Fujifilm Neopan Acros II: Test Report

[MattKing]

I'd love to know what the FOB at the factory costs are per roll of 135-36 Acros II and T-Max 100.
Compared to the retail cost, I'd bet they would be minuscule.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'd love to know what the FOB at the factory costs are per roll of 135-36 Acros II and T-Max 100.
Compared to the retail cost, I'd bet they would be minuscule.

I'd be willing to bet a beer that you're right Matt. Probably why we don't know since it would be almost embarrassing JW.

 

[btaylor]

Development, distribution and marketing costs are always substantial. 40 years ago I read somewhere that the cost of manufacturing most widgets was usually about 10% of retail pricing. I very much appreciate Henning’s contribution to our knowledge and especially his insights into the film manufacturing business, present and future.
But for the life of me I do not get the focus on price. We are lucky to have more choices! It’s been brought up before- the cost of film (certainly for me) is one of the smallest expenses in this hobby. And if you are a professional using film it just means you’ll have to raise your prices a little to maintain your margins.

 

[NB23]

Ok.

So if I understand correctly, Acros went from being the cheapest film, to becoming the highest priced film on the market.

And now, a few people are trying to push it down our throats because, suddenly, it’s “worth” it. Wham: it’s worth it!

Thanks but no thanks. At this price point, Acros-II will have lived through only One production run. Because if old Acros didn’t survive, new “same-as-old” Acros will not survive, either.

Please note, I am not a sheapskate per se. And I do appreciate all the “new film” and “growing market” Yadda-yadda folklore.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Ok.

So if I understand correctly, Acros went from being the cheapest film, to becoming the highest priced film on the market.

And now, a few people are trying to push it down our throats because, suddenly, it’s “worth” it. Wham: it’s worth it!

Thanks but no thanks. At this price point, Acros-II will have lived through only One production run. Because if old Acros didn’t survive, new “same-as-old” Acros will not survive, either.

Please note, I am not a sheapskate per se. And I do appreciate all the “new film” and “growing market” Yadda-yadda folklore.

I wasn't saying Acros was the cheapest B&W film, but it was certainly cheap enough for this Hollander. Not anymore! As for having more film options? That's great as long as those new options don't give other film manufactures any ideas about raising their prices. I'd be very willing to bet that the folks who are using film "professionally" now are a very small percentage of folks using film. Most everyone here, me included, also has a camera that takes a card. If these film manufactures want to keep increasing the price of film, for whatever reason, those card cameras will be seeing much more use. That means less film sold, which eventually leads to no film period. Yes, it's entirely possible to price yourself right out of business. I hate to say it here, but I have some Foveon B&W images that are extremely good, but I still like the whole process of film. Of course, just like Acros II, I could live just fine without it. Would I miss it? Yes! JW

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't know why NB23 keeps coming up with all this uniformed negativity. The old ACROS was basically a home-run product very popular with many photographers. I shot it in every size from 35mm to 8x10. The availability of 4x5 Quickload packets was especially convenient at one time. So I'm extremely doubtful that ACROS was discontinued for lack of demand. In the case of the Quickload sleeves, those sleeves themselves came from someone else, and when that equipment started wearing out, Fuji apparently couldn't justify coming up with a parallel system. Likewise, since their overall black and white film segment was so small overall, their bean counters started looking at that as an expendable minor product line. Yet the mere fact there's a replacement ACROS II now is due to the high volume of requests to keep something going. The way that was done involves some subsidiary service that they have to pay someone else for, and that factors into the overall price, along with who knows how many other factors. Maybe that higher price will be the case until all dealer reserve of the previous product are gone, or maybe we're stuck with it for good. I don't know. But ACROS is unique in several ways, and not just in its long exposure characteristics, and fills a unique niche. It remains to be seen how many people will stick with it at the elevated price. But there's no question about it being a superb product.

 

[NB23]

I’m very positive lol.

The readers can add whatever tone to my posts, in their own heads, they wish. I can’t be held responsible for how people process information.

it’s okay!
One person is offended? He gets the gold medal for it? It’s okay!

 

[NB23]

Drew, I’m not here to argue Vitam Aeternam.
But I like to add my grain of Coke sometimes.

In this case, I clearly remember the last years of Acros. The last 10, actually.
It was rebranded and sold by freestyle for about 1.99 a roll of 36 exposures. Then it went to 2.25, then 2.49. Sold out, but it took YEARS.
Then, Acros itself was the cheapest film available on the market, once fuji SS was gone. Cheaper than Foma LOL!

Then, in its last 2 years of life, people started to speculate about fuji dropping it. But since there was no announcement of discontinuation, people didn’t particularily bother using it. Instead, they were all crying about Fuji discontinuing the 400 and 1600. Acros was “too flat” according to a lot of people. Too “digital”.

And then, the announcement was made, and it sold out fast.

People didn’t particularly apprecite Acros next to Kodak’s and Ilford’s offerings.

That’s what happened. I remember very well.

Now it’s back: hurray! But so is TMZ! and no, TMZ is not priced at 29.99$ just because some BS story. It’s priced at 9.89$. Which is a nice surprise, actually.

 

[Carter john]

Henning, I appreciate your hard work.

 

[warden]

Thanks Henning!

 

[DREW WILEY]

NB23 - when was ACROS ever rebranded and sold under private-label by anyone? Under what name? None of the Freestyle Arista films were ACROS, not even close. For awhile they sold relabled FP4 sheet film as Arista 125, then went to Foma. And what on earth is a "digital look" film???? Do you put insect screening over the film to get pixels square or something like that? Flat? - sounds like the crowd you hang around doesn't know basic development control. ACROS roll film sold out so fast around here, once its discontinuation was announced, that they had to ration how much any one person could buy per visit. And one person bought over a hundred boxes of 4x5 just for personal use. I know of people going to a lot of trouble to gray-import the last boxes of 8x10. An entire extra production run of 120 was coated for a single dealer in Japan. It sold like crazy. How do you come up with all these nonsense statements?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Legacy Pro 100 was rebranded Acros, sold dirt cheap for some years, about a decade ago by Freestyle.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well if that's the case, it might explain things. Who buys solid white meat albacore for themselves if there's a cat food label on the can? Same reason far more FP4 sold under the original Ilford label as FP4 than under Arista rebranding; people were suspicious of the quality of a discount version, even though their fears in that case were unfounded. Now it's Arista EDU private labeled Fomapan, which is conspicuously a lesser animal.

 

[NB23]

NB23 - when was ACROS ever rebranded and sold under private-label by anyone? Under what name? None of the Freestyle Arista films were ACROS, not even close. For awhile they sold relabled FP4 sheet film as Arista 125, then went to Foma. And what on earth is a "digital look" film???? Do you put insect screening over the film to get pixels square or something like that? Flat? - sounds like the crowd you hang around doesn't know basic development control. ACROS roll film sold out so fast around here, once its discontinuation was announced, that they had to ration how much any one person could buy per visit. And one person bought over a hundred boxes of 4x5 just for personal use. I know of people going to a lot of trouble to gray-import the last boxes of 8x10. An entire extra production run of 120 was coated for a single dealer in Japan. It sold like crazy. How do you come up with all these nonsense statements?

Looks like I was right. And on the rebrand, and on the “digital look” that acros was criticized for by the whole internet back then (and if you would have read more carefully, I never said that personally about acros)..

I also purchased 100 rolls of acros 120 when its end was announced.

Actually, I rarely write posts about what I do not know. So please stfu.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Rarely? All I've heard is nonsense so far. If people had spent a little more time in the darkroom actually learning about the potential of the film itself, rather than fooling around on the internet, maybe they'd know the difference. And certainly around here, the kind of people that tended to gamble with discount labels weren't known for their expertise. Actual ACROS label not only sold well, but was a prized product. But I still don't know what is being implied by "digital look". Probably the people making those remarks couldn't make a decent print either way, so it was all the same to them. So if it has a "digital look", why did you spend your own money on a hundred rolls of it? Why pass along hypocritical opinions?

 

[Lachlan Young]

But I still don't know what is being implied by "digital look"

People who can't metaphysically handle the idea of a 35mm print with low visual granularity. Often an excuse put forth by those for whom Tri-X's safety margin was a necessaity.

 

[NB23]

The only opinion I’ve expressed in this thread was about pricing. That is if Fuji doesn’t come down in price, it would cease production just like it did for the the original Acros.

All the rest were facts: the freestyle rebrand, the agonizing decade before the end of production, fuji users mourning 400 and 1600 while ignoring Acros, people not liking it because of the so-called digital look... all that.

i’m not sure what we are arguing about though, anymore. But I repeat: acros was rebranded and even then it took a lot of time to sell out.

Rarely? All I've heard is nonsense so far. If people had spent a little more time in the darkroom actually learning about the potential of the film itself, rather than fooling around on the internet, maybe they'd know the difference. And certainly around here, the kind of people that tended to gamble with discount labels weren't known for their expertise. Actual ACROS label not only sold well, but was a prized product. But I still don't know what is being implied by "digital look". Probably the people making those remarks couldn't make a decent print either way, so it was all the same to them. So if it has a "digital look", why did you spend your own money on a hundred rolls of it? Why pass along hypocritical opinions?

 

[DREW WILEY]

It took a lot of time selling out REBRANDED. If serious users knew it was actually ACROS 100, that might have been a totally different matter. But it was not only rebranded, if Legacy Pro 100 was indeed the same thing, but done so in a decade when all kinds of films were being privately labeled and resold under various names by a number of gray market importers with often questionable performance claims; so discriminating users were understandably cautious. So the only conclusion I can come to, is that if "people" don't like ACROS, what species are you, since you obviously like it yourself? Certainly none of the ACROS 100 I ever bought was old stock that had been laying around somewhere, not in any format.

 

[pentaxuser]

Legacy Pro 100 was rebranded Acros, sold dirt cheap for some years, about a decade ago by Freestyle.

This reminds me of something. I still have a fair amount of a bulk roll of Legacy Pro 400 that was sold by Digitaltruth a few years(probably 10 but time flies when you are old) at a very competitive price. Digitaltruth was candid enough to admit it was bulk Neopan 400.

I cannot say that Legacy Pro 100 was Acros but it would seem to be possible.

I have used the former Acros120 and quite liked it but its qualities would not persuade me to part with the kind of money being asked for it now. That last sentence is in fact neither here nor there. A film is worth what enough of the film buying public is willing to pay for it to create enough of a profit to make its production worthwhile

I just have grave doubts that based on everything I have read that there is enough willing to pay the price. However no one responsible for a film revival is ever going to base a decision of the polarisation of a few champions or naysayers on Photrio or if they are then the film business really is in deep trouble.

We will know how much if any "slack" has been built into the price if and when not enough is being sold at the current price. At that point the price will drop or Fuji will say that it was a mistake to revive it as the demand is not there and the film will be discontinued. I cannot see an Acros III arising from another groundswell of pleading, assuming of course that it was a groundswell in the form of a wailing and gnashing of teeth of users that persuaded Fuji to make Acros II.

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Time will tell. I paid about the same amount per roll right at the end as that alleged Legacy amount per roll, and it was all fresh stock. But I didn't do that because it was cheap at the time, but because I like certain things this film does. At the same time, I was buying much more expensive films too, and specifically for what they respectively do well.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thanks for your input about granularity, Lachlan. Tri-X was obviously an old journalistic standard. But not everyone hunts quail with buckshot, because not much is left over to eat, and others of us used ACROS predominantly in larger formats anyway. No, it doesn't have quite the linearity or plus development gamma potential of certain other films, but "flat"-looking is absurd. I've never even heard that before this particular thread.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think I've come up with what Fuji is up to with Acros II. First, let me say to Drew that I have the highest regards for Fuji Acros and would gladly use it over Ilford FP4+ for my type shooting. Not HP5+, but FP4+ for sure. A lot of folks tote it's looooong exposure capability, but what I liked about it was that there was hardly a developer I tried with it that it didn't like. It was good in Pyrocat-HDC, Rodinal. Xtol-R, DK-50 and Drew's Perceptol. To me the best was in this order Xtol-R, Perceptol 1+3. Both of those were pretty much a tie. DK-50 was also a surprise and very good, but had to shoot at around ISO 50 for decent shadow detail. It actually give the illusion of being sharper with a little more bite. But no matter how much I would like Acros II my wallet says "not needed".
Now to solve the high cost mystery. If Drew is right and Fuji has to refurbish/replace some of their B&W coating line then here's what I think they're up to. The bean counters and folks in the high office at Fuji didn't want to dump a great product like Acros, but also didn't want to invest in new machinery without getting a return on that investment. So Fuji made a deal with Ilford/Harman to do the dirty work for them. Then they overprice the end product to keep their normal margin of profit per roll. Now they set back and see how well the new Fuji Acros II takes off. If it sells well they will then have a good motive to complete repairs on the coating line and then come out with, are you ready for this Pentaxuser, THE NEW IMPROVED ACROS III. I think I'll book mark this and see if I'm right.

P.S. Also want to jump on the bandwagon and thank Henning.

 

[pentaxuser]

If it sells well they will then have a good motive to complete repairs on the coating line and then come out with, are you ready for this Pentaxuser, THE NEW IMPROVED ACROS III. I think I'll book mark this and see if I'm right.

P.S. Also want to jump on the bandwagon and thank Henning.

So they simply complete the repairs on the coating line, take back the Ilford bit and then advertise the same film as Acros III Do they then increase the price again?

If you are telling me all this in the saloon then I need check on some more Gabby H vocabulary before I react. I need to check on Gabby's gestures as well and practice my ability to raise my voice an octave or so as I get near the end of the tirade. Sadly there will never be another as good. That's Gabby by the way and not Acros

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

A more reasonable idea is that Ilford and Fuji might have had a sufficient level of technology sharing in the past (that both seem to have adopted epitaxial crystal growth techniques ahead of Kodak is quite striking) such that the core emulsion sets of Acros and Delta 100 may not be that hugely different - or at least in terms of the specific ingredients & techniques used in making them, with the real differentiation coming in at the chemical sensitisation/ finish steps - ie the reciprocity characteristics, colour response etc. This would certainly help to make it possible to restart production on a different plant without a multi-year R&D effort because the product would be perceptually close enough to Acros that naming it 'Acros II' would account for any slight differences. Equally, it will have been a quite a significant job just to do all that they will have had to do, if indeed the entire production of Acros has moved to Mobberley. Don't forget that Ilford has made films for Fuji in the past - Neopan 400CN in particular.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Looks like I was right. And on the rebrand, and on the “digital look” that acros was criticized for by the whole internet back then (and if you would have read more carefully, I never said that personally about acros)..

I also purchased 100 rolls of acros 120 when its end was announced.

Actually, I rarely write posts about what I do not know. So please stfu.

"digital look" on film is indeed utter nonsense, just my two cents.