Fuji Acros Vs Efke 25 or Pan F

[rwboyer]

One more thing - I have not shot much acros - just some demo stuff I got free a long long time ago but with all the praise I may have to try it - my main goal w/ efke was cost of shooting a bunch of 8x10 for an experimental project I am working on. (lot's o throw-away) I have always had no issues with TMAX 100.

Could you elaborate on why you like Acros more than TMAX in a little detail?

RB

 

[sanking]

One more thing - I have not shot much acros - just some demo stuff I got free a long long time ago but with all the praise I may have to try it - my main goal w/ efke was cost of shooting a bunch of 8x10 for an experimental project I am working on. (lot's o throw-away) I have always had no issues with TMAX 100.

Could you elaborate on why you like Acros more than TMAX in a little detail?

RB

I think Tmax-100 is an excellent film. But Fuji Acros, IMO, is just as sharp and the grain is just as fine (maybe a tad bit finer), and Acros has less reciprocity failure than any film on the market. And if that were not enough I am able to purchase Acros at about $1 a roll less than Tmax 100.

Kind of a no brainer! Better film, IMO, and less expensive at the same time.

Tmax has slightly more red sensitivity than Acros but I don't find that to be a problem.

Sandy King

 

[sanking]

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.

I also developed the Efke 25 in Pyrocat-HD but I am almost positive that you would get the heavy curl with any developer.

Sandy

 

[Curt]

Hi Sandy, was Rollei Pan 25 ever a consideration?

Curt

 

[sanking]

Hi Sandy, was Rollei Pan 25 ever a consideration?

Curt

Curt,

Rollei Pan 25 is an outstanding film. I posted an example of my work with this film and the Mamiya 7II 43mm or 50mm lens in another thread back in the fall. I had to rate it at EI 12 or so but in terms of sharpness and grain it is the top 120 film I have used. Rollei ATP may be slightly better but Pan 25 is a general purpose type of film while ATP is more like Tech Pan and requires very careful processing.

I would use Rollei Pan 25 more but the price is a bit off-putting. And when push comes to shove I don't often print large enough to justify the slight sharpness and grain advantage of Rollei Pan 25 over Acros.

Sandy King

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Hi Sandy,
I was intrigued and just read this entire thread. Have you tried any Adox CMS 20? I think they only make it in 35mm. I just shot some and it was increadible, even a big improvement in resolution and "no grain" compared to TMax. I did not think the result was possible, but it is. What I'm wondering is if someone could do ( or has already done) a test of the CMS 20 in a 35mm Leica vs the Mamiya 7 with Acros or Tmax. That would be really interesting to me, because with the fstop difference, I think that would give about similar shutter speeds.
Just curious what the outcome would be.
Jed

 

[sanking]

Hi Sandy,
I was intrigued and just read this entire thread. Have you tried any Adox CMS 20? I think they only make it in 35mm. I just shot some and it was increadible, even a big improvement in resolution and "no grain" compared to TMax. I did not think the result was possible, but it is. What I'm wondering is if someone could do ( or has already done) a test of the CMS 20 in a 35mm Leica vs the Mamiya 7 with Acros or Tmax. That would be really interesting to me, because with the fstop difference, I think that would give about similar shutter speeds.
Just curious what the outcome would be.
Jed

Jed,

I have seen 35mm work in Adox CMS 20 and the result is very impressive. However, I don't use 35mm and CMS 20 is not available in roll film, as you correctly observe.

A couple of years ago I took part in a shootout where there was a comparison of CMS 20 with a Leica MP and high quality aspheric Leitz lens, and Mamiya 7 with Acros, using the standard 80mm lens, plus a 4X5 film camera, and a P45 digital back. There was not much difference between the 35mm and 120 results, and results with both were very comparable to 4X5 in terms of grain and sharpness. I won't comment on the comparisons to the P45 phase back since they don't approve of digital versus film comparisons here.

Sandy King

 

[RobertV]

Going to special films, Rollei ATP1.1 is available in 35mm and 120 roll film. The disadvantages are special processing and more or less some special low contrast (document) developers.
400ln/mm where a Rollei Pan 25 stops around 200ln/mm but more universal in different developers and therefore my favorite film in 35mm (Leica R.F.) and 6x7cm R.F. camera.

Best regards,

Robert

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Ah, thanks for that update. I was wondering if it was really that good, and it appears to be so. That makes me wonder...what would it take for them to make something like ADOX CMS 20 in the 120 format or even a 4x5? That would be insane!

I appreciate the info, thanks.
Jed

 

[sanking]

Ah, thanks for that update. I was wondering if it was really that good, and it appears to be so. That makes me wonder...what would it take for them to make something like ADOX CMS 20 in the 120 format or even a 4x5? That would be insane!

I appreciate the info, thanks.
Jed

Adox CMS 20 in 120 size would be great. Question is, would the optics of any MF system, even the Bessa III or Mamiya 6 and 7, support the resolution?

In 4X5 CMS 20 would be over-kill, IMO. It would for all practical purposes be impossible to take advantage of a film that is capable of over 150 lp/mm with equipment and optics that can not deliver even one-half of that.

Sandy King

 

[dynachrome]

I still have a good supply of Kodak Imagelink HQ and FS films in 120 size. These were cut down from 105mm wide stock. I would say that these films provide grain as fine as what I could expect from any other film. Even if we stipulate that keeping the film flat enough to get 200 lp/mm is not realistic there is the issue that documant films do not handle contrasty lighting as well as general purpose films. If I were doing a test by shooting newsprint in the right light, a document film would show less grain than a general purpose film like Pan F+ or ACROS. With the right technique I might get close to medium format quality with document film in 35mm format but general purpose film im medium format would be able to handle a lot more shooting situations than document film in any format.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Hmm, I see. I'm just starting to check out the docment films, and the resolution + lack of grain is amazing. I can't really say much about the capability of tonal range yet, because I've only shot one roll of CMS 20 so far, and most of the exposures were of a USAF 1951 chart for measuring lp/mm!

I did take some shots of my daughter and some of a few flowers outside after the test shots, and really need to print those to check the tones.
Thanks for the discussion,
Jed

 

[L Gebhardt]

I'm not sure I need super fine grain that a document film would provide in 6x7. A 16x20 is effectively grainless with even a film like FP4+. I see the main advantage of these document films being for smaller formats like 35mm and maybe 645. For me Acros is a winner because of the fine grain, low cost, nice tonality and availability in 35mm through 4x5 sizes.

Sandy, have you tested the Mamiya 7 lenses for resolving power? Can they out resolve Acros? My impression is they significantly out resolve my 4x5 lenses, almost to the point that I can't tell the difference in 20x24 prints and smaller (which is almost all of mine).

 

[sanking]

I'm not sure I need super fine grain that a document film would provide in 6x7. A 16x20 is effectively grainless with even a film like FP4+. I see the main advantage of these document films being for smaller formats like 35mm and maybe 645. For me Acros is a winner because of the fine grain, low cost, nice tonality and availability in 35mm through 4x5 sizes.

Sandy, have you tested the Mamiya 7 lenses for resolving power? Can they out resolve Acros? My impression is they significantly out resolve my 4x5 lenses, almost to the point that I can't tell the difference in 20x24 prints and smaller (which is almost all of mine).

I am pretty much in agreement. Unless you print very large (over 35X45") from 6X7cm format there is little if any difference in grain and sharpness between films of ASA 100 or slower like FP4+, Tmax-100 and Fuji Acros. That was my supposition when I started this thread and after a lot of testing and many responses from others, I now take it as fact.

And yes, I have tested the resolution of my Mamiya 7II optics and all of them are capable of about 30-40% more resolution than I can get with 4X5 or 5X7. Assuming good technique with Mamiya 7II and 4X5 my finding is same as yours, i.e. very little if any difference in image quality at print size of 20X24" or less.

Sandy King

 

[stevew]

Acros vs Tmax

Sandy,

I use your pcat hd on both Acros and Tmax. One point is the Tmax has a thicker base and lays flatter on my 6x17 and 6x12. I use the Acros on my Fuji 645 and think it is a very nice film, and cheaper.

 

[mcfactor]

I realize this thread is old, but I have been using Adox Pan 25 in 8x10, which is the same film as Rollei Pan 25, sold from Freestyle. I process it in Rodinal 1:100 and the results are inrcredible! When contact printing there is a certain look that the extreme resolution provides that isnt there with, say Hp5 400 or even Delta 100. I dream about how large I can make them if I ever had the resources. I just ordered some pyrocat-HD and MC, so I will see how they compare to rodinal for this film. Very interesting to see the results of all these tests though.

 

[Athiril]

How does Rollei ATP compare to Rollei Pan 25?

Sandy King

Rollei ATP is superpanchromatic, and is sensitive out to 700nm, very nice stuff, its higher speed complemntaries (though not needing lowered contrast development) are Rollei Retro 80s and 400s (note the s), which are 740 and 750nm respectively iirc.

I prefer the ATP/80s/400s to the Rollei/Efke/Adox Pan 25/50/100, and RPX/APX/Retro 100 and 400 for the higher spectral sensitivity.


Rodinal 1+300, 12 mins for ATP.


If you can't handle the special low contrast development needs of ATP, then go with Rollei 80s, it is superpanchromatic as well, and still very sharp and fine grained.


Sorry for digging up, but this repeatedly came up in my google searches, so I figure I'd add in 2 cents for other people finding the same thread.

 

[Роберт]

I have seen in Germany terrific results with the ATP1.1 and the new ATP-DC two part developer which seems to be improved for a 35mm version and a 120 roll film version.
But it's specially made for this film to keep the contrast under control.

The Retro 80S tends with some developers to an S-curve so you have to watch out in the highlights then. But indeed very fine grained.

The Retro 400S is my replacement for the Neopan 400 in roll film. Pretty fine grain but very sharp however less good in push development. And indeed as extra you can use these films (80S - 400S) for IR photography.