- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,190
- Format
- Multi Format
Thanks for the responses. Are the original coating lines back in production?
Anything happening in the US?
Hello dear BW film shooters,
...
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.
...
Best regards,
Henning
Bright sunlight is sunny 16. This hasn't changed. The beach and snow has always been sunny 22, so to speak.One thing I am puzzled about (because I don't remember this from the original Acros) The snip of the Fuji datasheet shows that the "sunny 16" rule doesn't apply the same way. Rather than 1/60th or 1/120th of a second at f16 in sunny conditions, Fuji recommends 1/250. That implies a faster film.
Thoughts?
View attachment 262682
Yeah, I'm tempted to slap my forehead Homer Simpson style here... I will refrain, mostly because my slapping hand is holding the Leica M6 which would dent my forehead.Bright sunlight is sunny 16. This hasn't changed. The beach and snow has always been sunny 22, so to speak.
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
I've tried 510-Pyro at box speed for both of those films. 1+1+100 dilution. HP5 has a slightly stronger stain. 8 min, for Acros II (agitation 5s/min), 9:30 for HP5 (agitation 5s/min) 20C for both. Nice results.
I've tried 510-Pyro at box speed for both of those films. 1+1+100 dilution. HP5 has a slightly stronger stain. 8 min, for Acros II (agitation 5s/min), 9:30 for HP5 (agitation 5s/min) 20C for both. Nice results.
Andrew, have you ever tried ether or both films in Pyrocat HD? If you have a comparison would be useful
Thanks
pentaxuser
Yes, I have. Comparisons will be coming in the not too distant future (it's on the list!). I have used HP5 in Pyrocat-HD for decades. Acros I for many years, and Acros II only very recently in both developers.
New prospective user searches for Acros II experiences. Sees Photrio as a result. Checks Photrio thread thinking this could be a good place to see images taken with Acros II with comments. Sees 6 pages of text, zero pictures of film in actual use so. Leaves and never comes back. The story of Photrio.
New prospective user searches for Acros II experiences. Sees Photrio as a result. Checks Photrio thread thinking this could be a good place to see images taken with Acros II with comments. Sees 6 pages of text, zero pictures of film in actual use so. Leaves and never comes back. The story of Photrio.
New prospective user searches for Acros II experiences. Sees Photrio as a result. Checks Photrio thread thinking this could be a good place to see images taken with Acros II with comments. Sees 6 pages of text, zero pictures of film in actual use so. Leaves and never comes back. The story of Photrio.
New prospective user searches for Acros II experiences. Sees Photrio as a result. Checks Photrio thread thinking this could be a good place to see images taken with Acros II with comments. Sees 6 pages of text, zero pictures of film in actual use so. Leaves and never comes back. The story of Photrio.
Can you really detect subtle differences in film quality from small scans posted on the web? If so, your eyes are much better than mine. I've often thought that most of the pictures people post purporting to illustrate the performance or superiority of some film/developer combination were pretty much a waste of bandwidth.
Hi Henning,
I am new to film photography and have just bought some 35mm rolls of ilford hp5 and also fuji acros 2. The developer I have got in anticipation for them both is 510 pyro. Is this a developer you would consider for the acros and if so how would you go about it shot at box speed with contrast hopefully been between zones 3 to 8. Thanks in advance.
It's not just that, whoever uploaded the scans probably did any manipulation with an uncalibrated monitor and those viewing them do so on an uncalibrated monitor as well. You really can't make any conclusions except perhaps something blatantly obvious, like serious underexposure and overdevelopment. Apart from something like that, there's no certainty of any kind.
You also can't be sure of the validity of the poster's technique and/or methodology. So, is it all pointless? Not entirely, but IMHO any samples on line need to be taken with a large grain of salt.
On the other hand, there are those who post characteristic curves, like @aparat did in another thread lately (congratulations aparat, excellent work there) and this is something far more objective. Some might say that it gets too technical, but these are hard, unmanipulated facts.
Anyway, just my 2c...
New prospective user searches for Acros II experiences. Sees Photrio as a result. Checks Photrio thread thinking this could be a good place to see images taken with Acros II with comments. Sees 6 pages of text, zero pictures of film in actual use so. Leaves and never comes back. The story of Photrio.
Well Huss, with all respect, but:
No.
Definitely not in this case! Because a problem only exists for those people who have not read my original posting = my test report.
And it seems that you have not read it at all. Unfortunately.
Otherwise you would not have written the comment above.
In my test report I have clearly explained that the differences between Acros I and II are so minimal that they are negligible.
And the extremely small difference which can occur in the shape of the cc in Zones IX and X can also be completely eliminated by a small adjustment of the developing technique.
If you then compare Acros I to Acros II results it will be impossible to distinguish them in a blind test.
Period.
Therefore absolutely no additional pictures needed because Acros II looks just like Acros I.
And all Acros I users of course know how this film looks like.
And the internet is just full of Acros I (and meanwhile also Acros II) pictures.
That is also the reason why I have not integrated pictures in my test report: It was absolutely not necessary, and would have been a waste of time.
My film tests are very intensive, detailed and very time consuming. And then also answering all the different questions in this thread, also very time consuming. It is all done here on photrio in my very rare spare time, and no one is paying me for sharing my test results here.
Instead I could do much, much more enjoyable things, and life is short........
And of course Steve Goldstein and Anon Ymous are absolutely right with their comments (see above), too.
Best regards,
Henning
Even if the end result is pics from Acros II look the same as those from Acros, those performing an internet search looking for examples of pics taken w Acros II will come here, see there are no images, and leave to most probably never come back. Because what use is a photo site w no photos?
Ya know that old internet adage “this thread is worthless without pics”?
on the upside, if they did a search for Catlabs 320 and hit photrio, they would now actually see real photos!
Ya know that old internet adage “this thread is worthless without pics”?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?