B&W sheet film with reciprocity like Acros 100?

[athanasius80]

Hey all,
I used to love shooting Fuji Acros 100 in 4x5 for night photography, both for the look, and the reciprocity made it easy. What's the next best option with what we have available now?

(Apologies if this has already been asked. I scanned the forum quickly and didn't see an answer.)

Thanks,
Chris

 

[BradS]

(wild-ass--guess) Ilford Delta 100 has worked well for me with the 4x5 Pinhole.

 

[dkonigs]

(wild-ass--guess) Ilford Delta 100 has worked well for me with the 4x5 Pinhole.

I've used Delta 100 in 4x5", and its reciprocity characteristics get extremely annoying on longer exposures.
For that reason alone, I really wish Acros came in sheets.

 

[BradS]

With pinhole, I'm usually working in the 10~20 seconds region. I've never given reciprocity a thought with Delta 100...which is why I threw it out there for consideration.

 

[removedacct1]

Hey all,
I used to love shooting Fuji Acros 100 in 4x5 for night photography, both for the look, and the reciprocity made it easy. What's the next best option with what we have available now?

(Apologies if this has already been asked. I scanned the forum quickly and didn't see an answer.)

Thanks,
Chris

There is nothing with equivalent reciprocity characteristics, but the Tmax films are very reasonable as are the Delta films. If your measured exposure is under 60 seconds, you're going to have reasonable times: one minute exposure on Delta 100 becomes three minutes. That's not bad at all.

 

[pentaxuser]

Does anyone know why given its uniqueness in respect of reciprocity failure and Fuji's fairly sudden "volte face" in bringing us Acros II after the demise of Acros, Fuji hasn't exploited this uniqueness by giving us it in LF?

pentaxuser

 

[Peter Schrager]

Does anyone know why given its uniqueness in respect of reciprocity failure and Fuji's fairly sudden "volte face" in bringing us Acros II after the demise of Acros, Fuji hasn't exploited this uniqueness by giving us it in LF?

pentaxuser

Because people want cheap not good hence Chinese lf film...they don't know about reciprocity

 

[BradS]

Does anyone know why given its uniqueness in respect of reciprocity failure and Fuji's fairly sudden "volte face" in bringing us Acros II after the demise of Acros, Fuji hasn't exploited this uniqueness by giving us it in LF?

pentaxuser

Ahem, Economics ?

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's no direct replacement. But in the number two position with respect to needing less long-exposure correction would be either TMax 400 or TMax 100. I know someone who bought 60 twenty-sheet boxes of 4X5 Acros when its discontinuance was announced. I only have one box of 4x5 left. A few boxes of 4X5 or 8x10 might still be available from Japanese sources. I dunno. I mostly shot 4x5 Quickload sleeves for sake of backpacking convenience. I doubt we'll ever see PET sheet film base coated with Acros emulsion again. It's probably just too small a niche for Fuji to justify the cost of making it. But even why my stash of original 120 Acros roll film runs out, I'll have to take a hard look at the premium price being asked for the replacement product - four times what I was previously paying! More than TMax.

Peter - overall, very few people are buying Chinese sheet film or ever will. The methodical shooting style of LF along with higher quality expectations favor premium products from Ilford and Kodak. Acros was also a great option while it lasted. In fact, I've never even seen Chinese film in any format. I know it's out there somewhere.

 

[athanasius80]

Hmmm. I remember one shot being about 15 minutes long with Acros. Oh well, I'll keep hunting. Thanks!

 

[pentaxuser]

Ahem, Economics ?

