Fuji Acros Vs Efke 25 or Pan F

[sanking]

Just use the Fuji film and forget the slow stuff.

Not much difference there. I always rate Acros at EF 50, and in this comparison rated Efke 25 at EF 25.

Sandy

 

[mikebarger]

Sandy, have any curl issues? Been quite awhile since I used it, just wondering if curl is any better.

Thanks

Mike

 

[Mike1234]

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

Well then, I guess I like the mid-tone contrast. From what I see on my screen and with your techniques Acros seems to have more snap to it. If it was me and I was printing hybrid this would make little difference because PS curves can fix anything so sharper finer grain would be the primary concern. If it were me and I was printing analog then I would opt for the best acutance.

 

[sanking]

Sandy, have any curl issues? Been quite awhile since I used it, just wondering if curl is any better.

Thanks

Mike

Efke 25 has lots of curl in the long dimension, but
not a problem for me as I scan with fluid mounting and can keep the negative flat. Acros has virtually no curl so a bit easier to handle.

Sandy

 

[Loris Medici]

Sandy, Mehmet K. (remember him?) told me today that he gets ISO 100 equivalent results (grain/resolution) with the new TMAX400 film and Xtol 1+1 combination. Just wanted to mention if you're going to need high speed film w/ ISO100 T-grain performance, practically... (What you're going feel about highlight rendition - no shoulder w/ TMAX - depends on your personal taste of course.)

Regards,
Loris.

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.

...

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.

 

[fschifano]

Sandy, Mehmet K. (remember him?) told me today that he gets ISO 100 equivalent results (grain/resolution) with the new TMAX400 film and Xtol 1+1 combination. Just wanted to mention if you're going to need high speed film w/ ISO100 T-grain performance, practically... (What you're going feel about highlight rendition - no shoulder w/ TMAX - depends on your personal taste of course.)

That actually jives with Kodak's published RMS granularity figure for TMY as equal to that published for Plus-X. TMX is, of course, much finer grained than Plus-X and TMY-2.

 

[Loris Medici]

That actually jives with Kodak's published RMS granularity figure for TMY as equal to that published for Plus-X. TMX is, of course, much finer grained than Plus-X and TMY-2.

I don't think they're talking nonsense, since I saw actual prints from that combination; 24x24" from 6x6, and the prints definitely were supporting their view...

 

[sanking]

I don't think they're talking nonsense, since I saw actual prints from that combination; 24x24" from 6x6, and the prints definitely were supporting their view...

That sounds about right to me. I published an article last year in View Camera comparing the new TMY2 with TMAX-100, using 4X5" film. My conclusion was that you would have to print at a size over about 8X-10X before the greater sharpness and finer grain of Tmax-100 would show on the print.


Sandy King

 

[edtbjon]

While Acros isn't readily available here in Sweden (Eh, almost no film is "readily available" in Sweden nowadays...), here are my thoughts about film choice for a trip. As I would shoot with a Hasselblad I would use 120 film as well so we're on similar grounds.
Given what I've read about Acros it's in the same league as TMX, Delta 100 etc. I.e. a modern T-grain film. What is important too is the reciprocity failure factor, where Acros seems to be even better than any other film. (This is important, as it can get really really dark in a dense djungle surrounding even during daytime. If you want to make e.g. a one-minute exposure, Acros/TMX is probably the fastest film around, even compared to TMY or Delta 3200.) Also, while any T-grain film can be picky on development etc., these are issues which you've already have sorted out. I.e. you know how to get what you want from every single roll of film.
The Pan-F is a nice film made with good QC, but it will probably be somewhat grainier than Acros. Reciprocity will be an issue too, even though it's better than the Efke25.
Now to Efke25. I do shoot some Efke25, but I choose that film as it's special. Not special in terms of small grain and such, but special in terms of being very "old fashioned" and also very slow. I only shoot it in sheet film when using e.g. my 21cm Heliar f/3.5 which I want to use more or less wide open. As my shutter only has 1/60, I want a slow film. I've shoot a brick or two of 120size R25 which turned out all right, but I find the film to be much more "picky" about exposure than e.g. TMX, which actually says a lot (as TMX is known to be rather picky).
Knowing Emacs (paper) and Efke film I would definitely buy all the film (from one batch) in advance and test it beforehand, so that I knew the characteristics before I left home. I also know that there is a possibility of faulty film with Efke.
Given all this, I still buy Efke film as that old-fashioned, almost ortho look is fantastic at its best.

But if I were heading to Cambodia, it would be a once-in-a-lifetime for me, so I'd rule out Efke film altogether. With my current knowledge and experience I would choose TMX and had I gotten to know Acros that would probably have been my choice. There is so much that can be done in the darkroom to give your pictures a personal signature anyhow.

//Björn
(My next project is to source some Acros and get to know it...)

