, printing, and concept. Yes, different films have different characteristics, but it's all in the handling. Acros has many advantages for me, including its excellent exposure reciprocity characteristics. In the end, it's a good tool to have in the kit.

Peter Gomena

clayne · Aug 13, 2009

pgomena said:
I'm getting the impression that some folks regard Acros as "pedestrian" because of it's lack of apparent grain in many applications. The films listed above as having "character" also are grainier. I tend to think any film will render good results if properly handled. Pedestrian to me brings to mind images without character, which to me means lack of good lighting or lighting control, poor composition, exposure, printing, and concept. Yes, different films have different characteristics, but it's all in the handling. Acros has many advantages for me, including its excellent exposure reciprocity characteristics. In the end, it's a good tool to have in the kit.

Peter Gomena

APX100 is not very grainy at all but sure as hell has a lot more interesting tonal curve. That's a huge part of the character.

Acros is flat.

Mark Antony · Aug 13, 2009

I would agree that most films will give good results in many applications.
But I also understand why some may not like Acros or feel it is bland, or possibly lacking in character, personally I feel that's a little harsh but I do think Acros is one of those films that has narrow subject use I like it with landscapes photographs of metallic objects like cars, bikes etc.
My description of Acros isn't 'pedestrian' but rather I find it 'clinical' in a rather steely way, almost digital in its tonal rendering possibly due to curve shape, it doesn't feel warm and organic like say HP5 and I've tried it in every different dev/lighting combo. It's lovely in an almost perfect way– that has its uses but removes it from my everyday use emulsion list.
YMMV as they say

arealitystudios · Aug 13, 2009

The very first time I used Acros I absolutely hated it. At the time my film of choice was HP5 and I think it was just too grainless and sharp for my brain to handle.

A year or so later I was printing some old negatives and decided to give some shots I did with Acros a try. Wow, was I wrong the first time. It's a lovely film and for certain situations it is downright stunning. To this day I still tend to prefer films with a bit more grain like Hp5 or even Neopan 400 but when I'm looking to mix things up a bit I like going with Acros.

Sirius Glass · Aug 13, 2009

Mark Antony said:
I would agree that most films will give good results in many applications.
But I also understand why some may not like Acros or feel it is bland, or possibly lacking in character, personally I feel that's a little harsh but I do think Acros is one of those films that has narrow subject use I like it with landscapes photographs of metallic objects like cars, bikes etc.
My description of Acros isn't 'pedestrian' but rather I find it 'clinical' in a rather steely way, almost digital in its tonal rendering possibly due to curve shape, it doesn't feel warm and organic like say HP5 and I've tried it in every different dev/lighting combo. It's lovely in an almost perfect way that has its uses but removes it from my everyday use emulsion list.
YMMV as they say

Clinical is a good description. I am experimenting wit ACROS in My SWC because I do not need the higher shutter speed with a 38mm lens for a MF 6x6 negative side. If I do not like it I will use Plus-X instead.

The Plus-X and Tri-X combination has a lot of appeal.

Steve

BetterSense · Aug 13, 2009

APX100 is not very grainy at all but sure as hell has a lot more interesting tonal curve. That's a huge part of the character.

Acros is flat.

APX 100, Acros is not. That's for sure. I'm still trying to replace APX100. Foma 100 is close but it's slow and stains my developer. Grrr.

Peter De Smidt · Aug 13, 2009

Acros is not a "harsh" film. If your results are too contrasty, then you are over developing, and probably underexposing as well.

brofkand · Aug 13, 2009

Just saw on Freestyle's twitter that they now have 4x5 Acros available:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/15952595-Fujifilm-Acros-100-iso-4x5-10-sheets

Hopefully they'll get larger quantities in soon. $17 for 10 sheets is kinda spendy.

brianmichel · Aug 13, 2009

Never had any problems with Acros 100 in D-76. Nice grain structure, I think it is on par if not better than Delta Pro 100 especially for scanning. Just my $0.02.

L Gebhardt · Aug 14, 2009

brofkand said:
Just saw on Freestyle's twitter that they now have 4x5 Acros available:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/15952595-Fujifilm-Acros-100-iso-4x5-10-sheets

Hopefully they'll get larger quantities in soon. $17 for 10 sheets is kinda spendy.

Thanks for the heads up. Fuji was saying that despite the 10 sheet box size it was going to be priced closer to the larger box size on a per sheet basis. I guess not. I was hoping it was going to come in around a buck a sheet, not $1.70.

Mark Antony · Aug 14, 2009

Peter De Smidt said:
Acros is not a "harsh" film. If your results are too contrasty, then you are over developing, and probably underexposing as well.

Peter nobody suggested it was 'harsh' quite the opposite.

Peter De Smidt · Aug 14, 2009

Mark Antony said:
Peter nobody suggested it was 'harsh' quite the opposite.

Yep, I mis-read. Sorry about that.

sanking · Aug 14, 2009

I think we need to differentiate between general characteristics and observations that result from specifics that result from variables such as developer, type of dilution and type of agitation.

Acros is neither a harsh or soft film, if those terms are used to speak of contrast. In general it may take a bit longer in the same developer to reach as much contrast as TMAX-100, but one can adjust time of development to give almost idential contrast with both films.

In terms of curve shape, Acros has a very straight line response, very similar to that of Tmax-100. There is very little toe or shoulder, which requires good control of exposure and development. In this sense both Acros and Tmax-100 are quite different from a film like TRIX-320 that has a very long toe.

Tmax-100 and Acros are about equally sharp, IMO, when compared with the same developer and type of agitation. Across has slightly finer grain to my eye. I don't care for the "character" that comes from grain so the very fine grain of Acros is a big plus for me.

There is a slight difference in terms of spectral sensitivity in that Tmax-100 has slightly more sensitivity to red light. However, I think most would be hard pressed to see the difference between the two films in most situations.

I use more Acros than Tmx-100 because of the superior reciprocity characteristics of the former. I have also found that Acros is usually less expensive than Tmax-100 where I buy film, though that may not be true where you shop.

Sandy King

Robert Budding · Aug 15, 2009

clayne said:
"Lacks a bit of character" - meaning it's rather pedestrian in some ways. When I think of films with unique traits, I think of APX, Tri-X, Delta 3200, Neopan, etc. They're all films with characteristics which some might deem less than perfect - but to me it's what makes them what they are.

ACROS is just a bit too perfect, was what I was trying to say.

Gee, and all this time I was relying on lighting and subject to impart character! ;0

redrockcoulee · Aug 15, 2009

brofkand said:
Just saw on Freestyle's twitter that they now have 4x5 Acros available:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/15952595-Fujifilm-Acros-100-iso-4x5-10-sheets

Hopefully they'll get larger quantities in soon. $17 for 10 sheets is kinda spendy.

looking at a Japanese website , the price for a box of 400 sheets worked out almost identical per sheet to the price of a box of 20 sheets for 4X5. That made little sense to me. I've just stated using it in 120 so waiting to develop my first rolls.

IloveTLRs · Aug 15, 2009

I shoot Acros at 100 and develop in Super-Prodol. I really, really like it

Acros Thoughts?

clayne

BetterSense

Sirius Glass

sperera

Attachments

pgomena

clayne

Mark Antony

arealitystudios

Sirius Glass

BetterSense

Peter De Smidt

brofkand

brianmichel

L Gebhardt

Mark Antony

Peter De Smidt

sanking

Robert Budding

redrockcoulee

IloveTLRs

Attachments

Acros Thoughts?

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency