fp4+ vs delta 100 vs PLUS-X 125 vs NEOPAN 100 ACROS

Denis R · Jan 3, 2010

fp4+ vs delta 100 vs PLUS-X 125 vs NEOPAN 100 ACROS

looking for b&w film available in 35 and 120 with speed close to 100 and wide exposure latitude so that results will be printable even if severely* over-exposed

severely* mystery shutter speed and aperture supposedbly 1/30 f16 on box-ish camera

the plan is to buy 35 and 120 and shoot both at the same time,
35 in semi-automatic mode, 120 in duaflex

I know nothing about these films

P C Headland · Jan 3, 2010

Well, I've always been very happy with Acros, whether shot in a box camera, folder or Fuji RF. The price is excellent too.

Works very well in Rodinal 1+100, and also in my standard developer, PC-TEA 1+50. Well worth experimenting with a roll or two.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 3, 2010

Denis R said:
fp4+ vs delta 100 vs PLUS-X 125 vs NEOPAN 100 ACROS

looking for b&w film available in 35 and 120 with speed close to 100 and wide exposure latitude so that results will be printable even if severely* over-exposed

severely* mystery shutter speed and aperture supposedbly 1/30 f16 on box-ish camera

the plan is to buy 35 and 120 and shoot both at the same time,
35 in semi-automatic mode, 120 in duaflex

I know nothing about these films

The way you asked the question, you'll get four groups of people all voting for their favorite film. The truth is, all B&W films have an enormous latitude towards overexposure. You can print these films even if overexposed by several stops (4-8 stops no problem). You will have to live with long exposure times in the darkroom, but you will be rewarded with great shadow detail. Underexposure is a different matter. There is no latitude towards underexposure, unless you are willing to give up some shadow detail.

markbarendt · Jan 3, 2010

Ditto on what Ralph said.

I use 400 or 800 speed film in my Holga, which I have permanently set on cloudy.

Works fine even in Death Valley on the salt flats in direct sun.

rwboyer · Jan 3, 2010

RalphLambrecht said:
The way you asked the question, you'll get four groups of people all voting for their favorite film. The truth is, all B&W films have an enormous latitude towards overexposure. You can print these films even if overexposed by several stops (4-8 stops no problem). You will have to live with long exposure times in the darkroom, but you will be rewarded with great shadow detail. Underexposure is a different matter. There is no latitude towards underexposure, unless you are willing to give up some shadow detail.

8 stops of honest to goodness overexposure is fine? really? you must get your medium speed film at a different store then me. I could have sworn that film had some sort of DMAX thing you eventually should think about. Let's see that would put my zone VII at like ... 19-20 stops above zone IIIish. I will have to try that some time.

RB

Mark Fisher · Jan 3, 2010

The characteristic curve for Acros is insanely straight (more light yields proportionally more density....http://www.fujifilm.ca/documents/Fuji_Acros135_AF3-095E.pdf ). This does mean that over exposure just yields more density and longer print times. Conventional films are not as straight, but still are "good enough" with underexposure.

photomem · Jan 3, 2010

I was using Delta 100 because my opinion was warped by experiences using consumer color fujifilm. I finally bought some Acros 100 when my photo shop here in town was out of Delta 100. I am hooked. I shot some landscapes with it and just loved the buttery smooth skies and good separation of clouds that happened, even without a red filter. I am still trying to learn how characteristic curves work, which I should be able to grasp since I am somewhat of a statistics freak, but based off of look alone.. I have to say that Acros 100 has become my favorite ISO 100 Black and White film.

Though, to be fair.. if the Duaflex is anything at all like the Brownie Hawkeye, you have to pay close attention to how much light is available when using Acros or any other 100 speed film. I came out with a blank roll on Thanksgiving because of not paying attention.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 3, 2010

rwboyer said:
8 stops of honest to goodness overexposure is fine? really? you must get your medium speed film at a different store then me. I could have sworn that film had some sort of DMAX thing you eventually should think about. Let's see that would put my zone VII at like ... 19-20 stops above zone IIIish. I will have to try that some time.

RB

RB

Try it by all means. Actually, I remember Kodak showing a sequence of up to 12 stops without any quality loss. I tried to behave myself with saying 8 stops. I don't have an 8-stop example around at the moment, but I attached a 6-stop example. If you look close, you'll see that the ASA 400 film (left) exposed at EI 6 (right) gives more shadow detail and shows no degradation in the highlights. Overexposure is no problem, but you may notice a slight increase in grain with 35mm film.

Colin Corneau · Jan 3, 2010

All of those films will fit the few parameters you list. Unless there is something else you'd like your film to do, you might as well close your eyes and point.

