Fuji Acros 100 in 120 format questions

Right, here are a few questions concerning this excellent film:

1. Since Acros Neopan 400 is no longer available in 120 format, does it make sense to push Acros 100? Or, would one be better off using a 400 rated film instead? This is a problem for me, since I don't like the results or processing TMY nor Ilford. I do use and like Tri-X...that is my main experience base BTW.

2. What will the difference in results be when pushing? Blown highlights? Lost shadow detail? Grain? Contrast? What I specifially am after is in what respect does it change from box-speed exposure and processing?

3. I use Xtol exclusively as my developer. Got it pretty much dialled in for Tri-X, so not very keen on changing for something else. I see that most people tend to, when using Acros in Xtol, to soup it at 1+1. I quite like to use stock solution for Tri-X - but seasoned/replenished after 5 rolls - as I find it "mellows" and gives (for me) the most pleasing tonalities. What would be the main differences in results between stock (seasoned) and 1+1? Accutance? Grain? Please note: in my view, unseasoned new stock Xtol (like in one shot use) comes out too contrasty for my taste. Perfect after 5 rolls or so, thus why I replenish.

4. Finally, agitation...with Tri-X, the Kodak recommendations of 4 inversions every 30 seconds seem to work quite OK. From my tests with Acros, once every minute seems better. Some say once every 2 minutes. What holds? Again, in what way does it influence the end result? Probably lower contrast, better shadow detail?Grain? Can anyone confirm or rebuke?

All input and opinions most appreciated.

Hi,

Uprating a film and then overdeveloping it increases contrast, grain, and drops the detail and texture from the low tones. So it would not make sense to use pushed Acros as a replacement for Neopan 400, because the results will look nothing like Neopan 400. T-Max and Delta are great films. Just learn how to use them, and you will be blown away by their quality.


X-Tol will work fine for pretty much whatever you want to do, as will most developers that you can get off the shelf at a retailer. No need to change developers.

You can agitate however you want, but you want to do the same thing roll to roll, ideally. In other words, pick an agitation routine, and stick with it.

The question of pushing Neopan Acros has been up for discussion before and I sent a link to a useful thread that time. I enclose a link here. Good luck !

Karl-Gustaf

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Thanks Karl-Gustaf. BTW: I am also Swedish and I suspect that Thomas Bertilsson is of that origin too with a name like his. The thread is interesting from many aspects - not only the Swedish connection but mainly, other people also finding TMY-2 too contrasty box speed and Xtol - which it is really about. But Thomas' comments and sample of Acros pushed w. Xtol is not only relevant, but excellent as the results I would like to see.

Thomas, if you are reading this, would you care to give more details? You say you "overdeveloped whilst slowing down agitation". What methods exactly did you use? Excellent sample BTW.

Thanks.

Hello,

I would say that pushing TMax 100 or Acros two stops to EI 400 can be done, but in high contrast lighting it's not going to work very well. It works best in medium contrast lighting scenarios. If it's really flat, you might even be able to stretch to 500 or 640.

Re: development - I found Xtol to be very useful for this, diluted 1:1. What Xtol does so well is to develop very low exposure shadow detail, and it's great for making sure you don't block up highlights. When you slow down agitation, to every two or three minutes, you need to develop longer to get the same highlight density and contrast. This gives you more time to develop the shadow details, which is what makes this possible.

There is no 'standard' formula - you have to try for yourself. But Acros at 400 you might want to start somewhere around 15 minutes. I presoak Acros when I develop like this, and after I pour in the developer I agitate continuously for the whole first minute. Then I do three full tank inversions every two minutes. That's my standard process.
The length of time and how often you agitate depends on a lot of things - lighting situation, lens contrast, enlarger, paper, paper developer, etc. My particular work flow is tuned to print well at Grade 3 using Fomabrom Variant 112 and Ethol LPD (replenished, which is slightly soft working), diffusion enlarger, and I like medium contrast to low contrast scenarios.

Have fun! It works really well. But in really high contrast lighting with deep shadows and bright highlights, you'll have to dial back to EI 100 or maybe 160, depending on how much shadow detail you think you need.

- Thomas

Hello again, Trasselblad .
Yes, when I saw your signature I suspected that you have a Swedish connection. There are quite a few of us here so feel at home. By the way, welcome to APUG !
When it comes to a replacement for Neopan 400 I would recommend you to try Tri-X . I used Neopan 400 for some time but during the last years it has been mainly Tri-X as 400 ISO film. To me Tri-X seems to have a better tonality even if Neopan 400 has a finer grain. Both differences are very slight and you will most certainly hear from other members with opposite experiences. With Tri-X I think you can keep on working without changing your development to much. Also check what filmtype is readily available for you.
Best regards

Karl-Gustaf

Thomas - That is a wealth of information and very useful. It pretty much answers all of my thoughts around Acros 100. Plus, it sets a foundation for the darkroom work which I hope to get started on later this summer. If it is of any interest, here is a little observation regarding pre-soaking: Since I have so far been using/reusing the developer, one problem I encountered was that it would become fouled after a while. This meant filtering the developer regularly. I was always pre-soaking (mostly Tri-X and some Acros) and the pre-soak water comes out blue, as would be expected. Since it can't be totally rinsed out before pouring in the developer, it was this blue tint and some residues which used to foul the soup. Recenty, I did a few rolls without presoak. Just pour in the developer and get going. Interestingly enough, the developer comes out crystal clear! Of course, if using 1+1 one-shot, then it doesn't matter.

K-G, Yes, in fact and as I mentioned, Tri-X has been my mainstay film since getting back to analogue about 1.5 years ago. I live in Hong Kong since 15 years, but am moving back to Sweden (Piteå) before the end of this month after 26 years abroad, so I have stocked up on both Tri-X and Acros since film is much cheaper and more available here (25SEK/roll for Tri-X and 15SEK for Acros). This is also when I will set up my own darkroom, which is very difficult (read:expensive) in Hong Kong due to lack of space. Something which is obviously not a big problem in Sweden. When I get that far in my project, I will for sure have more questions. It has been some 20 years since I last stood in a darkroom. Can't wait to get back in there!

Regards.

I was one of those who loved Neopan 400 in Xtol in 120 and was very upset when it was suddenly discontinued. I still have not settled on a replacement and don't think I ever will as nothing is quite like Neopan. But with Tri-x I'm getting as close as I ever have, especially with Xtol and somewhat ID-11, both at 1:1. HP5 is no where near, neither is TMY-2. Delta 400 is a good film, but for me too expensive, though all film is getting to be expensive anymore.

Brian, unfortunately I didn't have time to use Neopan 400 before it was pulled off the market, but having just got started with Acros 100, I really love the results already. Much prefer it to Tri-X, which has taken some time to dial-in. Found TMY-2 too "fiddly", I couldn't get consistent results, some good but most of the time not what I am after.

What works for me and what you may want to try with Tri-X, as I mentioned, is seasoned Xtol (5 rolls re-using stock and replace 80ml from roll 6 and on). Like Thomas, I prefer medium to low contrast.

I should add to my explanation above that in low contrast I adjust agitation, while keeping the same developing time, to either every minute, or even every 30 seconds. This builds the contrast to where I want it to be.

- Thomas

The film prices look realy good, but be sure that you can take everything back home in an X-ray safe way. I suppose you know that most checked in luggage is exposed to a much higher radiation level than hand luggage. Perhaps you can send it by mail, but check at first how the packages are handled.
Welcome back home.

Karl-Gustaf

Already hand-carried (most of) the film to Sweden when I went there last time. Would never put film in check-in luggage, nor send by post, knowing the Swedish customs they would ask for VAT. Been there, done that.

Michael, in theory you are right. But "image quality" can mean so many things to so many different people, also depending on the situation and so on. It quickly becomes a topic on its own, then spinning off in to discussions about glass, cameras, lenscoatings and whatnot. A true can of worms which need not be opened - again.

Back to film: I've tried TMY-2. Hard. The biggest issue I had with it was "unpredictability", i.e. I could not - using common parameters (developer, dilution, times, temp, agitation cycles etc.) - get repeatable results to a degree that I would be comfortable with. I just found it too fiddly and sensitive to deviations. And heaven should know I did try T-max developer, D76 and Xtol, different temps etc. whilst recording the workflow and just about every roll came out different. All some 100 of them. So I dropped it and went to Tri-X for 400 speed. Whilst I like Tri-X, especially the things TMY-2 didn't give me, I gave Acros 100 a try and went "wow!". At box speed and no experimentations, just following the data-sheets. Did it for me.

If Acros was still available at 400 in 120 format, I would love to give it a try. Unfortunately it is not. I'm sure TMY-2 is a great product, probably even better in a controlled Kodak-owned and operated processing lab, but for what I want to achieve, it doesn't float my boat.

So, for 400 box speed, what options do we still have in 120 format? TMY-2, Tri-X, HP5, Delta, Rollei Retro...and, some rebranded stuff and that's about it? The last three at silly prices to add unsult to injury. This is why the idea of pushing Acros 100 to 400, as Thomas already did with in my view great results, certainly becomes an option worth considering.

There is nothing wrong with TMY2. I shoot tons of it in 35mm and also 4x5, exposing with no meter, and developing with factory data using ballpark temperature compensation. I would recommend TMY2. If you have some aversion to it, there's nothing wrong with Tri-X or HP5.

Michael,

From my own use of both Acros and TMX at EI 200 and 400, I get pretty much full shadow detail, or enough that I can tell what's in the shadows. But, they have a bit lower separation. From the above you can deduce that I only use it in low to normal contrast lighting. In high contrast lighting the shadow tones slide too far down the toe and basically disappear.
Xtol 1+1 with reduced agitation seems to give the shadow details at higher exposure indexes enough developing time to show up.

So, for me, I still get most of the shadow detail, just with less separation, and - believe it or not - that's how I like it.

You are right that a lot of this is subjective. What's acceptable to me certainly may not be acceptable to you. And that's also how I like it. Gives us something to talk about.

- Thomas

Trasselblad,

TMax 400 is definitely not a film with which I have had the types of problems you are describing. I get consistent results from roll to roll, and batch to batch.

But whatever works for you is what's important. Tri-X is very good film also.

- Thomas