fuji across and woods...

[Willie Jan]

Hi,

With some members of our photoclub we are trying to use the fuji across for making pics in the woods.

Our goal is to have a print that shows the truth...
We do not make pics during the day with a lot of sun. We stay withing the range of 4-5 stops.

What we found out until now is that the across can not register the contrast between dark trees and lighter areas as tri-x does. Rating film as 50 or using pyrocat still does not help. The neg has all the information, but it is not printable.
When we compair the neg with a tri-x neg, they look the same, but the trix is printable and the across not.

Looks like the across can not get more than 3 stops of contrast.
Has anyone got the same problem with this film?

for studio work it is a very good/sharp film. But we do not go beyond 2-3 stops.

 

[George Papantoniou]

Are you nuts ? Or are you dutch ? B&W films go way beyond 3, 4 or 5 stops...

How do you develop your film ? And what method do you use to determine the exposure latitude of the films in question ? Acros is a great film, by the way... not at all as you describe it.

 

[Willie Jan]

The highlights are to light. besides that the total impression of the photo is to dark as what we have seen on the spot.

development in rodinal or pyro has the same problem where using tri-x shows a much lighter scene on paper (more realistic) than across. We are trying to get the same result as what we get with tri-x. But until now without result.

we know what we are doing with development. change (+) exposure and shorter development also does not do the trick. The overall image stays to dark where tri-x shows a bright scene...

Across is indeed a nice film (i use it allready for 5 years), but with nature scenes we want to show the reality....

One solution would be to use tri-x, but we want to get the across right for this kind of job....

 

[P C Headland]

I'm not sure what dilution you're using for Rodinal, but try 1+100 for 18 minutes. Five gentle inversions at the start of each minute for the first three minutes, then one inversion every three minutes. Temperature should be 20C. Rate the film at 80-100. You should get a very easy to print negative.

 

[Mark Antony]

As the previous poster said, try Rodinal for 18min 1:100.
Sounds like you are over developing the film, I can easily get a wider tonal range than you seem to think is normal.

 

[nze]

for sure Tri-x will work better but you can get good result with rodinal 1+100 as wrote PC head land. I had the same problem as you years ago and solve it with rodinal 1+100

 

[Willie Jan]

As the previous poster said, try Rodinal for 18min 1:100.
Sounds like you are over developing the film, I can easily get a wider tonal range than you seem to think is normal.

Why would you dilute further when the whole scene is not more than 4-5 stops? This should be printable without changing deveopment of the film.

 

[ChuckP]

Have you changed the paper contrast to try and match the negative? Is the problem that the tree trucks are too dark when you have the light tones printed the way you want them? Then you need to expose more to bring the trucks up and cut development to control the highlights. Or maybe flash the paper to bring in the highlights with a lower print exposure. Also try bracketing some exposures to see if you can find what you want.

 

[Russ Young]

Hi-

I use Acros as my standard film in 120 format. Here at 7,000' elevation, the contrast, due to the clarity of the air, is about a stop or more than at sea level. Back when first testing this film, it was clear it could record a ten stop range, far more than your requirements (with TMAX developer 1:7 23C 12minutes). I now use it with Rodinal as well and the result is similar.

Could the problem be agitation? Maybe you could try using distilled water to mix the developer? Double-check that your thermometer is accurate! This is a marvelous film...

Good luck,
Russ

 

[John Simmons]

I use acros quite a bit and never have the problems you describe. I rate the film at 64 and expose my shadow areas at a zone 4-5. This puts your shadow areas on the straight line portion of the curve. Rodinal at higher dilutions works well and I have found Ilford Perceptol 1+2 for 16 minutes to work fantastic. DiXactol and Pyrocat work just ok in my opinion for this film but others seem to swear by pyro developers and acros. It is very important that you give shadow areas generous exposure, especially with rodinal IMO, otherwise they will drop out...at least thats been my experience.

Regards,
John

 

[RoBBo]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/falcon_awesome/535695259/
Across in one of the most ridiculous high contrast scenes I've ever shot (the men playing chess are under an overhang and in a deep shadow.), you can see the full tonal range and nice separation.
There's no way you're having it blow out on you in a 3 stop range unless you're simply messing up your development.

 

[gainer]

Acros range.

I live in an area of woods and hills. My hill qualifies to be a mountain in some countries, and I live halfway up it. The brightness range of such scenes is considerably greater than most meter readings would lead one to believe. There are very small areas where the sunlight manages to sneak through. If you get close enough to measure them accurately, your meter's shadow may cause an error. I can understand, if your woods are like mine, how you might think you have a small scene brightness range. Perhaps it would be good to bracket the exposures and try different development times. If I am right, you will find what must be done. If I am wrong...well, there's a first time for everything. At any rate, I am quite sure that a photograph of a step density card will show that the range of your film is much greater than 3 steps.

 

[pentaxuser]

Please take this in the spirit of trying to help all of us to help you get to the bottom of your problem. However there has to be something contradictory in your description. You seem to be saying that the Acros neg and Tri-X neg look the same, carry the same level of detail but the print from Acros loses shadow detail and consists of too much black and white rather than a similar range of greys contained in the Tri-X print.

All of this is happening in a scene with a subject brightness range(SBR) of only 4-5 stops? I think we can take it that Acros has the ability to handle such a small SBR so essentially we can rule out Acros film per se being the problem

If you are also saying that you print on the same grade of identical paper with the same developer etc and arrive at an over contrasty print from the Acros neg then logically the Acros neg itself has to be more contrasty than the Tri-X. The two negs cannot be the same, surely, even if they look similar.

Normally a test print can determine what the correct grade is or a B&W analyser. I'd be surprised if an analyser tells you that the grade of each is identical, resulting in one print losing shadow detail but the other retaining it. Such analysers would be useless. RH Designs would certainly be out of business!

Have you tried reducing the grade from the Acros print? If not I'd try this. If the detail is there in the Acros neg then a softer grade should reveal this detail.

As I have said, I am not trying to be rude but I think that there must be a flaw in your description of the facts.

A densitometer should reveal whether the two negs are different but given your problem, I would have thought that one neg should look more contrasty to the eye to produce such a difference in the print.

I hope we help you get to the bottom of your problem

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

The highlights are to light. besides that the total impression of the photo is to dark as what we have seen on the spot.

development in rodinal or pyro has the same problem where using tri-x shows a much lighter scene on paper (more realistic) than across. We are trying to get the same result as what we get with tri-x. But until now without result.

we know what we are doing with development. change (+) exposure and shorter development also does not do the trick. The overall image stays to dark where tri-x shows a bright scene...

Across is indeed a nice film (i use it allready for 5 years), but with nature scenes we want to show the reality....

One solution would be to use tri-x, but we want to get the across right for this kind of job....

You said - The highlights are to light.

It sounds to me that you are probably overexposing the highlights (assuming that the higlights are too light in a print from the negative.)

Also, what dilution of pyrocat are you using and what is your agitation procedure?

 

[m_liddell]

I've used acros with pyrocat and managed to record a huge brightness ranges with detail maintained all the way to the edge of the sun in the frame while keeping the foreground exposed correctly.

 

[dynachrome]

ACROS Developing

My favorite developer for ACROS is Fuji Microfine, full strength. You can get it from the Megaperls webshop in Japan (www.unicircuits.com). It works fine with the film rated at 100. Another nice developer for ACROS is Ilford Microphen. It also gives a speed of at least 100. Shooting in shaded areas with b&w film and shooting various shades of green is tricky. If I had a choice I might prefer to use Tri-X in the 6X7 format rather than ACROS in 35mm. ACROS has very fine grain and extremely high sharpness but is tricky if your scene has too much or too little contrast. If you can't get Microfine try Microphen, bracket your exposures in 1/2 stop increments and makes notes on each exposure.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I've used acros with pyrocat and managed to record a huge brightness ranges with detail maintained all the way to the edge of the sun in the frame while keeping the foreground exposed correctly.

I also obtain excellent results with Acros exposed in high SBR situations and developed in Pyrocat.

 

[toadhall]

I shoot a great deal in treed areas (primarily light-toned aspens), with light and shadow. I've used Acros, developed in Rodinal (Photographer's Formulary version, 1:100 or 1:125, minimal agitation method, 19 or more minutes) or Prescycol EF, and excepting exposure screw-ups on my part, had excellent tonal rendering and range. Mind you I don't print, but (sacre bleu!) scan with a Nikon 8000 and then use a digital darkroom. Therefore, I can't offer advice on printing, but can't believe that Acros is at fault.

 

[Willie Jan]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/falcon_awesome/535695259/
Across in one of the most ridiculous high contrast scenes I've ever shot (the men playing chess are under an overhang and in a deep shadow.), you can see the full tonal range and nice separation.
There's no way you're having it blow out on you in a 3 stop range unless you're simply messing up your development.

it could be my monitor, but when i adjust your photo (curve) so that the colors are more accurate (i find it to soft) the back also starts to disappear.
This is no problem if you photo covers over 4 stops of light, but if not this is what i mean....

 

[Willie Jan]

You said - The highlights are to light.

It sounds to me that you are probably overexposing the highlights (assuming that the higlights are too light in a print from the negative.)

Also, what dilution of pyrocat are you using and what is your agitation procedure?

I use pyrocat HD at 1:1:100, 20 degrees C 19 minutes when exposed as 100, 15.5 minutes when exposed as 50asa.
agitation first minute, after that 10 seconds each minute.

 

[m_liddell]

I use pyrocat HD at 1:1:100, 20 degrees C 19 minutes when exposed as 100, 15.5 minutes when exposed as 50asa.
agitation first minute, after that 10 seconds each minute.

When I tested it with pyrocat hd 1:1:100, acros came out at @ EI80 11mins 20C. Agitation first 30 secs, after that 1 inversion each 30secs.

Someone else on this forum got exactly the same as I did.

 

[Willie Jan]

When I tested it with pyrocat hd 1:1:100, acros came out at @ EI80 11mins 20C. Agitation first 30 secs, after that 1 inversion each 30secs.

Someone else on this forum got exactly the same as I did.

i use a diffusor enlarger and need to extend the development to get a print at grade 2. I tested with a 5 zone black/white and a gray card at .68 to get the right develop time

And i do a presoak of 2 minutes....

 

[Maine-iac]

Hi,

With some members of our photoclub we are trying to use the fuji across for making pics in the woods.

Our goal is to have a print that shows the truth...
We do not make pics during the day with a lot of sun. We stay withing the range of 4-5 stops.

What we found out until now is that the across can not register the contrast between dark trees and lighter areas as tri-x does. Rating film as 50 or using pyrocat still does not help. The neg has all the information, but it is not printable.
When we compair the neg with a tri-x neg, they look the same, but the trix is printable and the across not.

Looks like the across can not get more than 3 stops of contrast.
Has anyone got the same problem with this film?

for studio work it is a very good/sharp film. But we do not go beyond 2-3 stops.

Try Gainer's PC-Glycol formula (or similar) or just mix it without the glycol to try it with Acros. I use it consistently and get long-scale, very printable negatives. This is similar to Xtol, so if you prefer to buy rather than mix your own, the effect will be the same.

2.5 g Phenidone
4 g Ascorbic Acid
5 g sodium carbonate
1 liter water

Try 7:30 minutes at 22C. Adjust times from there.

If you want even finer grain, use 5 g sodium metaborate instead of carbonate and increase developing time to 9 minutes.

Overdevelopment is fatal to the highlights in ACROS, however, so you may need to adjust your times according to what you want. I rate it at ISO 64, but that's for my equipment. Yours might be different.

Larry

 

[Willie Jan]

"Overdevelopment is fatal to the highlights in ACROS"

Maybe thats where we go wrong...
Besides that i will try to give it less agitation.

 

[Vonder]

I just developed my first roll of Acros. I'm a Luddite when it comes to developing - my photography class back in 1978 used D-76 and that's all I've ever used. The results are fine, and not overly contrasty. I have some private images of delicate female bits and they show proper areas of light and shadow. I also have high-contrast images and they show up as high-contrast images. The film DOES seem higher in contrast than any other B&W film I've used, but no shadows or highlights are being lost.

My question to those who have done Acros in D-76 as well as other developers, what do you now use and why?