Fuji 100 Acros in LC29

[Romary]

Hi everybody,

I use more and more Acros 100. My usual developper is LC29 I mainly use with Ilford film.

In the Ilford/Harman documentation about liquid developper the only thing mentionned is Acros 100 at ISO 80. Fuji does not mention the LC29 (I have lost the adress of the documentation).

Why not at ISO 100? has anybody have a time to suggest for ISO100? :confused:

There are few data about the developpement this film. In what developper are you usually developping this wonderfull film? :confused:

 

[hal9000]

Hi Romary, I am sure you will get as many answers as there are people using this film. The best way would be to test your own best film speed and developing time. For ACROS 4x5, I use XTOL 1:3 for 11.5 minutes in a Jobo rotation machine. I shoot the film at EI 64.
Best regards, Hal

 

[pentaxuser]

The Massive Development Chart gives a time for LC29 and Acros at 100 of 8 mins but this is for 120 film only. If you use 35mm then the time should be very close and maybe identical.

pentaxuser

 

[garysamson]

I love this film too! I have shot about 200 roles of 120 Acros 100 and I would suggest that you start with an exposure index of about 50 if you want optimum shadow detail to make the best prints. Developers I like with this film include Pyrocat MC, PMK Pyro, Kodak Xtol 1:1 and Rodinal 1:50. I normally process in a Jobo CPP2 and I could provide times at 24C if you are using constant rotation processing. Good luck.

 

[Romary]

Thank you very much for all these good advises

 

[2F/2F]

Look for a time in Ilfotec HC. Then do some calculations to get your working solution identical to HC, and you are set. As far as I know, they are the same developer, but concentrated differently.

Or, you could just use the film at EI 80, then use the time you found and see what happens. I'm sure it will be fine, and will give you the info you need to make adjustments for the next time.

 

[Nige]

has anybody have a time to suggest for ISO100?

Just checked my records and although I didn't use much of it (it was quite expensive here) I did soup several rolls in LC29 and mostly used 1:29 dilution for 7mins at 20C with inversion agitation (3 inversion every minute)

Nige.

 

[BertH]

Thread revival

Just when I started to suffer from the illusion that I'd made just about every mistake I developed a roll of acros 100 thinking it was hp5+. That is, in Ilford LC29, 1+19, 8 minutes. I had shot some frames to test my new meter (sekonic l 758). Here are the results (I'm trying to attach them as a graph). I'd say, for my meter use asa 64. But from there on it gets more complicated for me. 8 minutes is obviously too long, contrast is too high. Anyone care to predict from this what the proper developing time is bound to be?
Thanks and have fun...

Hm, just tried this, and document doesn't show graph... I'll give it another try...

 

[BertH]

acros in lc29, see if this works

try again, open office....

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Just to give a 'flip side of the coin' account of Acros here. I love the film too, and have found that it is very much a chameleon.

At box speed I get very good shadow detail and great separation all the way up to the brightest tones. So much so that I have no reason at all to shoot at 80, 64, or 50. I use replenished Xtol like this and love how it prints at Grade 2 filtration for the most part.

I also use it at EI 400 and develop in Xtol 1+1, agitating every two minutes when I develop. This gives me a tone curve that looks almost identical to the old Tri-X 320, and in 35mm has such fine grain and resolution that it has the same grain as the medium format Tri-X in a print.

So it's very flexible, and what I wanted to show with my examples was that you do not have to develop it like everybody else does. You can, with a test roll or two, learn how it's optimal for you in different lighting conditions. Print your negatives. Get a step wedge and make contact sheets. That will tell you a lot about how you're doing with your film development, and a lot about how your tones will be rendered.

- Thomas