Fujifilm Neopan Acros II: Test Report

pentaxuser said:

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

Click to expand...

OMG, there are members of my family that say I not only look like Gabby, but act just like him too! Of course you're right, there will never, ever be another Gabby Hayes

Witold said:

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

Click to expand...

although I have never said so myself (well yeah, maybe back in 2007-2009), I totally understand what is meant by this “digital look” expression.

Like the good old expression “golf ball grain”, although this expression is seldom used nowadays, it used to be very popular in the 2010-13 era to describe HP5 and Tri-x. And although no grain is golfball-sized, we all know what is meant by that erroneous description.

Which leads to the realization that people have come to accept Black and White digital images as a standard, and is no longer Bad looking. But I still find it atrocious to look at. All the people bragging about their monochrome Leicas and showing off their work but all I see is the ugly digital look. Of course, I am heavily into dakroom work so I guess I am more sensitive and Biased.

NB23 said:

although I have never said so myself (well yeah, maybe back in 2007-2009), I totally understand what is meant by this “digital look” expression.

Like the good old expression “golf ball grain”, although this expression is seldom used nowadays, it used to be very popular in the 2010-13 era to describe HP5 and Tri-x. And although no grain is golfball-sized, we all know what is meant by that erroneous description.

Which leads to the realization that people have come to accept Black and White digital images as a standard, and is no longer Bad looking. But I still find it atrocious to look at. All the people bragging about their monochrome Leicas and showing off their work but all I see is the ugly digital look. Of course, I am heavily into dakroom work so I guess I am more sensitive and Biased.

Click to expand...

are we talking about same thing? digital look derived from film shooting?

John Wiegerink said:

OMG, there are members of my family that say I not only look like Gabby, but act just like him too! Of course you're right, there will never, ever be another Gabby Hayes

Click to expand...

Well I'll be durned!Dad blamed wind has blown ma hat back into a point at the front. Ain't been that way since I teamed up with Randolph

pentaxuser

Henning Serger said:

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

Click to expand...

How exactly does Delta 100 compare to Acros II WRT RF?
And how do they compare in general?

Thanks for all your work Henning!

You are a great cheerleader, proselytizer and scientific tester of film photography.
Bringing some very much needed hard science and empirical evidence to all the well meaning hand waving, fuzzy logic and soft values, abundant in this realm.
Often I feel in lieu of/for lack of ability to do what you do.

NB23 said:

Which leads to the realization that people have come to accept Black and White digital images as a standard, and is no longer Bad looking. But I still find it atrocious to look at. All the people bragging about their monochrome Leicas and showing off their work but all I see is the ugly digital look. Of course, I am heavily into dakroom work so I guess I am more sensitive and Biased.

Click to expand...

NB, here I agree with you completely. I do not think anyone considers a b&w image derived from a digital sensor as any type of standard. It's usually an affectation, an attempt to look like a film photograph. Well, we are off the track here, this topic was about Acros film, which I really like. No complaints on Acros with any of my 135 cameras.

Helge said:

How exactly does Delta 100 compare to Acros II WRT RF?

Click to expand...

Corrected exposure = metered exposure^1.26 according to Ilford.

It's entirely plausible that the high cost of Acros relates to the price (and R&D) of more environmentally friendly components for low reciprocity failure at long exposures.

Delta 100 is very different from Acros. It's Ilford's answer to TMax 100, though with a bit larger more distinct grain, and a longer toe which for all practical purposes makes it a stop slower than TMX with respect to deep shadow gradation. But it's capable of developing a comparable high gamma, which Acros cannot. D100 also has true pan sensitivity, yet not the same specialized balance of TMX, which most users aren't even aware of because they do not use TMX for actual technical applications, but just general shooting. I realize that there has already been a complaint about this thread drifting into tertiary discussion about other films, but that is inherent to making relevant comparisons which define one choice versus another. Any connoisseur of ACROS appreciates not only its excellent reciprocity characteristics, but also buoyant orthopan sensitivity, now apparently unique among current film choices.

Lachlan Young said:

Corrected exposure = metered exposure^1.26 according to Ilford.

