Fujifilm Neopan Acros II: Test Report

[Bormental]

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

Oops, even though I've been watching this thread from the beginning, I missed that post somehow, thanks. Tell manufacturers to differentiate! Part of the reason I shoot film now is because of variety of experiences offered by old film cameras, as opposed to identical picture-taking machines that only differ by a logo.

Also, you *must* be the person who knows the origin of all rebranded films! May I ask: who has the ability to actually manufacture emulsions? Kodak, Ilford/Karman, Foma, Fuji, Shanghai, Agfa Gevaert, anyone else?

 

[abruzzi]

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.

While I agree with you that mathematically, this isn't a very large number, I will say that I strongly believe in the irrationality of consumers. To me the price isn't a big deal considering how much I'm likely to shoot it, but I do think that Fuji is taking a risk with the pricing. If pricing is as low as they can make it, then we'll see how well it does, but there is a risk that people are going to turn the page no matter what because they comparison shop everything and have trouble seeing value beyond price (like the people I know that drive 5 miles across town to fill up on gas because across town it is 5 cents per gallon cheaper.) I haven't bought any Acros II yet, but that only because I still have some Acros I to get through.

 

[pentaxuser]

What I don't think is likely is that Acros II will attract many who have not used the original Acros and to that extent I think that Henning was saying something similar which is that Acros is a niche film and it is those who like Acros original who will buy Acros II It also makes sense that if Fuji believes it to be a niche product with a fixed market then to recoup whatever extra investment was need to produce Acros II a price increase was necessary

This then covers Fuji's investment in Acros II and makes it at worst break-even and at best, profitable. What it does not do is increase film usage and it is only in a bigger market that film as a whole will survive.

pentaxuser

 

[Bormental]

What I don't think is likely is that Acros II will attract many who have not used the original Acros

I never used the original and it is about to attract me. Right now I am bored and I also have $12. Conditions are perfect!

 

[Henning Serger]

Also, you *must* be the person who knows the origin of all rebranded films! May I ask: who has the ability to actually manufacture emulsions? Kodak, Ilford/Karman, Foma, Fuji, Shanghai, Agfa Gevaert, anyone else?

1. Well, almost all.
2. There are fortunately much more: Polaroid, InovisCoat/Inovisproject, ADOX, Filmotec, Film Ferrania, Carestream, Lucky, Tasma, Slavich/Micron, Pictoriographica, Washi.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Bormental]

1. Well, almost all.

Wow... I had no idea that Tasma is still in business (my childhood film). Do you know who makes Ultrafine Extreme 100 and 400? So much evidence points at Ilford, but what exactly is being rebranded is unclear. I want to believe it's Kentmere, but there's also Ilford Pan (which I haven't seen in the states). And the second one I am curious about is Bergger. Their Pancro 400 film has recently been praised here, so I have some in the mail.

 

[MattKing]

See what you've done Henning!

 

[Bormental]

See what you've done Henning!

No kidding. I need to track him down, buy him a steak dinner, a ton of beer, and ask, ask, ask, ask )))

 

[Henning Serger]

See what you've done Henning!

Matt, yes at the moment I clicked the reply button I realized I made a big mistake......

@Bormental: Please let us keep this thread on topic, Acros II. All the price discussion has already been out of topic, because my original post was purely about my test results and the film characteristics.
We could exchange info via conversation.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

Thanks @Henning Serger for your insightful response. Is this the reason why Acros ii is not available in sheet format?

 

[markjwyatt]

1. Well, almost all.
2. There are fortunately much more: Polaroid, InovisCoat/Inovisproject, ADOX, Filmotec, Film Ferrania, Carestream, Lucky, Tasma, Slavich/Micron, Pictoriographica, Washi.

Best regards,
Henning

Polaroid? I thought they were totally out of business.

 

[MattKing]

Polaroid is the current name for what came out of the Impossible Project.

 

[Henning Serger]

Thanks @Henning Serger for your insightful response. Is this the reason why Acros ii is not available in sheet format?

Yes, that is most probably the reason.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Polaroid is the current name for what came out of the Impossible Project.

Exactly.
It was first Impossible Project, then transferred (back) into Polaroid Originals, and now (completely) back into Polaroid. Because the main shareholder of The Impossible Project, a Polish investor (Smolokowski), has recently invested in Polaroid, too. The headquarter of TIP had first moved from Vienna to Berlin, and recently moved to Amsterdam under Polaroid name as Polaroid BV. They have two factories, one in the Netherlands (Enschede), and one in Monheim (Germany). I have visited both of them. Really fascinating technology.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[HeikoW]

Hi Henning,

- or use a (semi-)compensating developer like ADOX FX-39 II (my preferred developer for Acros)

may I ask what dilution (1+9 ?) and what duration/temperature/... you have used to develop the Acros II in FX39 II (which is also my preferred developer).

 

[Henning Serger]

Hi Henning,

may I ask what dilution (1+9 ?) and what duration/temperature/... you have used to develop the Acros II in FX39 II (which is also my preferred developer).

Hello Heiko,
I am using a Kaiser enlarger which has a double-condensor with a mix / diffusion box. So all my testing and evaluation of characteristic curves is optimised for my workflow to get perfect silver-halide prints with my Kaiser enlarger. That as a short introduction, but it is important to know for you as your workflow would probably be different. Individual tests and adapting to the own, individual workflow are always necessary for optimal results in BW.
I like my Acros II results best with excellent to good shadow detail and good highlight detail.
For now I have two different settings for Acros II in FX-39 II:
1. Optimised for excellent shadow and highlight detail: EI 40/17°, 1+9, 20°C, 7 minutes developing time, first minute permanent agitation, then 1x agitation (Kipp) per minute.
2. Higher speed with good detail: EI 50/18°, 1+9, 20°C, 8 minutes, same agitation rhythm as above.

I will most probably do some further tests with 1+14 and maybe even 1+19 dilution as well. One of the big advantages of FX-39 II is its versatility and flexibility with dilutions. For example FX-39 II works excellently in 1+14 for me with TMY-2. I've got record values in resolution (surpassing lots of ISO 100/21° films) and a for me optimal characteristic curve.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[HeikoW]

Hello Henning, thanks a lot for sharing the details. These are definitely good starting points. I must admit usually I shot on Ilford FP4 and Delta 100 but due to the excellent reciprocity characteristics I want to test this film in connection with astrophotography. Thanks again, Heiko

 

[NB23]

I never used the original and it is about to attract me. Right now I am bored and I also have $12. Conditions are perfect!

Seems to me that you are not bored enough.

Imagine for a moment that you are twice as bored as you are now. You could then get Two TMAX100 for 12$

 

[removedacct1]

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

I believe our opinions are in sync on this Henning

 

[flavio81]

1. Well, almost all.
2. There are fortunately much more: Polaroid, InovisCoat/Inovisproject, ADOX, Filmotec, Film Ferrania, Carestream, Lucky, Tasma, Slavich/Micron, Pictoriographica, Washi.

Best regards,
Henning

Hi Henning,

This is very interesting information. Can I ask some questions? You mentioned some companies able to coat film:

Who are Pictoriographica?!

Washi... I thought they just bought old film and then converted it. Do they coat too?

Kind regards,
Flavio.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Flavio,

Hi Henning,
This is very interesting information. Can I ask some questions? You mentioned some companies able to coat film:
Who are Pictoriographica?!

that is our photrio member Jason Lane, who is making his own BW emulsion and hand coating it onto dry plates:
https://www.pictoriographica.com/

Washi... I thought they just bought old film and then converted it. Do they coat too?
Kind regards,
Flavio.

Yes, he is partly just converting existing stock. And yes, the film on Washi paper is hand coated by him:
http://filmwashi.com/en/products/handcrafted_films/

Best regards,
Henning

 

[alanrockwood]

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.
Henning

Let me offer one or two thoughts about Iridium, Selenium, and Tellurium salts and how this might relate to Fujifilms secret sauce that makes their reciprocity characteristics so good. If Fujifilm is relying on some kind of metal salts, and if the metal salts are not of some special form (such as having the metal chelated with some kind of special chelating agent) then from a technical perspective it would not be too hard to figure out what metals are being added. There are at least two types of elemental analysis that could be employed 1) atomic absorption spectrophotometry (and closely related techniques), and 2) inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS). Generally speaking, ICPMS would be the preferred technique. It can be sensitive into the part per trillion level in some cases. Neutron activation analysis might also be applicable, though I know less about that technique, and in any case it is not very widely used, probably because of the fact that it uses ionizing radiation.

The methods mentioned above give only the atomic composition. They generally tell us nothing of the chemical form of the elements, but if all you are interested in is the atomic composition then they may be sufficient. Even if one wants to know more than the atomic composition ICPMS can be a good starting point upon which to build.

If one wants to know the chemical form then the next thing to try is probably electrospray mass spectrometry (ESIMS) using an ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometer. Under certain conditions this can tell you a lot about the chemical form of a target analyte. For example, if the metal ion is chelated then using ESIMS on a high resolution mass spectrometer can tell you a lot about the chemical composition, and it might be enough to identify the compound almost unambiguously.

Also, it would appear that Fuji is relying on a trade secret. A trade secret provides very strong protection of intellectual property that does not expire. The down side is that if someone uses legal means to figure out what a trade secret is then the trade secret-protected intellectual property is no longer protected. Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with this aspect of the law, we are not talking about patents here because patents require disclosure of the intellectual property and patents have expiration dates.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@alanrockwood There is some material hinting at approaches used - see this patent for example. It also discloses Fuji's C-41 formulae from before the formaldehyde stabiliser was replaced by the looks of it as well.

 

[markjwyatt]

Exactly.
It was first Impossible Project, then transferred (back) into Polaroid Originals, and now (completely) back into Polaroid. Because the main shareholder of The Impossible Project, a Polish investor (Smolokowski), has recently invested in Polaroid, too. The headquarter of TIP had first moved from Vienna to Berlin, and recently moved to Amsterdam under Polaroid name as Polaroid BV. They have two factories, one in the Netherlands (Enschede), and one in Monheim (Germany). I have visited both of them. Really fascinating technology.

Best regards,
Henning

Thanks for the responses. Are the original coating lines back in production? Anything happening in the US?

 

[alanrockwood]

@alanrockwood There is some material hinting at approaches used - see this patent for example. It also discloses Fuji's C-41 formulae from before the formaldehyde stabiliser was replaced by the looks of it as well.

Thanks for the link!