Adox chs 50, ilford panf 50 or fuji across 100?

[marciofs]

Which one would you prefer?

I guess PanF has more tonal range but which one is sharper? Across 100 or chs 50?

Which one has better result with colour filters?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

The Adox is the one made by Efke, if I remember right, and its discontinued, so I'd not bother with it.

I've used a lot of Pan-F and Acros. Acros is sharper and has less grain. That said, Pan-F is a much more beautiful film. I've never liked the flat midtones that Acros gives. Acros is my choice for dim light, long exposure work, because it has so little reciprocity failure. I've used it for exposures up to 5 minutes in length with only 1/2 stop compensation needed!

For normal work, Pan-F is a nicer film in my opinion.

 

[Ian Grant]

Pan F is sharpest of the 3, it's slower by a stop as well. Adox CHS 50 is closer to being a 100 EI emulsion the 50 in it's name refers to it's Tungsten light speed.

As Adox/EFKE 50 is no longer made I'd personally go for Acros of the two as Pan F is limited to 35mm & 120, however if I only shot miniature formats I'd standardise on Pan F.

One of my friends shoots Pan F and develops in Perceptol diluted 1+2 - the results are outstanding.

Ian

 

[StoneNYC]

Strange that Chris and Ian have opposite views on which us sharpest, I still think PanF is sharper as Acros just seems to have edge blur but I know there must be user error as I feel it's worse than even Tri-X/HP5 so there must be something I'm doing wrong but I still can't figure out what.


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ian Grant]

PanF processed properly is sharper, but it's not as forgiving as Acros, it's also finer grain.

Ian

 

[StoneNYC]

PanF processed properly is sharper, but it's not as forgiving as Acros, it's also finer grain.

Ian

Oh good then I'm not crazy lol


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[marciofs]

I have used across developed with radinol and it looks very sharp to me. The blacks are nice and deep in studio. i get a very nice dark sky with red filter.

But PanF seems to have more shalow blacks and less contrast and not as sharp. Maybe if I try with a different developer?

Which developer whould you recomend for sharper results with PanF?

I guess the sky doesn't get as dark on PanF with red filter because its higher tonal range. Does ut makes sense?

 

[Ian Grant]

To get the best from Pan F it's important to do your own film speed/development time tests. These will affect the shadow detail as well as the contrast and it's important to get the balance right.

Slower films need careful handling to get the best sharpness, you have to use slower shutter speeds and wider apertures and that doesn't help. So a good tripod and mirror lock (if you can) makes a huge difference.

Way back in the early 1960's Geoffrey Crawley wrote about getting the ultimate in sharpness & resolution with Panatomic X (but applicable to Pan F as well) and he commented that you needed good lenses, no vibrations, optimal exposre etc.

Ian

 

[marciofs]

Thank you very much Ian!

 

[Oldtimer Jay]

I am with Michael R 1974 above.
I have done extensive testing of both using the wonderful Schliecher lens resolution chart, a Kodak 10 step grayscale card, a heavy tripod and very careful processing using a variety of developers and development times. In all cases Across was both finer grained and of higher resolution than Pan F 50. The only films I have tested which are sharper than Across 100 are document films and Agfa APX 25 ( of which I have a good stash). In pictorial work I have found Pan F to have somewhat punchier mid tones than Across and it is a very nice film, but unforgiving in exposure, so I shoot a lot more Across because of the extra speed and more generous exposure latitude. Just my 2 cents.