Fuji Acros 100 35mm

[roy]

Hello,
I am interested to learn whether members have any experience of generally good or unfavourable results in using this combination and if so, what film speed was used.
Roy.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Tom Duffy]

Roy,
I've used acros sheet film in PMK and found the combination to be decent, but not exceptional.

I think Acros is an exceptional film and, in 35 mm, would use it instead of tmax or delta 100.

for all film sizes, the best results I got was using it in xtol 1:1.
Tom

 

[Tom Duffy]

roy, rereading your question, I wouldn't rate acros higher than EI 50.

 

[David Hall]

Tom,

Since you're a man who tests, have you evaluated Acros in comparison to TMX or Delta or the traditional films?

dgh

 

[Tom Duffy]

David,
I've used them all, in an extensive, but empirical, sort of way.

Tmax100 (ei 64) is my least favorite. it has the best shadow detail of the three but I've always had a problem with blown out highlights. i've never been able to get a good solid print from it, ie, deep blacks, brilliant whites and everything in between. i always have to print a little soft to hold the whites. given your recent workshop with john sexton, I'd say that i've seen some of his original prints and much prefer the scale of his older stuff (like panther beach) done with tri-x professional.

delta 100 (ei 64) is not as fine grained as tmax, but pretty good. delta (100 and 400) always seems like an ultra fine grained tri-x 400 film. classic leica pj stuff with a good, soft tonal range of grays, never really capable of a strong white if properly exposed for shadows, but great for people shots. not the best for landscapes.

acros is my favorite of the three (ei 32 in sheet, 64 in 35mm, same film, but i compromise a bit with the roll film for hand holdability.) acros gives a great tonal range with good blacks, brilliant whites and almost as fine grained as tmax. acros BTW makes a bad print on AZO. I suspect that it is so fine grained, that you don't get the apparent sharpness of a contact print on BPF or Tri-x. xtol 1:1 is the best combo i've found. acros moderately enlarged on Bergger VCCB is my favorite small/medium format combination. but i usually need something faster like delta 400 or tri-x.

as long as we're hijacking poor roy's thread, I sent you an email a couple weeks ago but didn't get a reply. do you still want a couple of azo/rollo pyro grade 2 prints to show its possible to get enough contrast in neg for this combo? if so, email me address particulars.
tom

 

[MikeK]

Tom:

I found that developing TMAX100 rated at an EI of 80 and developed in D23 1:1 for 11.5 minutes @68F (Rotary Processed) tamed the hot highlight problem and still gave excellent sharpness and good shadow detail.

I spent a lot of time coming up with this combination as I am hooked on Readyloads and can develop sheet film and 120 roll film all at the same time

Mike

 

[Tom Duffy]

Thanks for the info, Mike. At this point, I think I'll I keep using Tri-x in large format and tri-x and delta 400 in 35mm. I'm happy with these films.
tom

 

[roy]

Tom, thanks, that is worth knowing. I shall still have a go in PMK but also the Xtol. I was interested in your comment about the film itself. I like Delta 100 but was induced to try Acros because of a comment on another list. it will be interesting to compare both the film and developers.
Roy.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[edbuffaloe]

I haven't used Acros in 35mm, but use it in 120. I rate it at 50 and develop in PMK (1:1:100) for 14 minutes at 70 degrees F.

 

[roy]

I thank all who have chipped in. I think I have enough to keep me occupied for a while and I shall let members know should I have anything worthwhile to report.
roy.

 

[tommorris]

Must... try... this... film...

(I use Neopan 400 in both 120 and 135, and I really ought to try this sometime...)

 

[roy]

Following on from previous comments and related threads under other PMK subject headings, I developed my 35mm films over the weekend and 'suffered' mixed results. One I developed in a 2 bath dev and the result appears to be acceptable although I have not yet looked at the negs on a lightbox. The other I used PMK and have very thin negatives. I am not so much concerned about the staining aspect as I expect little with this film. Looking at the edge markings they appear to be not as black as I would expect. All this leads to my main point and that is can I have some advice please, on the advisability of selenium toning negs to give them a bit more body and contrast. Les, I have found your advice given on Colin's workshops useful, are you able to chip in here ? The moral of all this is however, listen to good advice you are given but in my defence I must say you do not know until you try for yourself and I was trying out different combinations !!

 

[Les McLean]

All this leads to my main point and that is can I have some advice please, on the advisability of selenium toning negs to give them a bit more body and contrast. Les, I have found your advice given on Colin's workshops useful, are you able to chip in here ? The moral of all this is however, listen to good advice you are given but in my defence I must say you do not know until you try for yourself and I was trying out different combinations !!

however, listen to good advice you are given but in my defence I must say you do not know until you try for yourself and I was trying out different combinations !![/quote]

I'd suggest 10 minutes in selenium toner diluted 1 part toner to 3 parts water at 20c. The best you can hope for is perhaps 3/4 of a grade of paper contrast. This is based on having some information on the negative, clearly if there is nothing there you cannot intensify it. There are other intensifyers, such as mercury which will give significant increases but the chemicals are probably difficult to get or not available unless you know someone who has access. one downer with mercury, other than it's nasty, is that it does significantly increase grain. Chromium is also good and is available from Fotospeed. It's similar to toning in that you bleach the negative and redevelop it in PRINT developer and get an increase of about 15% in density. You can repeat this process several times but you will increase the grain in the neg. I understand that it is proportional in that it will intensify the highlights slightly more that the shadows so some increase in contrast is likely to be the result. It's worth a try if you do have a neg that you want to print. If you want to call them their new number is 01249 714555.



I

 

[roy]

Thanks Les. I shall try a strip of negs in selenium. I am sure the detail is there, they just look pale but there is contrast on the film.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[roy]

I goofed a week ago, and came out with some really thin, I mean almost blank negatives.

Thanks Aggie, I have had a look at your picture. I am heartened by the fact that I have some contrast in my negs but the lack of it is not the 'pyro effect' as the edge markings show. I cannot print for a couple of months as my darkroom is in my loft and I am recovering from a hip replacement. I feel sure I can get some prints from these negatives and am looking forward to having a shot at them in the autumn.

 

[roy]

Further to my last post, I tempted providence and developed another Acros in PMK. It came out fine this time and I have concluded that the chemical mix was wrong. Reading 'the book' again, I realise I did not use sufficient alkali. as you have stated
Aggie, it is not the ideal combination but, one has to try.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Eric Rose]

Good girl Aggie!

 

[roy]

True! We all learn as we go.... and know now that it is more the knowledge of the way to handle film verses which developer is the best.

As you rightly put it.....having the toolbox and knowing what to use for the effect you want. That must be the ultimate !