Keep in mind some developers will give a bit of a speed increase - for example, a film may be about EI80 in, say, D76 but EI100 in TMax developer (for sake of example)

FP4 and Plus-X are box rated at 125, BTW.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 3, 2010

Mark Fisher said:
...Conventional films are not as straight, but still are "good enough" with underexposure.

Not good enough for my type of photography.

Mike1234 · Jan 3, 2010

RalphLambrecht said:
...I attached a 6-stop example. If you look close, you'll see that the ASA 400 film (left) exposed at EI 6 (right) gives more shadow detail and shows no degradation in the highlights. Overexposure is no problem, but you may notice a slight increase in grain with 35mm film.

Ralph, No offense but I disagree there is "no" degradation of the highlights. Even on this monitor I can see some highlight compression. Not bad but I wouldn't make a habit of overexposing.

Sirius Glass · Jan 3, 2010

RalphLambrecht said:
RB

Try it by all means. Actually, I remember Kodak showing a sequence of up to 12 stops without any quality loss. I tried to behave myself with saying 8 stops. I don't have an 8-stop example around at the moment, but I attached a 6-stop example. If you look close, you'll see that the ASA 400 film (left) exposed at EI 6 (right) gives more shadow detail and shows no degradation in the highlights. Overexposure is no problem, but you may notice a slight increase in grain with 35mm film.

I have some MF negatives of Yosemite taken after a snow storm, Tri-X shoot at 400 and developed in XTOL stock solution. One of Half Dome has a range of 12 stops. How do I know? I used my Nikon F100 in the spot meter mode and a 300mm lens to take light readings. The prints I made with simple dodging and burning were very good but not great. So I took the negatives to Per Volquartz for a day long class in printing. With a lot of work I produced a stunning photograph with the clouds slightly darker than the snow next to it on Half Dome and truly great shadow detail.

Yes, I got a 12 stop range on film and I see that 14 stops is possible, but it takes work to get it to print on paper that does not have that wide a range.

Steve

rwboyer · Jan 3, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
I have some MF negatives of Yosemite taken after a snow storm, Tri-X shoot at 400 and developed in XTOL stock solution. One of Half Dome has a range of 12 stops. How do I know? I used my Nikon F100 in the spot meter mode and a 300mm lens to take light readings. The prints I made with simple dodging and burning were very good but not great. So I took the negatives to Per Volquartz for a day long class in printing. With a lot of work I produced a stunning photograph with the clouds slightly darker than the snow next to it on Half Dome and truly great shadow detail.

Yes, I got a 12 stop range on film and I see that 14 stops is possible, but it takes work to get it to print on paper that does not have that wide a range.

Steve

No crap - now take that Tri-X "shot at 400" that has 12 stops of range and over expose it by 8 stops. Unless your film is way different than my film it will be pretty much a solid block where most of it has shouldered off and produces no real density variations.

If I wasn't clear i was not talking about the number of EV that you could get detail on I was talking about taking a shot that gets detail for that range AND THEN overexposing by another 8 stops - true over exposure - not a great idea. Hence my comments on film overexposed by 8 stops is fine (not really)

RB

DanielStone · Jan 3, 2010

RalphLambrecht said:
RB

Try it by all means. Actually, I remember Kodak showing a sequence of up to 12 stops without any quality loss. I tried to behave myself with saying 8 stops. I don't have an 8-stop example around at the moment, but I attached a 6-stop example. If you look close, you'll see that the ASA 400 film (left) exposed at EI 6 (right) gives more shadow detail and shows no degradation in the highlights. Overexposure is no problem, but you may notice a slight increase in grain with 35mm film.

so Ralph,

when you overexpose sooooooo much(6 stops in this case),

how do you factor development? I mean, its kind of hard to pull 6 stops in development....

-Dan

Sirius Glass · Jan 3, 2010

rwboyer said:
No crap - now take that Tri-X "shot at 400" that has 12 stops of range and over expose it by 8 stops. Unless your film is way different than my film it will be pretty much a solid block where most of it has shouldered off and produces no real density variations.

If I wasn't clear i was not talking about the number of EV that you could get detail on I was talking about taking a shot that gets detail for that range AND THEN overexposing by another 8 stops - true over exposure - not a great idea. Hence my comments on film overexposed by 8 stops is fine (not really)

RB

OK, we are on the same page then. I can put 12 stops on the film, but I cannot put 12 stops and then over expose by 8 stops.

Steve

rwboyer · Jan 3, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
OK, we are on the same page then. I can put 12 stops on the film, but I cannot put 12 stops and then over expose by 8 stops.