 

[polyglot]

I did some comparison prints today, from Pan-F+ (EI25) in D-76 1+3 and Acros (EI100) in Rodinal 1+100 both shot with RZ67 110/2.8. The Pan-F is a bit more contrasty (split-grade printed with about 2:1 magenta:yellow vs 4:1 for the Acros to get similar looking prints). The subjects were not identical but in both cases were cast Al, chrome and glossy paint on vintage cars, shot in direct sun and within an hour of each other. As expected, both produce a completely grainless 8x10.

With my enlarger (LPL C7700) at full height and an 80/5.6 Componon-S, I can get to about 20x26". I printed (at f/8 and about a minute) a 5x7" crop from each at that size and the result is that both films are stupidly good and there really isn't anything to separate them. In both cases, you can make out the grain when you actively look for it from about 50cm away but it's totally unobtrusive. It's about the same level and size in each one. The Pan-F grain looked sharper in the focusing scope but if I didn't know which subject was which, I wouldn't be able to separate the prints on the basis of grain or resolution - the grain is still that subtle and the lens sets the resolution limit, unlike with HP5.

I have some 2500dpi scans but they show a bit less detail than the prints; the grain shows as noise but it looks much coarser and softer in the scan than on the print because the scanning resolution is coarser than the apparent grain size on the print.

Conclusion: use whichever one you're familiar with and/or whichever one has the tonality/speed/reciprocity you prefer because they're both fantastic films. Acros has some technical (speed, reciprocity) advantages but it's pretty straight in the characteristic curve.

 

[Russ Young]

Sandy-

In my limited experience there may be one more important asset of Acros: green sensitivity. When we moved from New Mexico to Virginia, let's just say that my subject matter changed. Now it always involves trees or grass rather than rocks and chiles... this may all be in my imagination but I seem to find that Acros renders greens in more subtle tones than TMX. Cambodia has a lot of green although that may not be what you photograph there...

Any one else weigh in on the green issue?

Russ

 

[pgomena]

I found it to be a good thing. I really adopted Acros as my main 100-speed film this summer, and found the lighter rendering of greens in forest vegetation to be a good thing. We have a lot of dark evergreens here in Oregon, so anything to help lighten the foliage is a plus. (Acros doesn't have that much effect on the dark evergreens, actually, but the lighter vegetation in the forest understory is rendered noticeably lighter.)

Peter Gomena

 

[WolfTales]

Is the higher reciprocity of failure that which makes Efke chunky? I've noticed the same chunk in my images as in the image you posted Sandy. Or is it just the quality of the filter dyes and emulsion characteristics?

Thanks

 

[stradibarrius]

I am going to Cambodia in December for a short visit to Angkor Wat. My plans are to take the Mamiya 7II outfit and work with slow speed fine grain films on a tripod rather than taking my 5X7 LF outfit. But I want maximum image quality, as defined by fine grain and resolution, from the negatives.

Question is, which slow speed MF film to take? I have a lot of experience with Fuji Acros and would probably be very satisfied with the results. I also like the low reciprocity failure of Acros. Assuming that the intention is to obtain maximum image quality at a fairly large print size, say at about 12X magnification, would there be much to gain in resolution or grain size by using a film like Efke 25, or perhaps Ilford Pan F, instead of Acros.

I plan to test this myself soon but appreciate any comments from others at this point.

Sandy King

Wow, I'm going to be at Ankor in Dec too! Acros 100 is so smooth! I do not have experience with the other 2 but Acros in XTOL is remarkable!

 

[chrisf]

Sandy,

Have you looked into Dr5 with Efke 25? Just a thought.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Ifke 25, ILford 50 both good choices, how about TMax 100?

Jeff

 

[sanking]

Wow, I'm going to be at Ankor in Dec too! Acros 100 is so smooth! I do not have experience with the other 2 but Acros in XTOL is remarkable!

Due to a recent surgical procedure that will make remaining seated for a long period of time very uncomfortable it looks like I am going to have to cancel the trip to Cambodia. I was OK with the dates originally planned by the group I planned to travel with but they bumped up the program by a couple of weeks, cutting into my recovery time.

Hope to compensate for the loss by spending a bit more time in Mexico than planned in January of 2010. Unfortunately the whole film thing is reversed since most of the places I plan to photograph in Mexico are ruins where tripods are not allowed, so I have to plan on using higher speed films with the camera hand held or on a monopod.

Sandy

 

[Mike1234]

That's a pain in the byootox, Sandy. Sorry to hear that.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So the answer to all problems is Tmax 400 then?

Sorry to hear about the trip, Sandy.

 

[DanielStone]

tmy2 is the best :munch:

-Dan

 

[sanking]

So the answer to all problems is Tmax 400 then?

Sorry to hear about the trip, Sandy.

