Fuji Acros II 120 developer?

[mtlc]

Hello,

I bought some Fuji Acros II in 120 format to do some night photography with. I'm new to using this film and night photography. I've read people have had good results with Ilfotech DDX, but am not sure if shooting at night would affect developing? Or if there is a better option? I use HC-110 regularly also.

The camera: Zeiss Ikoflex
The F stop: I've been shooting at F8 I've read this is best for beginners, open to feedback here also!
The exposure times: using a light meter app on my phone I do some bracketing and depending on the subject, exposure times range from 4-15 seconds

Thanks

 

[ant!]

I liked my results in Rodinal, but I am sure both DD-X and HC-110 will not disappoint you.

The Icarex is 35mm film, but you mention 120 format? Shouldn't matter much though, Acros is fine-grain.

Regarding your exposure settings: Aperture of course depends on the depth-of-field you'd like to have, of course f8 is more forgiving regarding focusing errors, but at the other side needs longer exposures, especially in the dark. For multi-second exposures, you need a tripod (or a table or whatever), this is nothing you can handhold. Ideally triggering the shutter with a cheap wire shutter release (if the camera has the typical screw-in for it), and if the camera has a mirror lock-up, use it (not sure if the Icarex has one...).

Also, let's see how your negatives turn out when developed normally, I hope the lightmeter app you use works good enough in low light situations, otherwise you might want to get a dedicated lightmeter (or a camera which can do this length in aperture priority mode).

 

[mtlc]

Thanks for catching that! Meant Ikoflex, gotta keep my cameras straight!

 

[Pieter12]

Don't forget to factor in reciprocity failure for long exposures.

 

[ant!]

Thanks for catching that! Meant Ikoflex, gotta keep my cameras straight!

Alright, of course with a TLR you don't have mirror slap problems. A steady support and if possible a shutter release cable.
And what Pieter12 says, reciprocity failure, but Acros is one of the films with the least of it, still check the data sheet...

 

[ant!]

Acros is one of the films with the least of it, still check the data sheet...

Just checked: no adjustment needed below 120s, above +1/2 stop.

 

[Alan9940]

I've developed it in Pyrocat-HD, Rodinal, Sprint, D-23, and D-76 1:1 and have never been disappointed with any of those formulas.

 

[jimjm]

I've used Acros 100 (version 1) in Rodinal for night photography at box speed with good results. More recently, Acros II developed in HC-110 has also been great.
For night scenes with a variety of light sources and directions, be sure to fully assess the scene and determine the range of tones you want to retain in the negative. For a street scene or architecture, a spot meter really helps to determine how much exposure you need so that you don't lose the important shadow areas. Highlight areas can often be recovered, especially if you're printing in the darkroom. I usually develop the film normally without any compensation. Also, I'll err on the side of overexposure if I'm not certain. Underexposed negatives are a pain to deal with.
Aperture doesn't matter as long as you have enough depth-of-field for the scene you're shooting. Tripods are a must.
These shots are both Acros I in Rodinal 1:50, exposures about 10 - 15 sec with a Bronica SQ-A, using mirror lockup. These are scans of the prints, so these have been printed darker than the straight unmanipulated prints.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Hello,

I bought some Fuji Acros II in 120 format to do some night photography with. I'm new to using this film and night photography. I've read people have had good results with Ilfotech DDX, but am not sure if shooting at night would affect developing? Or if there is a better option? I use HC-110 regularly also.

The camera: Zeiss Ikoflex
The F stop: I've been shooting at F8 I've read this is best for beginners, open to feedback here also!
The exposure times: using a light meter app on my phone I do some bracketing and depending on the subject, exposure times range from 4-15 seconds

Thanks

I can suggest you Bellini Hydrofen, an economic yet powerful developer. It's to be diluited 1+31 and has excellent compensation fatures.
It comes in a handy 100ml or 250ml bottles.

HYDROFEN Sviluppo Pellicola - Bellini Foto

Sviluppo a grana fine con un eccellente bilanciamento del contrasto. Diluizione 1 + 15 oppure 1 + 31

www.bellinifoto.it

 

[loccdor]

Acros is one of my favorites and I've always been pleased with it in HC-110. Dilution H 1+63 10 minutes at 20C.

But, I've never known a bad developer for Acros. Looks good in everything.

The cool thing about it was it could be developed in the same tank as Neopan 400 and Neopan 1600 because they were designed to all have the same times. Less relevant these days as those films have been cancelled.

 

[mtlc]

I've used Acros 100 (version 1) in Rodinal for night photography at box speed with good results. More recently, Acros II developed in HC-110 has also been great.
For night scenes with a variety of light sources and directions, be sure to fully assess the scene and determine the range of tones you want to retain in the negative. For a street scene or architecture, a spot meter really helps to determine how much exposure you need so that you don't lose the important shadow areas. Highlight areas can often be recovered, especially if you're printing in the darkroom. I usually develop the film normally without any compensation. Also, I'll err on the side of overexposure if I'm not certain. Underexposed negatives are a pain to deal with.
Aperture doesn't matter as long as you have enough depth-of-field for the scene you're shooting. Tripods are a must.
These shots are both Acros I in Rodinal 1:50, exposures about 10 - 15 sec with a Bronica SQ-A, using mirror lockup. These are scans of the prints, so these have been printed darker than the straight unmanipulated prints.

View attachment 379503



View attachment 379504

Wow! Those are amazing! What dilution of HC-110 are you using?

 

[jimjm]

Wow! Those are amazing! What dilution of HC-110 are you using?

Thanks! For cooler water temps I'll use Dil: B and for 68f or above I'll use Dil: H.

 

[mtlc]

Thanks! For cooler water temps I'll use Dil: B and for 68f or above I'll use Dil: H.

Looking at the recommendations from Fuji for HC-110 Dilution B it says 4 1/2 minutes at 68 F/20 C. That doesn't seem long enough though, Kodak says times less than 5 minutes aren't recommended. How long do you develop for?

 

[jimjm]

Looking at the recommendations from Fuji for HC-110 Dilution B it says 4 1/2 minutes at 68 F/20 C. That doesn't seem long enough though, Kodak says times less than 5 minutes aren't recommended. How long do you develop for?

Yep, that's why I use Dil B (1:7 from stock solution) below 68F and I can develop for at least 5 mins. At 68F or above I use Dil H (1:14 from stock solution) and just double the development time from Dil B. So at 68F I would develop the film for at least 9 mins, maybe a bit longer using Dil H. I use a diffusion enlarger, so slightly contrasty negs are not usually a problem.

 

[loccdor]

If you're using the new non-syrupy HC-110 is there any reason to make that 1+3 stock solution before you dilute it further?

 

[ant!]

If you're using the new non-syrupy HC-110 is there any reason to make that 1+3 stock solution before you dilute it further?

No idea, but I mix directly my required dilution. Don't have high enough quantity of films to bother with an in between step which spoil probably earlier.

 

[jimjm]

If you're using the new non-syrupy HC-110 is there any reason to make that 1+3 stock solution before you dilute it further?

I'm still using the older HC-110 as I still had multiple bottles when they introduced the new formula, so no idea how well the new formula mixes up from syrup.
Once I open a new bottle, I decant the syrup into smaller glass bottles for storage purposes, then make about 250ml of stock solution which may last me about a week or two, depending on how much I'm shooting.
If the new formula is not as syrupy, then I may bypass the stock solution altogether if it makes sense for me.

 

[abruzzi]

even with the syrup, I never mixed 1+3. Straight to dilution B. Same with the newer stuff.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I use PMK pyro, normal 1:2:100, 14 min 20C, Jobo hand inversion tank, inverted twice every 30 sec.

 

[GLS]

I use Pyrocat-HD with Acros and find it a good pairing. Typically I will rate it at 50 or 64 for semi stand development at 22 C and 1:1:100 dilution for 14 minutes.

 

[Henning Serger]

Due to my tests and experience with Acros II, Delta 100 and TMX I can say that Acros II and TMX in several standard developers tend to be a little bit softer, with less acutance than Delta 100. Delta 100 often look a bit sharper with higher acutance (I like that Delta 100 look very much).
But Acros II is the finest grained of all three, and also TMX has a bit finer grain than Delta 100.

Personally I prefer in BW in most cases very sharp results. Therefore I prefer developers for these three films which deliver that.
I've got very good results in 120 for Acros II with FX-39 II. And for very sharp results with extremely fine grain I've used so far SPUR HRX for Acros II (especially in 35mm). That combination delivers extremely fine detail. SPUR has just announced an even improved developer with the Omega X.
For those who are using rotation with a JOBO processor the JOBO Alpha developer is also giving excellent results concerning detail rendition.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tanning pyro developers tend to lend excellent edge acutance to Acros, both the original and current versions, as well as to Delta 100, but not so much to TMX100. But TMax is the only one I routinely rate at full box speed, since it has a longer straight line which goes significantly deeper into the shadows. Another distinction is that TMax and Delta can be developed to a higher gamma than Acros. So you've got certain pros and cons all around, plus real distinctions in spectral sensitivity and long exposure characteristics.

 

[Steven Lee]

@mtlc Any normal B&W developer will work just fine. Acros, especially in 120, is not one of those films that require a specialized developer. Exposure, development time, and scanning will play infinitely bigger roles than your choice of a developer.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What is scanning? Which solution in the darkroom sequence does that involve? I scan with my own eyes; and it better look right.

 

[cirwin2010]

I shoot a lot of architecture and landscape at night, dawn, and dusk and I almost exclusively use Acros II in 120 for this purpose. With proper technique, I find this film to be extremely sharp and capable of fine detail retention. I have some 120 enlargements that rival similar sized 4x5 HP5+ enlargements in these aspects.

I develop my Acros II as follows:
ASA/ISO 100
Rodinal 1+100 @ 20C (68F)
Agitate 15 secs per min for 3 mins, then 1 inversion every 3 mins

I read about this procedure in an old forum post and it is outlined in the Massive Dev Chart. I believe the idea here is to develop "normally" for the first few minutes to build up highlights a bit. The infrequent agitation after that helps the shadows develop while keeping the highlights a bit more restrained due to developer exhaustion in those areas. The lower dilution and less frequent agitation also increases apparent sharpness through edge effects.

I never did any official testing, but the above gives me very sharp negatives and good shadow detail. I haven't had issues with excessive contrast or underexposed negatives. Rodinal is known for being a speed loss developer, but I don't think it poses as much of an issue at higher dilutions. As far as grain goes with this combination, its definitely there. But its small and sharp. You won't see it until you press your nose to the print at enlargements of 8-9x. I think the slight grain helps with the appearance of sharpness.

I've once tried Across II with HC-110. Compared with Rodinal 1+100, the grain was very small and harder to see when focusing with a grain magnifier under the enlarger. The image doesn't look as bitingly sharp and is much smoother to the eye. Pressing my nose to the image I cannot see any grain.

I also tried Across II with Adox FX-39 II. I only ever used the one bottle of this stuff because it was rather expensive, but from what I remember the grain was so small it didn't even show up in my grain magnifier under the enlarger. I don't think I ever made a final print from that combination so I cannot comment further.