Steve

Well - that is what somebody suggested that 8 stops OVEREXPOSURE is fine.

RB

RalphLambrecht · Jan 3, 2010

Mike1234 said:
Ralph, No offense but I disagree there is "no" degradation of the highlights. Even on this monitor I can see some highlight compression. Not bad but I wouldn't make a habit of overexposing.

Trust me, there is no highlight compression in the actual prints. Anyway, the improvement in the shadows is significant. Even in these scans, the degration of the highlights is minor. The point was not to make a habit of it, the point was the latitude towards overexposure.

markbarendt · Jan 3, 2010

All you nay sayers are missing the point here.

The OP CAN'T adjust the exposure reliably.

I'm with Ralph, any of the listed negative films will be quite printable, even with huge over-exposures.

Would they be better close to their box speed? Probably, but so what.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 3, 2010

rwboyer said:
No crap - now take that Tri-X "shot at 400" that has 12 stops of range and over expose it by 8 stops. Unless your film is way different than my film it will be pretty much a solid block where most of it has shouldered off and produces no real density variations.

If I wasn't clear i was not talking about the number of EV that you could get detail on I was talking about taking a shot that gets detail for that range AND THEN overexposing by another 8 stops - true over exposure - not a great idea. Hence my comments on film overexposed by 8 stops is fine (not really)

RB

We are talking about exposure latitude towards overexposure. The example I posted was overexposed by 6 stops, true overexposure. The example I saw at Kodak was overexposed by 12 stops, true overexposure. Eventually the highlights will roll off and ruin highlight separation, which happens sooner with some films than others, but 6-12 stops true overexposure latitude is normal.

Photoe · Jan 3, 2010

Can't Let It Go By

Try FP4+ in Pyrocat (HD or MC) and compare to TMAX100 in XTOL 1:1

Mike1234 · Jan 3, 2010

RalphLambrecht said:
Trust me, there is no highlight compression in the actual prints. Anyway, the improvement in the shadows is significant. Even in these scans, the degration of the highlights is minor. The point was not to make a habit of it, the point was the latitude towards overexposure.

It's been a quarter century since I've shot and processed B&W for the shear joy of making fine prints. Overexposure and underdevelopment were part of my process along with selenium toning the film to extend highlight details more linearly than with development alone. Shadow details were excellent and highlights were open and very textured. I also selenium toned the prints which had a similar effect... darkening shadows without blocking them. I'm not against overexposure... just the sacrifice of highlight detail... unless those aren't present to begin with.

Film was Agfapan 25 and 100 processed in Rodinal 1:50 (usually). Paper was Ilford Gallery DW fiber (grade 2 or 3 with the latter prefered) developed on Phenidol?... whatever Ilford's phenidone-base developer was called... and selenium toned for density and color.

And I still say I can see a little highlight compression in those examples.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 3, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
OK, we are on the same page then. I can put 12 stops on the film, but I cannot put 12 stops and then over expose by 8 stops.

Steve

Well, the exposure range of B&W negative film is 15 stops or more. Taking an average scene of 7 stops you can afford at least 8 stops in overexposure.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 3, 2010

DanielStone said:
so Ralph,

when you overexpose sooooooo much(6 stops in this case),

how do you factor development? I mean, its kind of hard to pull 6 stops in development....

-Dan

I try not to, but sometimes the light does.

rwboyer · Jan 3, 2010

markbarendt said:
All you nay sayers are missing the point here.

The OP CAN'T adjust the exposure reliably.

I'm with Ralph, any of the listed negative films will be quite printable, even with huge over-exposures.

Would they be better close to their box speed? Probably, but so what.

I didn't miss any point anywhere I was just being a D**K about unqualified statements like 8 stops of overexposure is fine. Well if it really is over exposure (like 8 stops over the point where you have optimum shadow detail) and your scene is not one tone, it actually has a pretty good range to start with - then 8 stops is not "fine". Black and white film is fantastic in it's ability to put a huge range of EV on the negative but it does have a DMAX and a significant amount of typical scenes you might be shooting will reach that point easily if you really truly overexpose by 8 stops. Translation for the non-technical - if you really truly "overexpose" by 8 stops you will more likely than not actually block a significant amount of highlight values.

RB

RalphLambrecht · Jan 3, 2010

markbarendt said:
All you nay sayers are missing the point here.

The OP CAN'T adjust the exposure reliably.

I'm with Ralph, any of the listed negative films will be quite printable, even with huge over-exposures.

Would they be better close to their box speed? Probably, but so what.

Exactly. We understand each other.

fp4+ vs delta 100 vs PLUS-X 125 vs NEOPAN 100 ACROS

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency