Fuji Acros Vs Efke 25 or Pan F

sanking · Nov 5, 2009

Allen Friday said:
Sandy,

Is there a reason you are only going to take one film?

I will probably take several different type films, say color film and a high speed B&W film along with a slow speed B&W film. I am just trying to figure out what would be the best slow speed B&W film. As I say, I have a lot of experience with Acros and it will be hard to beat, but my mind is open.

Sandy

sanking · Nov 5, 2009

Colin Corneau said:
Allen Friday has a good point.

I can only concur with sticking with the film you know, in travelling so very far.

I certainly agree, but in two or three weeks I believe I could get to know almost any B&W film very well, and I do have some time to experiment before the trip.

Sandy

sanking · Nov 5, 2009

epatsellis said:
Sandy, for what it's worth, it took me 10 rolls of Efke to get it under control, heed the warnings not to over expose, unless you enjoy unsharp/contrast masking. I'd lean towards what you know, especially on a trip such as this one.

You mean don't over-develop, right? To much development is normally the reason for very contrasty negatives.

I have not found in the past that over-exposure was very detrimental to good results with B&W films. Is Efke 25 different in this regard. The overall density may be a bit higher than necessary which results in longer exposure times, but other than that I have not found moderate over-exposure (one stop or so) to be a great problem.

Sandy King

dpurdy · Nov 5, 2009

Acros is the best and is flexible but I would stuff several rolls of Delta 3200 in my pocket before going through the metal detector for those places that are dim lit and a tripod is either unwelcome or too much trouble.
Dennis

epatsellis · Nov 5, 2009

Definately don't over develop as well. The shoulder of the curve is pretty pronounced, over exposure will lead to lack of highlight separation from what I've seen (in my lab, etc...). it's already pretty contrasty, I had to back way off from the published numbers to get a neg that worked in my standard workflow. Then again, after years of resisting, I've been shooting TMY and I am just shocked at how good a film it is.

polyglot · Nov 5, 2009

I'd be interested in your Pan-F vs Acros test results because I'm embarking on exactly the same thing. I've worked my way through about 15 rolls of Acros (in an RZ) over the last 3 months, am getting back into testing Pan-F (loved it in 35mm but seem to have agitation issues with that combo in 120) and - get this - I'm going to Cambodia at the end of December. I need to figure out which film to take a couple of bricks of and so far, Acros has been absolutely reliable for me.

If you're in Siem Reap between 29/12 and 8/1 then maybe I could come say "hi!"

viridari · Nov 6, 2009

I've shot a good bit of Pan F+ and FP4+, Fomapan 100 & 200, etc. Earlier this year I grabbed some expired Acros for $2/roll at the camera shop and was quite impressed. The images looked great and it was easier to load on developing spools than many other films I was more accustomed to working with. When my stock of slower speed films is reduced enough I will be stocking up on more of this. I'd certainly want to take a lot of it with me on a long trip.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 6, 2009

One thing that I don't see anybody mentioning is how the Efke 25 film has less red sensitivity than the rest. It's almost orthochromatic! This means the use of filters and such will be compromised, unless you shoot without.
I have only ever shot a few rolls of Pan-F+ so I will not offer my opinion of it.

TMX and Acros - that's an interesting comparison. I never really look at grain, but I trust previous accounts here that the resolution and grain is equal. So is reciprocity. Both are stable to 2 minutes.
What I look at is how they look in a print. The TMX gives me a bit more 'clinical' look, a concept that is hard to describe, but I feel a silver print has that wonderful straight line curve if developed properly where you have linear representation of tones across the grayscale. Watch the highlights in processing, though, as there is a shoulder to look out for.
Acros gives me a smoother and creamier look, it seems a little bit more 'organic' in its tones, behaving a bit more like a random grain emulsion, like FP4.
The differences are subtle, and I have to put prints side by side to even see a difference. It's not worth bickering over to any extent. If I were you I wouldn't even look beyond Acros.

Have a fun trip, Sandy!

WolfTales · Nov 6, 2009

I didn't like the one roll of Efke 25 that I shot. When I stained with Pyro PMK, it had a chunky quality I couldn't quite get over. One roll is probably not enough to come to any conclusion, but it is enough for me to know I would rather shoot something else for the time being.

The roll of Pan F I shot had alot of contrast, and with PMK it was too much. Next time I will have to keep that in mind...

Across didn't seem to pick up much stain but it was very fine grained - I still have a few rolls sitting around.

My favorite all around is FP4 - no hassle film in my experience.

TimVermont · Nov 6, 2009

I started on this road a while ago, as I'm nearing the end of my deep-frozen APX25 in KB/35 and 120 sizes. I excluded Pan F+ early on due to reciprocity failure. I've found TMX100 more sensitive to small changes in development than Acros. The response to filtration of Acros is more in line with what I've come to expect after years of working with Agfa, and I find that helpful.

Ian Grant · Nov 6, 2009

A previous poster mentioned not over-exposing the EFKE/Adox 25, this is almost more important with this emulsion than over development. At one point this was sold in the UK as an own brand Jessops film with a box speed of 50 ISO. I used to shoot the film alongside Tmax 100 at the same 50 EI and identical development times, the only significant difference is it's less sensitive to the red end of the spectrum, and very slightly finer grained.

I do still use PL25 particularly in 10x8 but I prefer to use a film like Tmax 100, Delta 100 or Acros for 120 work, giving Pan-F as miss as it really needs tighter controls to tame it's contrast. It's a balance and the three 100 ISO films I mentioned are all capable of high quality results, the nuances are less important tahn knowing how the particular film you end up using behaves in a wide variety of conditions.

Ian

rwboyer · Nov 6, 2009

TimVermont said:
I started on this road a while ago, as I'm nearing the end of my deep-frozen APX25 in KB/35 and 120 sizes. I excluded Pan F+ early on due to reciprocity failure. I've found TMX100 more sensitive to small changes in development than Acros. The response to filtration of Acros is more in line with what I've come to expect after years of working with Agfa, and I find that helpful.

Just a note on the TMX - I have been shooting it since Kodak's withdraw of Panatomic-X from the market. Way back I did extensive testing of TMX vs PanF+ and cursory comparison with Acros when it was released. Acros is a really nice piece of work from Fuji and I would not hesitate to shoot it. Here are some things to consider:

Under 40x magnification TMX has the smallest grain of the lot, even smaller than Panatomic-X - in every developer I have tested with and I see no reason that would change with any other developer apples to apples. Maybe this is the "clinical look" whatever that means.

Responsiveness to changes in development is not a bad thing for anyone reasonably careful with dev time/temp control - actually it is a fantastic thing for expansions, especially in a relatively slow working developer like Pyrocat HD. I can see how it would be a nightmare in something like strain TMAX, but why would anyone do that?

Shoulders - I do not have enough data to discuss Acros - looks fine based on my cursory testing. TMX almost never shoulders in any real world condition, it retains detail to unbelievable points - If you are a competent printer this can work well for you. It can also work well for alt process work. PanF+ is one of the easiest films (general purpose films) I have ever tested to get the film to shoulder - and it is very abrupt - not nice and slow like TX, et al. So it is really easy to get it to a point of wham - no more detail in the highlights. Someone else mentioned this as well as being really really slow in the shadows - I agree, these two characteristics almost necessitate N- processing in a lot of real world situations - Personally I almost never find my self requiring N-(something I try to avoid for a lot of my own aesthetic reasons). I guess it depends on what you shoot and what you like your negative to look like but I have found PanF+ inferior in many ways to most other slow films. I know what I have described is characteristic of 25 speed film but PanF+ has this behavior in spades.

RB

Alan Johnson · Nov 6, 2009

Rollei ATP is similar to microfilm and will give a resolution similar to Gigabit film.
What you will see is the resolution of the Mamiya lenses.Interesting to try a roll or two.
But only if output is via an optical enlarger,if a scanner is used that would be limiting.
www.cacreeks.com/films.htm
The resolution of Efke 25 used to be posted on the net,IIRC it was only 115 line-pairs per mm.

sanking · Nov 6, 2009

A first test comparing Fuji Acros and Efke 25.

Set up a Mamiya 7II with 65mm lens on a tripod, focused on a scene with a brick building in the scene, about 300 feet from the camera. Point of focus was about 100 feet in front of the building and the lens was set to f/8.

I made multiple exposures of the scene with the same lens, alternating with two camera bodies, one with Acros and the other loaded with Efke 25.

The Acros and Efke 25 rolls were developed together in two bath Pyrocat-HD 1:1, at 75 degrees F, for 4+6 minutes.

Overall contrast was virtually identical for Acros and Efke 25, and on the low side, probably about CI .50. To evaluate sharpness and grain I viewed the negatives with a microscope with 40X magnification.

Conclusion. Efke 25 appears to have slightly better resolution and slightly finer grain. However the difference is so small that I am fairly certain one would not see any difference in a print of about 15X magnification, which would be a print around 33" X 42" in size. I will scan the comparison negative tomorrow at very high resolution to see if my scanner can show the difference. However, both films with this development give very high resolution and very high acutance.

I am getting a few rolls of the Rollei ATP film and will do the same basic test comparing it to Acros.

Sandy King

dynachrome · Nov 6, 2009

I also have all three films. The EFKE KB25 is a nice film but it is not as fine grained as TMX or ACROS or Pan F+. I don't agree that TMX has finer grain than ACROS. I develop ACROS in Fuji Microfine and the result is as good as or better than any combination I have tried with TMX. Pan F+ is the least tempermental of the three. My best results with it were in AMALOCO AM74. This is now sold as one of the Rollei developers. The 6X7 format gives you a nice size negative to work with. Any of these films, used properly, will make large high quality prints. How much do you plan to enlarge the negatives? Grain will depend on exposure and developing. If you want to maximize resolution, use a tripod. Years ago when I used Pan F I noticed that if the film sat even a few months after being exposed but before being developed, the image would start to fade. I never left Pan F+ long enough to see whether this still happens. Pan F+ shot at 50 and developed in Perceptol or Microdol-X 1:3 gives all the sharpness and fine grain you could want. I also controls contrast nicely.

Jim Fitzgerald · Nov 6, 2009

Sandy, you have some great choices. I have been using Efke-25 for years now and love it in 8x10 and 11x14 developed in your Pyrocat-HD. My negs sing!

Jim

sanking · Nov 6, 2009

Jim Fitzgerald said:
Sandy, you have some great choices. I have been using Efke-25 for years now and love it in 8x10 and 11x14 developed in your Pyrocat-HD. My negs sing!

Jim

Jim,

I am sure you get great results with Efke 25 and Pyrocat-HD. Doubt you have to worry about sharpness or grain with this combination with 8X10 and 11X14 negatives!!

Sandy

Jim Fitzgerald · Nov 6, 2009

Sandy, you are right. I thought to myself that if I liked it in 4x5 why not just keep things consistent. Although, I have ventured off into X-Ray film in 8x10 and 11x14 with interesting results.

Jim

Alan Johnson · Nov 7, 2009

Here are my results for T-Max 100 and Adox 25 in Xtol 1+0.(Photomicrographs of negatives of a test chart)

Ian Grant · Nov 7, 2009

Alan, I'm quite surprised, I tested EFKE KB14 extensively (later renamed with the ASA rather than DIN speed as KB25), back in the early 70's and found it streets ahead of FP4 which was then acknowledged to be the best 100/124 ASA film available. Later comparing Tmax 100 negs to similar made with PL25 there was still a slight edge in terms of finer grain and resolution in favour of the EFKE film.

I'd add though that, like Sandy has found, the differences are slight, but the EFKE film stains better with Pyrocat HD and gives very good acutance with normal processing and agitation which shows on the prints I've made from my 10x8 negatives.

One reason I usually stick to Ilford/Kodak or Fuji films for 120 is their robustness, I often process on the fly, taking dev tanks & chemistry with me, EFKE films need very careful handling due to the poor hardening, which is far better than it used to be but it reticulates too easily if there's a slight variation in processing temperatures.

Ian

sanking · Nov 7, 2009

I scanned the comparison Efke 25 and Acros negatives this morning at 5080 spi. After comparing the scans with the negative through a microscope I conclude that I am getting about 95% of the detail on the negative in the scan, which suggests resolution on the order of 95 lp/mm, about what I would expect from the camera/lens/film/developer combination.

Attached are three files, one of an area 1.2" X .9" in the center of the 6X7cm negative, with a white rectangle to indicate the area of the crop, and crops from the Efke and Acros negative. There is to my eye no difference in sharpness between the two crops, but the Efke crop clearly has finer grain. In viewing the crops bear in mind that you are looking at an area of .17" X .13" from the original 2 1/4" X 2 3/4" negatives.

My conclusion is that with my work flow I can indeed get *slightly* better image quality from the Efke 25 film than with Acros because of the finer grain. Even so I would probably still favor Acros slightly because of its much lower reciprocity failure.

Sandy King

Mike1234 · Nov 7, 2009

There are so many variables involved but, judging from what I see on screen, the Acros seems to have better acutance and shadow detail with your given procedures, Sandy.

Alan Johnson · Nov 7, 2009

For actual prints I have found that on 12x enlargements the Adox/Efke 25 is finer grained than T-Max 100.Photomicrographs I have made are not good for grain comparisons but OK for resolution comparisons.

sanking · Nov 7, 2009

Mike1234 said:
There are so many variables involved but, judging from what I see on screen, the Acros seems to have better acutance and shadow detail with your given procedures, Sandy.

Mike,

I think the Acros crop has just a bit more contrast in the mid-tones, and that may be what gives the appearance of better acutance. When comparing the entire image I found the two scan files almost identical in image quality in terms of sharpness. The only thing that stands out is the finer grain of Efke 25.

Sandy

Keith Tapscott. · Nov 7, 2009

Just use the Fuji film and forget the slow stuff.

Fuji Acros Vs Efke 25 or Pan F

sanking

sanking

sanking

dpurdy

epatsellis

polyglot

viridari

Thomas Bertilsson

WolfTales

TimVermont

Ian Grant

rwboyer

Alan Johnson

sanking

dynachrome

Jim Fitzgerald

sanking

Jim Fitzgerald

Alan Johnson

Attachments

Ian Grant

sanking

Attachments

Mike1234

Alan Johnson

sanking

Keith Tapscott.

Fuji Acros Vs Efke 25 or Pan F

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency