Fujifilm Neopan Acros II: Test Report

[Henning Serger]

Hello dear BW film shooters,
as promised some time ago (sorry for the delay), and on request of several photrio members, here finally my detailed test report about the new Acros II. It is based on a detailed test report I have published in the German film photography print magazine PhotoKlassik in last winter.

When Acros II was introduced in Japan last November, I immediately ordered lots of it in 135 and 120 in Japan.
After the shipment arrived I started intensive testing, including Acros I vs. Acros II comparisons.
I did my scientific standard film tests in my photography test lab. And I did several shootings of different subjects, too.

The test results are very positive:
a) Acros II has absolutely nothing to do with any Kentmere / Ilford film! All these weird conspiracy theories about Acros II being just another repackaged Harman technology / Ilford Photo film (because of the "Made in UK" on the boxes) are completely wrong and have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

b) Acros II has exactly the same outstanding reciprocity characteristic as Acros I. I have tested it. It is also documented in the data sheet of Acros II, and the data sheet is absolutely right.
That is extremely important because no other BW film has this unique and outstanding characteristic.
And in colour only Fujichrome Provia 100F has that wonderful feature.

c) The excellent detail rendition of Acros I is also given by Acros II: Resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain are identical. Both films have identical MTF curves and identical RMS value. I checked it with my sophisticated resolution, sharpness and grain tests in my test lab, and both films are again identical. Data sheet is correct. Great news again.

d) There are some very small and negligible differences in spectral sensitivity, and a small difference concerning the characteristic curve in the highlights (with some developers).
Spectral sensitivity:
Acros II is a little bit less orthopanchromatic than Acros I. Therefore reds are recorded a little bit lighter with Acros II compared to Acros I. But the difference is so small that most users will probably don't see it.
Shape of the characteristic curve:
Fujifilm has explained - and it is also visible in the published characteristic curve in the data sheet - that there is steeper contrast and tone separation in the highlights (Zone VIII to X). More of an "upswing", disproportionate shape of the cc with more dense highlights.
Form my tests I can confirm that it is there - with standard agitation and developers, which produce a straight, linear cc (like DD-X, T-Max Dev, Tetenal Ultrafin T-Plus etc.).
Personally I don't want these more dense highlights. I prefer a linear shape of the curve, or often also a curve which is a bit flattened in Zone IX and X (semi-compensating development with a bit more highlight detail).
Good news for all those photographers which have the same preference like me : Both a linear curve (without "upswing" in the highlights) and a semi-compensating (or even full compensating) curve are also possible with Acros II:
- either use less agitation (e.g. 1x per minute)
- or use a (semi-)compensating developer like ADOX FX-39 II (my preferred developer for Acros) or ADOX Rodinal in 1+75 (1+100) dilution, or D-76 in 1+1 or 1+2
- or combine less agitation with a (semi)compensating developer.
Result: You can create the characteristic curve you want / need with Acros II. It is just a matter of the right developer and right agitation for your preferred curve shape.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[peter k.]

Awesome, thank you very much.

 

[removedacct1]

I find it ironic that Acros used to be one of THE cheapest 120 roll films, and now its THE most expensive.

 

[Henning Serger]

I find it ironic that Acros used to be one of THE cheapest 120 roll films, and now its THE most expensive.

When it was the cheapest, it was a completely different time:
- At that time (around 2007 / 2008) the global market for photo film was still about 1 billion units p.a.. So still a huge mass market. In 2020 the market size is less than 10% of the that 2007/08 volume. It is a niche market now in comparison.
- At that time film demand was declining with yearly rates of 15-25% (depending on the regional market), and all film manufacturers tried to keep as much market share as possible by avoiding the necessary price increases (and Fuji's marketing strategy in "film boom times" has always been to sell cheaper than Kodak). That strategy of course could only work for a limited time in a strongly decreasing market. Some time later the critical point was reached and all manufacturers had to adopt to new market reality, with prices that cover at least the manufacturing costs.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Awesome, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Thank you very much Henning. Worth the wait and, given that you've been able to post this thread, confirmation that things have improved for you, which is great news.

 

[pentaxuser]

When it was the cheapest, it was a completely different time:
- At that time (around 2007 / 2008) the global market for photo film was still about 1 billion units p.a.. So still a huge mass market. In 2020 the market size is less than 10% of the that 2007/08 volume. It is a niche market now in comparison.
- At that time film demand was declining with yearly rates of 15-25% (depending on the regional market), and all film manufacturers tried to keep as much market share as possible by avoiding the necessary price increases (and Fuji's marketing strategy in "film boom times" has always been to sell cheaper than Kodak). That strategy of course could only work for a limited time in a strongly decreasing market. Some time later the critical point was reached and all manufacturers had to adopt to new market reality, with prices that cover at least the manufacturing costs.

Best regards,
Henning

I think the importance of the point being made about its price in 2007 was that then it was very competitive amongst film makers . Since then things have changed as you say in the film market place. I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you there but things have changed for everyone and yet Fuji Acros II has now ended up as one of the most expensive films so it is relativities in pricing that we are talking about and simply pointing out that Acros II has risen in price much more, relatively speaking, compared to other films.

pentaxuser

 

[Henning Serger]

Thank you very much Henning. Worth the wait and, given that you've been able to post this thread, confirmation that things have improved for you, which is great news.

Hello Sal,
your grandmother would say "keine Ursache, gern geschehen" .
You're welcome.
And yes, the situation is fortunately improving.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

.......Fuji Acros II has now ended up as one of the most expensive films so it is relativities in pricing that we are talking about and simply pointing out that Acros II has risen in price much more, relatively speaking, compared to other films.
pentaxuser

And that is of course also due to the new situation that Harman technology is now involved in the production of Acros II. And of course Harman has to be paid for their service. And it isn't cheap service.
We have discussed the potential reasons for it in detail in the past. Makes no sense at all to do it again.
Fujifilm has reasons for it. They have decided it makes sense for them, and they think the advantages outweight the disadvantages. At least for the short and mid term.
My personal opinion is that it would make sense in the long term for Fujifilm to do the complete production again by themselves. But my personal assessment is of course completely irrelevant.

No one is forced to buy this film. There are lots of excellent film alternatives in this medium speed, high resolution and very fine grained film class.
Like PanF+, Delta 100, TMX or ADOX HR-50.
My most used ISO 100/21° BW film has been Delta 100 since its introduction in 1992. My trusty "workhorse". It will also remain my most used ISO 100/21° BW film. But Acros 100 II makes sense for me for certain applications, horses for courses. Therefore I appreciate that the film is back. I have again the possibility to use when I need it.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[pentaxuser]

Henning you may be right that it is the extra cost of using Pemberstone who now run IlfordPhoto that has placed the premium on the price and Fuji decided that it needed IlfordPhoto because its own facilities are stretched with other work but part of the previous thread on Acros II was a discussion on why the box says Made in U.K. and the fact that Ilford finishing was the reason. This makes sense if Fuji are forced to place this label on the box even if Ilford's involvement in Acros is quite limited. Is Fuji actually obliged by law to put "Made in the U.K." when Ilford isn't actually making Acros II by the kind of definition that most of us understand "Made in the U.k. means?. But yes, Ilford does have at least a part in its production. This leads me on to mention the rest of that discussion which was about the Fuji chromogenic film that was the equivalent of Ilford's XP Super. In the latter case Ilford had a much bigger part to play in making the Fuji film and yet this did not make it very much higher priced than its Ilford competitor in contrast to Acros II

I can anticipate the reasons that may now be put forward as to why it is different from the cost of Ilford's involvement with Acros II but it seems to me that you can be no more sure that your reasons to explain the premium on Acros II are any more valid than comparison with Ilford's much larger involvement with the Fuji equivalent of its XP2 Super.

You might be able to demonstrate that the costs for Fuji with Ilford's involvement do make its current price justified. In which case please show us if you are privy to such information from Fuji but otherwise we can only leave it as it as being a difference of opinion between us on what constitutes a " justifiable price"

However looking to the future and the long term and what you believe makes sense for Fuji in terms of taking back "in house" the complete production process, can you say how far away the long term is and how much the price might drop in relative terms compared to its rivals when it does?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Henning Serger]

@pentaxuser:
The whole topic of the Acros II price has been discussed endlessly and to death here on photrio in the past in other threads in different subforums. And I have said what I know about that topic, and what I don't know about it. Period. I cannot add more.
It makes no sense at all to waste further time in repeating the same discussions again and again and again......
In your former posts you have made it clear that you
- haven't been a(n) (regular) Acros I user
- you will not use Acros II because it is too expensive for you.
Fine. Acros II simply is not for you. Don't waste your precious time with it. Better to use the rare time with taking photographes and making prints with the materials you like.

I have posted my test results here in this subforum because members have requested it. The topic is the film characteristic, not business strategies.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Henning Serger do you happen to know the nature of Harman's work on Acros II? Are they confectioning and packaging master rolls coated elsewhere, toll coating a supplied emulsion package, or manufacturing the entire product from start to finish? If they're making the emulsions too, I suspect that there may have been compatibility in technology (both extensively use epitaxial growth techniques) that may have made it easier to make on Harman's plant than anywhere else.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Harman technology is now involved in the production of Acros II...Fujifilm has reasons for it. They have decided it makes sense for them, and they think the advantages outweight the disadvantages...

One of the disadvantages to this user became evident upon opening the box of HARMAN-finished 35mm ACROS II. The last time I exposed 135 film it was ASTIA. That Fujifilm canister was robust, with a positive cap attachment. ACROS II, on the other hand, came in a canister with its cap detached. The box had probably experienced some handling force during shipping, but was intact. The cap, however, which snaps on much less positively than Fujifilm's own, had been dislodged. Also, while Kodak and Fujifilm appear to keep strict control over relative humidity in their plants, HARMAN does not. Therefore, one could not confidently place a sealed box of 135 ACROS II in the freezer compartment of one's refrigerator.

...My personal opinion is that it would make sense in the long term for Fujifilm to do the complete production again by themselves...

I agree completely. Both from the cost perspective as well as to address my above observations.

 

[pentaxuser]

One of the disadvantages to this user became evident upon opening the box of HARMAN-finished 35mm ACROS II. The last time I exposed 135 film it was ASTIA. That Fujifilm canister was robust, with a positive cap attachment. ACROS II, on the other hand, came in a canister with its cap detached. The box had probably experienced some handling force during shipping, but was intact. The cap, however, which snaps on much less positively than Fujifilm's own, had been dislodged. Also, while Kodak and Fujifilm appear to keep strict control over relative humidity in their plants, HARMAN does not. Therefore, one could not confidently place a sealed box of 135 ACROS II in the freezer compartment of one's refrigerator.I agree completely. Both from the cost perspective as well as to address my above observations.

I take it Sal, that you have evidence that IlfordPhoto(Pemberstone) do not keep strict control over relative humidity to the detriment of cassettes and the consequences for users if they store film in the freezer compartment of their refrigerators. If so what is the evidence and what is the link between IlfordPhoto's alleged lack of humidity control and its vulnerability to placing a sealed box of 135 Acros II in the freezer compartment of a refrigerator? . I presume that this same vulnerability applies to all Ilford and Kentmere film as well given that Ilford has either no control or insufficient control over its relative humidity

Have you warned Fuji that it risks disappointed users who have paid quite a premium for Acros II over the issues you mention and when you do warn Fuji you might want to ask them why they have been so careless at best or negligent at worst not to have realised they have consigned the production of a new long-awaited expensive film to what I can only now describe as a company that fails to control quality

pentaxuser

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I take it Sal, that you have evidence that IlfordPhoto(Pemberstone) do not keep strict control over relative humidity to the detriment of cassettes and the consequences for users if they store film in the freezer compartment of their refrigerators. If so what is the evidence and what is the link between IlfordPhoto's alleged lack of humidity control and its vulnerability to placing a sealed box of 135 Acros II in the freezer compartment of a refrigerator?...

"Evidence?" This is not a court of law. I wrote "appears."

There are numerous posts on PHOTRIO from the Simon Galley era at HARMAN. Among them one can find discussions of the annual special sizes program for Ilford films. Timing of the program was noted as related to a need for the summer season in terms of relative humidity. That's what prompted the observation that HARMAN's factory appears not to have strict control over relative humidity in its plant. I've heard of no such seasonal restrictions on Kodak or Fujifilm film production.

Placing film not sealed at low relative humidity inside a non-permeable container within the freezer compartment of an automatic defrosting refrigerator/freezer will subject it to large swings of relative humidity during defrost cycles. That can do damage to the emulsion. In the refrigerator compartment, most modern refrigerator/freezer appliances maintain constant low relative humidity, thus eliminating emulsion risk. Consult your appliance manufacturer for psychometric data on the unit you own.

...Have you warned Fuji that it risks disappointed users who have paid quite a premium for Acros II over the issues you mention and when you do warn Fuji you might want to ask them why they have been so careless at best or negligent at worst not to have realised they have consigned the production of a new long-awaited expensive film to what I can only now describe as a company that fails to control quality...

I am not disappointed in the least. ACROS II is worth every penny of what it currently costs. I am warning users, however, that, if they elect to cold store the film, it would be best to use their refrigerator/freezer's refrigerator compartment and avoid the freezer compartment. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Sal, I think you're getting confused with Fotokemika shutting down over the summer because their plant wasn't air conditioned. Ilford's plant is just as tightly environmentally controlled as any of the other top line manufacturers - and being able to very tightly control RH is an important aspect of modern sensitised material manufacturing - Ilford could not make the products it does if it didn't have a highly controlled manufacturing environment. I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that Ilford did the ULF run when they did because of humidity. What I do think was a bigger factor was that there may have a little more manufacturing capacity when educational institutions weren't demanding as much film over the summer months.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Henning thank you very much..well appreciated!!!

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I think the importance of the point being made about its price in 2007 was that then it was very competitive amongst film makers . Since then things have changed as you say in the film market place. I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you there but things have changed for everyone and yet Fuji Acros II has now ended up as one of the most expensive films so it is relativities in pricing that we are talking about and simply pointing out that Acros II has risen in price much more, relatively speaking, compared to other films.

pentaxuser

I was wondering when this stuff would start up again. OK, so what about the price? So Acros 2 is expensive in your view. Don't use it. You are obsessed with this topic. You go on and on and on with this speculating and wondering what Fuji is doing, etc. Yes, they are definitely targeting YOU with their pricing formula. They specifically do not want YOU to use their product. Meanwhile, we should thank Mr. Serger for analyzing the film and comparing it with Acros 1. He put in a lot of work in his analysis. Thanks Henning.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

@Henning Serger:

Very interesting and informative analysis! Thanks.

Do you or Studio 13 plan to test this film in Scala B&W reversal process?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, I think you're getting confused with Fotokemika shutting down over the summer because their plant wasn't air conditioned. Ilford's plant is just as tightly environmentally controlled as any of the other top line manufacturers - and being able to very tightly control RH is an important aspect of modern sensitised material manufacturing - Ilford could not make the products it does if it didn't have a highly controlled manufacturing environment. I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that Ilford did the ULF run when they did because of humidity. What I do think was a bigger factor was that there may have a little more manufacturing capacity when educational institutions weren't demanding as much film over the summer months.

I expected to be doubted on this, but absolutely wasn't thinking of Fotokemika or any other manufacturer. Unfortunately, searching PHOTRIO has not been easy, so I cannot find the post(s) in question.

In any case, germane to ACROS II, irrespective what the relative humidity was when HARMAN finished/packaged 35mm film, a canister cap that was loose when opening the box means film had been subjected to RH that fluctuated along with ambient. Whether ambient is in a shipping box, on a shelf, in a refrigerator compartment or a freezer. Not confidence inspiring.

 

[K-G]

Thank you Henning. Most helpful.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Agulliver]

Thank you Henning.

It's probably too expensive for my taste too, but I won't go on about that. I wasn't a user of ACROS I either but I understand both I and II have characteristics that many photographers specifically like. As always, you pays your money and takes your choice. We now have the choice of ACROS again, with both the data sheet and Henning's tests showing that it is comparable to the old ACROS. We should be grateful.

 

[Henning Serger]

Thank you all for your kind words! I really appreciate it.

@Henning Serger do you happen to know the nature of Harman's work on Acros II? Are they confectioning and packaging master rolls coated elsewhere, toll coating a supplied emulsion package, or manufacturing the entire product from start to finish? If they're making the emulsions too, I suspect that there may have been compatibility in technology (both extensively use epitaxial growth techniques) that may have made it easier to make on Harman's plant than anywhere else.

Hello Lachlan,
we had this topic last autumn. I posted my analysis about it here, see posting No. 54:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/acros-ii-released.171175/page-3

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Ilford's plant is just as tightly environmentally controlled as any of the other top line manufacturers - and being able to very tightly control RH is an important aspect of modern sensitised material manufacturing - Ilford could not make the products it does if it didn't have a highly controlled manufacturing environment.

I can confirm that from my factory visit at Ilford.

@Sal Santamaura:
So far I never had the problem you have described with the Ilford 35mm film canisters. Not in all the decades with Ilford film, nor now recently with Ilford-finished Acros II. I think - and hope - your case is a very rare exception.
But I agree with you that the Fujifilm canister caps fit more tightly / snappy.

What is a real disadvantage now with the Ilford finishing/converting in my opinion is the roll film:
Fujifilm has by far the best roll film converting quality of all film manufacturers. It is a league of its own, significantly surpassing all the competition.
The
- easy loading system
- easy end seal system
- barcode system
are unique, setting the benchmark.
And the whole converting quality is absolutely precise. I have never, ever had the slightest problem with a Fuji rollfilm.

Don't get me wrong: Ilford's rollfilm converting quality is very good. But Fujifilm's converting quality is just perfect.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

@Henning Serger:
Very interesting and informative analysis! Thanks.
Do you or Studio 13 plan to test this film in Scala B&W reversal process?

Hello Raghu,
I had tested Acros I in Photo Studio 13 Scala reversal process several years ago. It generally worked, but the results were - well, how can I describe it precisely - quite specific and significantly different to ADOX Scala 160 and Scala 50 for example.
The Acros I transparencies had a strong Sepia tint, and a bit less contrast. With some photo subjects it looked quite nice, but with others very strange.
As Photo Studio 13 know their customers very well, they decided not to integrate Acros I in their Scala film programme.
But when you send them Acros II and ask for tests with it for you, they will probably do it.

Best regards,
Henning