You are probably right. Now that speed trumps fine grain and sharpness Tmax 400 is probably the best choice for hand held work.

Sure wish it were available in 220.

Sandy

 

[trexx]

Hope to compensate for the loss by spending a bit more time in Mexico than planned in January of 2010. Unfortunately the whole film thing is reversed since most of the places I plan to photograph in Mexico are ruins where tripods are not allowed, so I have to plan on using higher speed films with the camera hand held or on a monopod.

Sandy

You might find that tripods are allowed. Even if stated not allowed. In 93-95 I was down in Mexico quite a lot. I had tripods at Teotihuacan , Tulum, Coba and a couple of small sights. I could not take one in Chichen Itza. There were 'fees' , $5-$10 US, but that generally included a teen to potter your bags. It's been 15 years so the 'permits' may not be so easy anymore. Take a tripod with you and take to the ruin, it can always stay in the van.


TR

 

[sanking]

You might find that tripods are allowed. Even if stated not allowed. In 93-95 I was down in Mexico quite a lot. I had tripods at Teotihuacan , Tulum, Coba and a couple of small sights. I could not take one in Chichen Itza. There were 'fees' , $5-$10 US, but that generally included a teen to potter your bags. It's been 15 years so the 'permits' may not be so easy anymore. Take a tripod with you and take to the ruin, it can always stay in the van.


TR

Things have definitely changed. At this time tripods are not allowed in any of the ruin sites controlled by INAH, and that includes nearly all ruin sites in Mexico. This is based on personal experience for the past ten years or so at various locations in Mexico. Permits may be obtained, but are basically very difficult to get, and generally much too expensive unless there is a major financial project to support the activity.

There are many ruin sites where one could slip a tripod into the site and use it, but I don't want to break the law in a foreign country.

Sandy King

 

[sanking]

A brief update to an old post. In an effort to answer my own question I bought and used quite a bit of Efke 25 in 120 size in comparison with Fuji Acros. Efke 25 gives wonderful results in soft lighting, with almost no grain in magnification up to about 15X-20X, and sharpness is very good. Reciprocity failure was not a problem at exposure speeds of about one-half to one second, which is where I tend to work a lot. It has a lot of contrast and needs good control of development or you can easily get too much highlight density. I rated it at EI 25.

Efke 120 film has a very pronounced curl when dry after processing and this has proved to be an inconvenience for me with my method of scanning.

Sharpness and grain is comparable to Fuji Acros, which I rate at EI 50. Overall I found no advantage to Efke 25 over Acros, which is faster and has less reciprocity failure at very slow shutter speeds, and the curl of Efke 25 is problem for my work. The only area where I would give Efke 25 a slight advantage would be with soft lighting, but Acros is no slouch either with this type of lighting.

Still, if someone were to offer me a lot of free Efke 25 I would definitely find a use for it.

I never got around to comparison testing of Pan F, though I have used it in the past and am generally familiar with its characteristics.

Sandy King

 

[rwboyer]

A brief update to an old post. In an effort to answer my own question I bought and used quite a bit of Efke 25 in 120 size. It gives wonderful results in soft lighting, with almost no grain in magnification up to about 15X-20X, and sharpness is very good. Reciprocity failure was not a problem at exposure speeds of about one-half to one second, which is where I tend to work a lot. Efke 25 has a lot of contrast and needs good control of development or you can easily get too much highlight density. I rated it at EI 25.

Efke 120 film has a very pronounced curl when dry after processing and this has proved to be an inconvenience for me with my method of scanning.

Sharpness and grain is comparable to Fuji Acros, which I rate at EI 50. Overall I found no advantage to Efke 25 over Acros, which is faster and has less reciprocity failure at very slow shutter speeds, and the curl of Efke 25 is problem for my work. The only area where I would give Efke 25 a slight advantage would be with soft lighting, but Acros is no slouch either with this type of lighting.

Still, if someone were to offer me a lot of free Efke 25 I would definitely find a use for it.

Sandy King

I shot 10 rolls of Efke 120 and that was it for me - the base is so curly in Pyrocat HD it is just too too much to deal with - I am way too used to Kodak perfectly clear perfectly flat base in 120 right out of the soup.

The PL-100 sheet film base is fine but I found some anomalies in EI (nothing to go nuts about) but also some strange contrast issues that I could not get anything close to N+1 let alone N+2 out of - like some kind of brick wall.

I am done with Efke - call me a curmudgeon but I will stick with stuff that I KNOW works - I have enough challenges as it is without having to beat film base and strange emulsion variability into submission.

RB

Ps. Sandy - I was the one inquiring about dev times for PL100 and contrast issues with Pyrocat - I could not even get N+1 (barely N) with HC110 Dil B !!!!!! I was going to try Dektol just to see but said to hell with this - I am back in TMAX/TRIX land and loving life.

RB