Fuji Acros Vs Efke 25 or Pan F

[sanking]

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

 

[dwdmguy]

Sandy, I have some frozen Kodak TriPan, APX 25 and Artista Ultra that is shot at 25 is stunning.

 

[trexx]

I have shot all three. Grain from better to good is Efke25-> Pan-F-> Acros, but barely discernible to my poor eyes and testing. What I can say, like you, is Acros and Mamiya 7II is my favorite combination. There is something about Acros that makes the finished product stand out from the other two film.

 

[MikeSeb]

Shoot the film you know. Hard to imagine doing a lot better than Acros.

The M7 on a tripod will produce incredible images. But you already know that!

 

[patrickjames]

I think you have already answered your own question Sandy. If you like Acros just stick with it.

 

[rwboyer]

Ever think maybe about TMX? Really fantastic stuff, esp in sheet/MF film sizes.

I kinda like it in your developer formulations.

RB

 

[mcfactor]

I personally love Pan F shot at 25 iso, the midtones are absolutely beautiful. Efke 25 is inherently higher contrast and possibly a bit sharper. I found Pan F a lot easier to use and more versatile: can shoot it at 50 if necessary, better quality control, easier to find. I used it while I was living and traveling in Korea and Japan, most of the images from the "spaces" section of my website were taken with Pan F on the Mamiya 7.
http://www.noahmclaurine.com

 

[sanking]

Ever think maybe about TMX? Really fantastic stuff, esp in sheet/MF film sizes.

I kinda like it in your developer formulations.

RB

I really don't find much to separate Tmax-100 from Fuji Acros. Both have very fine grain and high resolution. However, between the two the lower reciprocity failure of Acros tips the scale for me. But other wise both are superb films.

Sandy King

 

[rwboyer]

I really don't find much to separate Tmax-100 from Fuji Acros. Both have very fine grain and high resolution. However, between the two the lower reciprocity failure of Acros tips the scale for me. But other wise both are superb films.

Sandy King

I guess I am partial to the yellow box? Actually under 40x magnification I find TMX grain smaller than Acros - not a huge deal but in everything that I have examined at 40x TMX has the smallest grain. If you are enlarging 12x it may make a slight visual difference if you are close up. Other wise I agree both are fantastic.

RB

 

[rwboyer]

Oh one other thing - TMX is no slouch for reciprocity in most real world light/f-stop situations as you know. Sometimes I wish it had less for special effects (not often but I have actually blown shots that I had envisioned because I could not get long enough exposure times with the ND's I had with me.)

RB

 

[mikebarger]

I haven't bought any in a fair amount of time, but I ran into QA issues with Efke 25 and it curled tighter than a soda straw. Maybe could live with the curl, but I'd hate to gamble their QA standards (or lack of) on a trip like this.

Just 2 cents worth.

Mike

 

[pgomena]

I've found that Pan F+ gives exaggerated edge effects in reduced agitation techniques that I don't like. Acros does not.

Peter Gomena

 

[Martin Aislabie]

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

Sandy King

Sandy - I'd be interested in your findings, as I am sure would many others on the forum

Thanks

Martin

 

[Mark Antony]

Angel on left shoulder:
Go for Acros, its a good consistent film, you know it gives you good results because you currently use it.

Now the devil on the right shoulder:
Try some Rollei ATP 1.1 it sooo sharp, its slower but you'll be using a tripod-think of all those huge prints you can make...

 

[sanking]

Angel on left shoulder:
Go for Acros, its a good consistent film, you know it gives you good results because you currently use it.

Now the devil on the right shoulder:
Try some Rollei ATP 1.1 it sooo sharp, its slower but you'll be using a tripod-think of all those huge prints you can make...

How does Rollei ATP compare to Rollei Pan 25?