It's entirely plausible that the high cost of Acros relates to the price (and R&D) of more environmentally friendly components for low reciprocity failure at long exposures.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I needed that (link) a few weeks ago. Had dig around on the internet to figure pout an exposure (the graph that comes with the film- FP4+, is way too hard to read at small times).

I guess Acros corrected exposure is metered exposure^1.0

Dear photrio members,

thanks again for your kind words and appreciation!
I will try to reply to your requests and offer further details about the film industry and some economic facts.
First we should be aware that BW photo film has always been a tiny niche segment for Fujifilm. Their BW photo film line has always been significantly smaller compared to Kodak, Ilford and Agfa. It is different for Xray film, which is and has been a high volume product segment for Fujifilm.
And we also should not forget that BW photo film is a small niche compared to colour film. Depending on the regional market, 70-95% of the photo film sales are colour.

John Wiegerink said:

This whole thing about the cost per roll of Acros II is like a dog chasing his own tail. You want a cheaper price per roll you need to increase the sales volume. You can't increase the sales volume when folks are not willing to buy the product due to cost. Lower the cost and you will increase the sales volume. Pretty simple economics if you ask me.

Click to expand...

John, it looks this way at first sight. And it is some truth in it. But unfortunately economics is mostly much more complicated. The technical term for what we are discussing here is "price elasticity". You are probably assuming that if you lower the price to half, the sales will double. That would be if the price elasticity is 100%. But that is almost never the case. Because price is only one of several factors for customers to buy a product. In theory you have a price elasticity of 100% if the qualities of the compared products are absolutely identical. For example gasoline at your gasoline station. It doesn't matter at all whether you choose "Exxon" or "Shell". But the reality shows that even if you have identical quality the theory doesn't work in real world: For example here in Germany we have the gasoline brands which are always more expensive then the other ones: Aral, Shell, Esso. And those which are always cheaper, like Jet or HEM. The quality of the Gasoline is exactly the same, it it produced here in Germany by the same refineries. So in theory the more expensive brands must have been wiped out the market long ago. But it didn't happen, the more expansive brands are very popular and have their customers.

Concerning Acros II: Would those photographers who are satiesfied with Delta 100, TMX, PanF+, FP4+, CHS 100 II, HR-50 etc. switch to Acros II when Acros II would be a bit cheaper? Maybe some, but it would be a very low number. Because the customers are satiesfied with their products, using them for years or even decades. And we all know that BW film photographers are often a bit stubborn, conservative, inflexible and don't like changes at all....... Look into the mirror.... .
They will stick with their loved favourites. Well, most of them.

Some here in this thread have said Acros II must be cheaper than the competition to be successful and remain in the market. Fujifilm tried exactly that when they introduced Acros I in 2002 / 2003: They were very late in the market with their Sigma crystal type (tabular grain type) Acros. Kodak and Ilford had introduced their modern BW films long before (1986 / 1990). Therefore Fujifilm was aware of the difficulties to win customers which have been satiesfied with their established choices for years. So they tried to undercut the price of TMX and Delta 100 (and shortly after that the huge decrease in film demand started because of digital imaging). They tried a moderate form of "price dumping".
Does it work? Not really. I know from Fujifilm and several film distributors that Acros always has been a niche product. It has never belonged to the "real popular" BW films (despite its outstanding quality). A niche for Fujifilm with much, much lower sales than their other films, and a niche product in the ISO 100/21° film class. Because most photographers stayed with their established choices. If you like Delta 100 or TMX and are used to it, you will not change to another film if that is 10% cheaper. There is almost no price elasticity as the other parameters are much more important than price.
In 2010 I've got the information (not from Fujifilm directly, but from a reliable film industry source) that Acros was coated only every 4 years at that time. Because demand has dropped so much. The market volume in 2020 is even much less compared to 2010.
Fujifilm tried to keep that film in their line, but with the decreasing market price increases were absolutely unavoidable, especially for small volume nicht products.

Before the discontinuation in 2018 I have paid about 8 Euros for a 135 roll of Acros I. Then in 2019 the big Fujifilm price increase of 20-30% happened (and Kodak followed that half a year later with their 30% increase). Imagine Acros I would not have been discontinued, the price would now be in the 9.60 to 10.40 € range.
Considering that
- raw materials had to be replaced
- new replacement raw materials are probably more expensive
- some raw materials needed for film in general have had increasing prices in the last 3 years (therefore the price increases with all film manufacturers)
- Ilford is now involved in (parts of) the production and has to be paid
the current price being about 20% higher compared to "Acros I continued" looks reasonable or at least comprehensible.

Some here have claimed that Acros II could be offered at 7-8$ and would still be profitable. No, definitely not. If that would be the case, Fujifilm would really be doing it. But it is impossible with such a niche product. That is the reality.
Fujifilm has always offered products at low prices when it has been possible. Recent examples:
- The huge mass market volume instant instax film is stable in price for years; if you consider inflation, it is even cheaper now compared to some years ago
- Their C200 CN film is extremely cheap and about the same/similar price as Kodak ColorPlus, but offering higher resolution, better sharpness and finer grain (overall better value). They can offer it at that low price because the demand is huge (and increasing), several million rolls of film p.a. That is "economies of scale" at work.
- Superia X-Tra 400 has also advantages in resolution, sharpness and grain compared to Gold 400 and is in a similar price range like Gold 400.

And I want to add another perspective:
Acros II is now about 2 bucks more expensive than a "not discontinued Acros I" would be. Does that really hinders someone to use Acros II? Certainly not.
Because:
If you look at the current market volume and number of film photographers, the average film user is using 20-30 films p.a. And that is mostly a mix of different film types: Different film speeds and different film types, colour and BW. Therefore an average film user who likes Acros II would probably use only 5-10 films p.a. for his BW ISO 100/21° needs. So we are talking about 10-20 bucks more per year. That is really negligible.
Even if you look at a high(er) volume BW shooter who is using e.g. 50-70 BW rolls p.a.. He is also using different film speeds and certainly also different film types in one speed class to get certain looks and specific characteristics due to the subject he is photographing. Therefore he wouldn't use exclusively Acros II (or any other film exclusively), but probably 20-40 rolls of it. So we are talking about 40-80 bucks more per year. Which is also still negligible if you like that film.

And a last general personal thought:
When I look at the overall costs of my photography, film is the minor part of it: When I am doing landscape photography, I have the costs of travelling to my destination, which is mostly higher than my film costs for that day. With travel photography my film costs are negligible to my travel costs. And when I am doing portraits and fashion with prof. models, the model costs are the biggest cost factor, and much higher than all my film costs for a shooting.
And when I look at the film equipment I have bought in the last years at ridiculous low prices, I have saved about 10.000€. This is probably overcompensating all film price increases for the rest of my life.......

Best regards,
Henning

Helge said:

How exactly does Delta 100 compare to Acros II WRT RF?
And how do they compare in general?

Thanks for all your work Henning!

You are a great cheerleader, proselytizer and scientific tester of film photography.
Bringing some very much needed hard science and empirical evidence to all the well meaning hand waving, fuzzy logic and soft values, abundant in this realm.
Often I feel in lieu of/for lack of ability to do what you do.

Click to expand...

Hello Helge, thank you!
Differences of Delta 100 and Acros:
In my standardized scientific lab tests I have found the following differences:
- Acros is significantly finer grained
- the edge sharpness / acutance of Acros is softer; Delta 100 has really excellent edge sharpness / acutance (also better than TMX)
- Delta 100 has about 10% higher resolution in my resolution test with an object contrast of 1:4
- Delta 100 is panchromatic, Acros sligthly orthopanchromatic
- with the developers I have used so far Delta 100 has often about 1/3 stop (1°DIN) higher sensitivity
- in most developers Delta 100 has no "upswing" in the highlight areas of the characteristic curves (but please see my explanations concerning Acros in my posts above)
- and last but not least the unsurpassed reciprocity characteristics of Acros; Acros and Provia 100F are a league of its own concerning that parameter.

Important to know: When I am evaluating the detail rendition of my lab tests I am using in a first evaluation step a microscope with 40x and 100x enlargement. Then you see even very small differences. When I am then printing I have of course much, much lower magnification ratios.
When you make 24x30cm or 30x40cm prints from Delta 100 and Acros 100, you won't see any differences in resolution.
Concerning edge sharpness / acutance at that print sizes: I really like my BW prints sharp, one of the reasons I like Delta 100 so much. But as Acros is so fine grained you won't have any grain problems if you use an acutance developer like ADOX Rodinal or ADOX FX-39 II. This way you can get the wanted "crispiness" with Acros, too.
And if you want the more "softer" sharpness, for example for portraits, just use a developer without edge sharpness / acutance improvement.

Best regards,
Henning

Lachlan Young said:

Corrected exposure = metered exposure^1.26 according to Ilford.

It's entirely plausible that the high cost of Acros relates to the price (and R&D) of more environmentally friendly components for low reciprocity failure at long exposures.

Click to expand...

Yes Lachlan, that could indeed be one important factor.
I have asked emulsionists of other manufacturers if they have an idea what Fujifilm is using to get this outstanding reciprocity characteristics with Acros and Provia. Which are worlds ahead of all other films on the market. But they had no idea. Fujifilm has indeed unique knowledge in this particular field. Japanese film Sushi at its best.....

Best regards,
Henning

Helge said:

How exactly does Delta 100 compare to Acros II WRT RF?
And how do they compare in general?

Click to expand...

Color balance is very different. I'd say Delta gives a 'softer' look.

I also think Delta is faster than Acros. With this, I mean that Acros seems like being iso 80 or 64. Or in any case Delta faster than 100. I say this based on the softer contrast i get from Delta. I shoot both at box speed. Of course mileage may vary.

I like the amazing sharpness and resolution of Acros. But Delta isn't far behind. Both are great general purpose choices, i'd say. I have a circa. 36x24cm enlargement done using Delta 100 that looks just stunning.

Henning Serger said:

Yes Lachlan, that could indeed be one important factor.
I have asked emulsionists of other manufacturers if they have an idea what Fujifilm is using to get this outstanding reciprocity characteristics with Acros and Provia. Which are worlds ahead of all other films on the market. But they had no idea. Fujifilm has indeed unique knowledge in this particular field. Japanese film Sushi at its best.....

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

Iridium, Selenium, Tellurium salts have all been mentioned - I think Kodak used Ir as it was the least toxic environmentally, Ron made mention of Fuji using Te and Se salts. There may well be further custom organic compounds that have been found - and it wouldn't be a big surprise if the component is supplied to Ilford under very strict NDA's.

Lachlan Young said:

Iridium, Selenium, Tellurium salts have all been mentioned - I think Kodak used Ir as it was the least toxic environmentally, Ron made mention of Fuji using Te and Se salts.

Click to expand...

Yes, but all the known and published components alone are not sufficient to reach that high quality level of Acros and Provia with that parameter. There is much more needed, and I am sure Fujifilm will never publish it. Because it would not make sense to give such a competitive advantage away.

Lachlan Young said:

There may well be further custom organic compounds that have been found - and it wouldn't be a big surprise if the component is supplied to Ilford under very strict NDA's.

Click to expand...

Only if Ilford is involved in the emulsion production - which we don't know. There can be three different forms of cooperation between Fujifilm and Ilford (see my explanation given half a year ago in the other Acros thread).
Anyway, the good news is that those who want / need this characteristic can continue to benefit from it with Acros II and Provia.

Best regards,
Henning

@Henning Serger: slightly off-topic but would appreciate if you can educate me on why Neopan 400CN and XP2 Super were not made available in sheet format. Was it because there was no market for these films in sheet format? Or some other reason?

@Henning Serger you seem to be well-connected in the industry. Do you mid me asking, what do you do?

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:

@Henning Serger: slightly off-topic but would appreciate if you can educate me on why Neopan 400CN and XP2 Super were not made available in sheet format. Was it because there was no market for these films in sheet format? Or some other reason?

Click to expand...

Raghu, sheet film is generally a tiny niche market compared to 120 and 135 format film (which is by far the biggest market). Therefore manufacturers have to very carefully evaluating the potential demand for a film type in sheet film formats. Especially as sheet film needs a different (much more thicker) base for coating than 120 and 135 film. So you need different, exclusive coating runs for sheet film.
Sheet film normally has a base thickness of 175-180 micrometer, and is coated on PET. 35mm film is coated on 125-135 micrometer triacetate or 100 micrometer PET. 120 film is coated mostly on 100-110 micrometer triacetate or 100 micrometer PET.
It is possible to use the same base for 135 and 120 if the base thickness is in the 100-125 micrometer range. Some manufacturers are doing it to make niche products possible simultaneously in both formats (example: Delta 3200 using a base of 125 micrometer thickness in 135 and 120, converting from the same parent rolls; or ADOX using 100 micrometer PET for both 135 and 120 films).
But that is not possible with sheet film. Sheet film on 100 or 125/135 micrometer base is too flimsy. You sometime find sheet film on that thin base offered by repackaging companies (like e.g. Maco). It is then converted from 135/120 film jumbo / parent / master rolls. But it is not fun at all to handle such thin sheet film, it is very nerve-wrecking. A company with excellent reputation like Ilford would never offer such an unsatiesfying solution.

Best regards,
Henning

Bormental said:

@Henning Serger you seem to be well-connected in the industry. Do you mid me asking, what do you do?

Click to expand...

I'll help - see Henning's post earlier in this thread: Fujifilm Neopan Acros II: Test Report

Bormental said:

@Henning Serger you seem to be well-connected in the industry. Do you mid me asking, what do you do?

Click to expand...

Please have a look at my posting No 46 in this thread. I've said it there.
In addition to that I am running an independent non-profit photo test lab in which I am testing films, papers, developers, lenses, sensors. But that is because of pure passion. It's not a business.
But several manufacturers ask me for critical, hard testing of products in the R&D stage. They are interested in knowing whether they may have overlooked something. They want real critical feedback and that I discover weaknesses. So that the product can be improved before market release.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

Concerning Acros II: Would those photographers who are satiesfied with Delta 100, TMX, PanF+, FP4+, CHS 100 II, HR-50 etc. switch to Acros II when Acros II would be a bit cheaper? Maybe some, but it would be a very low number. Because the customers are satiesfied with their products, using them for years or even decades.
Henning

Click to expand...

Actually, I used to use Acros regularly up until its discontinuation and I liked my results. However, now that it is almost TWICE THE PRICE of Delta 100, its absurd to buy Acros when it does not offer twice the value. If I am to be accused of being stubborn about my choice of materials, you can say that I am stubborn in that I expect the most expensive panchromatic film to offer me the best results, and Acros does not deliver results that are in alignment with its price. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't buy it, I am merely suggesting that for me, there is no point in spending $13 for a roll of Acros when a film like Delta 100 can be had for $8.

Paul, I can completely understand that, being a Delta 100 user myself for years. Every photographer has to evaluate for himself where the value balance is, and then make his choices.
For me personally Acros I was a supplement / addition in certain situations / applications where I have benefitted from its characteristics. But it has not been my most used BW film.
And I will use Acros II in the same way. Not as my daily workhorse, but as a nice addition when I need its strengths in certain situations.

Best regards,
Henning

paulbarden said:

Actually, I used to use Acros regularly up until its discontinuation and I liked my results. However, now that it is almost TWICE THE PRICE of Delta 100, its absurd to buy Acros when it does not offer twice the value. If I am to be accused of being stubborn about my choice of materials, you can say that I am stubborn in that I expect the most expensive panchromatic film to offer me the best results, and Acros does not deliver results that are in alignment with its price. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't buy it, I am merely suggesting that for me, there is no point in spending $13 for a roll of Acros when a film like Delta 100 can be had for $8.

Click to expand...

It's $11.99 at BH but close enough, it's expensive.

Curiously, a small local shop is selling
it for $9.99 and presumably still making a profit, so I'm not sure why the big guys, with much higher volumes, are charging more.

BTW I wonder why Fuji sells this in 5 packs since there seems to be no financial incentive to buying the film this way. It's exactly 5x the cost of a single roll

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:

@Henning Serger: slightly off-topic but would appreciate if you can educate me on why Neopan 400CN and XP2 Super were not made available in sheet format. Was it because there was no market for these films in sheet format? Or some other reason?

Click to expand...

XP1 was offered in sheet film. I think it's safe to assume that Ilford took the sales of that product into account when deciding whether to continue it with later versions of the emulsion.

You can't just coat a roll film emulsion on to sheet film. It has to be reformulated to tank into account differences in the substrate, including differences due to halation concerns.
In order to incur the costs relating to such a reformulation, there needs to be a clear market argument for it.