Yes but what I was wondering is: Why does the economics work against Fuji who do not do 4x5 in Acros but others such as Foma and Ilford do? Economics seemingly worked against Fuji when it ceased Acros production but it presumably had a change of mind about the economics which resulted in Acros II so I'd have thought that given the demand for Acros in smaller formats that Fuji discovered as a result of reaction by the Acros buying public which Fuji judged was sufficient to invest in Acros II and its unique reciprocity failure it might have considered a one off yearly run if nothing else to respond to users

I suppose it all depends on how much the investment in Acros 4x5 involves but as it decided it was wrong about ceasing Acros then you'd think that dipping a toe in the water at least to produce some Acros 4x5 might be worthwhile, if as it seems, it has decided that responding to consumers on Acros made sense

pentaxuser

 

[BradS]

....
I suppose it all depends on how much the investment in Acros 4x5 involves but as it decided it was wrong about ceasing Acros then you'd think that dipping a toe in the water at least to produce some Acros 4x5 might be worthwhile, if as it seems, it has decided that responding to consumers on Acros made sense

pentaxuser

Well, who knows. Maybe they will. They still sell Provia in 4x5 (actually, I don't really know. do they?)

However, consider the price of the new acros compared to the old acros and consider the price of new acros relative to that of any B&W film currently offered by Kodak and Ilford. I think there may be a clue for us in those relative price comparisons. It seems to me that Fuji are not willing or not able to supply whatever demand there may be for the new acros at a competitive price...or they KNOW that actual demand is too low to bother. Thus, they have chosen to focus on the part of the market that may actually be growing (if only slightly?) - small format.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm certain that it is a complex issue and that we do not have anywhere near enough information to make a rational assessment.

 

[pentaxuser]

. It seems to me that Fuji are not willing or not able to supply whatever demand there may be for the new acros at a competitive price...or they KNOW that actual demand is too low to bother. Thus, they have chosen to focus on the part of the market that may actually be growing (if only slightly?) - small format.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm certain that it is a complex issue and that we do not have anywhere near enough information to make a rational assessment.

Thanks and yes that last sentence may be the closest we can come to getting to the bottom of things Fuji. My real problem is trying to work out what is the true logical position for Fuji to adopt from an economics aspect. Clearly it would seem that even at the price of Acros II it still sells in sufficient quantities to make Fuji a profit or does it?

Having changed its mind once about Acros could it afford to either charge a lot more for Acros if it isn't making a profit or if it believes it can't charge more then the current premium is the best it can manage and if this results in say break-even or barely break-even then to ditch Acros again after such a short time might damage its reputation too much

It may be that it cannot compete with the current 4x5 makers and trying to establish an Acros 4x5, given the market demand, would be throwing good money after bad

pentaxuser

 

[BradS]

Thanks and yes that last sentence may be the closest we can come to getting to the bottom of things Fuji. My real problem is trying to work out what is the true logical position for Fuji to adopt from an economics aspect. Clearly it would seem that even at the price of Acros II it still sells in sufficient quantities to make Fuji a profit or does it?

Having changed its mind once about Acros could it afford to either charge a lot more for Acros if it isn't making a profit or if it believes it can't charge more then the current premium is the best it can manage and if this results in say break-even or barely break-even then to ditch Acros again after such a short time might damage its reputation too much

It may be that it cannot compete with the current 4x5 makers and trying to establish an Acros 4x5, given the market demand, would be throwing good money after bad

pentaxuser

Imagine four quadrants...

1. Low volume, low profit
2. High volume, low profit
   
3. Low volume, high profit
   
4. High volume, high profit

The last category is (obviously) desirable. Category three is acceptable. The second category may or may not be acceptable. No corporation knowingly engages in the first category. It may be the case that Fuji have determined that 4x5 Acros II, if offered, would likely be in the first category. It is folly to think for a moment that Fuji (or any large corporation) would knowingly do anything that did not involve fairly substantial profit or very substantial revenues.

However, the market for film appears to be in constant flux so, who knows what the future may bring?

Incidentally, I never cared much for Acros so, I really do not have a stick in this fire.

 

[MattKing]

Plus the additional quadrant - what if Fuji doesn't have a coating line anymore that can put black and white emulsions on large format substrate?
They already appear to have had to outsource the confectioning of Acros II in roll film.