Sandy King

 

[keithwms]

I have shot the ATP, it probably offers the very highest res but the tonality was all wrong in my case because I didn't develop it right. I would take Rollei's recommendations very seriously and review those for tech pan as well. If you do that then you will probably get ~LF resolution from your M7ii. I do like the pan 25 very much. What can I say about it... well it's sharp as one could possibly ever need and in xtol it sings. Just for that reason I think I'd prefer it to ATP. ATP needs special development IMHO. I was thinking to try it with POTA next time. I mean, my normal development gave me a document film tonality :rolleyes: that was my mistake of course... but is it really worth the bother to refine a new dev process just for a few extra bits of info? I don't think so, not with a 6x7 neg. 35mm, sure, but 6x7 from a 7ii is already basically ~4x5 LF if your technique is solid.

But... and this is a big but.... I don't think it's useful to think of this as X=Y or X is as good as Y etc., it's all about what best enables you to get the shots in your imagination, what doesn't overburden you, what makes you feel most productive. And there is something to be said for feeling "at home" with your gear and your film and process, especially when you are away from home. That said, why bother to run tech pan through your M7ii just for a few extra bits of resolution; why not use what you know and love and what works for you. Nobody but nobody is going to care about the extra bit of resolution that you eke out of R25 / pan f / efke 25 etc. I mean, you know as well as anybody that you don't have to do anything heroic to get fabulous results from an M7ii. If I were shooting 35mm, then I would consider atp. But with a 7ii... oh hell why not just shoot acros and be happy

 

[jim appleyard]

Sandy, like Mike, I also had QC issues with Efke. Lovly images in PCat HD, but I had to amke sure I took two shots of everything to get past the QC issues. Great film otherwise, but rather expensive in this regard.

I assume you're going to soup in one of your P'Cat devs?

Pan-F doesn't stain well and I haven't been able to lock in my times with 120 size yet.

With Efke, I went right off the MDC and bam, spot in.

As said above, if you know Acros, use it. Cambodia's a long way to go to experiment.

 

[surfotog]

I'll vote with Mark Antony on the Rollei ATP. I develop in Formulary TD-3 and it is absolutely grainless under a 15x loupe, not to mention super-sharp. I tried Rollei Pan 25, and while it's a nice film, it doesn't come close to ATP's resolving power and utter lack of grain. Paired with the Mamiya's superb lenses, it would produce spectacular results.

 

[Mark Fisher]

I only have experience with Pan F and Acros. I needed to shoot Pan F at 25 or so to get the results I liked. Acros I tend to shoot at 80. Between that and the reciprocity, it is hard for me to justify any small gain in graininess. Any small breeze foils any gain in sharpness I might hope for.

 

[fschifano]

Acros is good. I like TMX in XTOL better. PanF+? No. Lousy reciprocity failure figures and shoulders off in the highlights too fast. Not as fine grained as TMX either. Very slow in the shadows too. Efke? Don't trust it. Heard too many horror stories about QC to trust it on a special project. Specialty films pressed into service as general picture taking films? I don't think so.

 

[sanking]

As said above, if you know Acros, use it. Cambodia's a long way to go to experiment.

Well, you can bet that if I decide to use a film other than Acros on this trip it will not be one that I have not experimented with. I am basically just interested to know if someone likes another film enough to convince me that it might work better for me than Acros. I plan to test Efke 25 because I have some of it on hand, as well as Rollei Pan 25. I might also order a few rolls of Rollei ATP to see how it works.

Sandy

 

[Allen Friday]

Sandy,

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

 

[Ektagraphic]

How about some Plus-X

 

[epatsellis]

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.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Allen Friday has a good point.

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

My photos from a recent trip to China are making me very happy - shot on Pan-F+ in Rodinal. Very easy to print, no highlight issues (likely an agitation issue as much as a developer choice) and really nice fine grain, too. You already know a person's film choice is not very transferable, and Acros works for you. FWIW, I give a strong vote to Pan-F+ if you really want to try a new one.

Why not take 2/3rds Acros, and the remaining stock in Pan F+ ?