Fujifilm Neopan Acros II: Test Report

[Craig]

Holy Moly your Ladner Creek Trestle image looks like mine! Great minds thing alike!

I was thinking of you when I posted that. Can't take that photo anymore, they have put up a fence at the end of the bridge.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I was thinking of you when I posted that. Can't take that photo anymore, they have put up a fence at the end of the bridge.

I think there have been people doing silly things there. Someone lit the trestle on fire a few years ago. I drive past there a few times a year. The last time I stopped, which must be close to ten years now, there was a fence. I took a photo from slightly down below. I think an infrared image is in the gallery...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Apologies for going off topic!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Staying off topic. .. I grew up on the edge of the second deepest canyon on the continent, twice as deep as the Grand Canyon, and the nearest friend my age was 9 miles away on a very winding one-lane road with logging trucks on it. So i'd either walk or bicycle a shortcut along a 150 year old narrow-gage railroad bed. At one point that involved tip-toeing over a rotting trestle, now totally collapsed.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

the headlights of a texting driver on the morning commute.

"The headlights of a texting anus on the morning commute,"
There, I fixed it for you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's called multi-tasking : texting, pulling up websites, applying lipstick using the rearview mirror, cursing at an adjacent driver, steering with the knees, and causing a six car collision behind you without even noticing it - all at the same time! But even that was nowhere near as bad as an average of two lane-splitters a day; and I'm not referring to motorcycles, but actual cars.

 

[Henning Serger]

Same question - I prefer a staining pyro like PMK to keep the highlights more printable without penalty to the rest of the curve. Superb grain structure and crisp edge acutance. Makes the most out of this film for me. But D76 produces a sag in the middle of the curve with a long upsweep. Perceptol 1:3 is a dream developer for TMX100 at this dilution, but produces annoyingly exaggerated grain in Acros. I have zero experience with XTOL. Incidentally, I routinely rate ACROS at 50 in order to boost deep shadows tonality off the toe and up onto the straight line section of the curve, unless it's a low contrast scene to begin with.

Hello Drew,

if I understand you right you have so far used PMK for Acros I, and you are wondering whether changes are needed for Acros II?
Well, this little upswing in the curve of Acros II is really only a little one, and only in Zone IX and X. And Zone X is brillant white anyway with a complete linear curve.
So you could just start with your established developing routine with Acros I in PMK at a first step. And look whether you have significant problems with printing (most probably not). Well, the highlight detail will not be gone, you may just need a little bit burning of these zones.
Second option: With most developers the density in the highlights can be lowered / the curve a bit flattened by less agitation.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thank you Henning. I find ACROS highly responsive to printing. But when encountering extreme 11 or 12 stop scene contrast ranges, I use either TMX100 or TMY400 instead. Acros simply can't handle that kind of range; nor, the opposite direction, will it accept a high boost in "plus" development as neeed for especially low contrast scenes. It's more a middle of the road film like FP4, but with different spectral sensitivity and finer grain.

Of course in 120 roll film, there is always a shot or two out of synch contrast-wise with the rest, so I'm glad for the presence of excellent VC papers these days. I only have one box of 4x5 Acros left, and no 8x10 at all. It's an exceptional film, but possibly fully doomed in the near future, at least as far as any new coatings go.

 

[Henning Serger]

Thank you Henning. I find ACROS highly responsive to printing. But when encountering extreme 11 or 12 stop scene contrast ranges, I use either TMX100 or TMY400 instead.

Drew, I understand, you are a fan of the very long range linear curve of TMX and TMY-2.
Well, concerning this factor Acros II is indeed a bit more similar / more close to both Kodak films than Acros I.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's interesting and encouraging. But based on all the film I still have in my freezer I don't know if I'll ever have the incentive to try the II version, though I should probably pick up one 120 roll just for testing purposes. I primarily shot ACROS for sake of its availability in 4X5 Quickload sleeves, which were more reliable than Kodak Readyload sleeves. But alas, now that I'm approaching my mid-70's, any 4x5 long-haul backpacking application is more likely to involve the lighter weight of 6x9 roll film holders, now that Quickloads are long gone, or an outright 6X9 FUJI rangefinder camera instead.

 

[Henning Serger]

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

Just as an addition:
Below some shots with the above mentioned workflow:
Acros 100 II 120, exposed at E.I 40/17°, developed in ADOX FX-39 II, dilution 1+9, 7 minutes developing time, first minute permanent agitation, then 1x agitation / turn (Kipp) per minute.
The scene was quite challenging because of the very high contrast of the deep black dress to the the very bright white stairway.
Black dresses in fashion photography are often quite problematic concerning exposure, because they tend to completely "suck up" / absorb all light and go full, deep black without any detail / texture.
But here I wanted to have texture / detail both in the black dress, and the bright white surrounding. The combination of exposure, adjusted developemt and the compensating characteristic of ADOX FX-39 II lead exactly to the result I wanted.
In the original negative there is even more detail, as these are just quick scans with my very cheap office flatbed scanner (Epson V550).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Acros 100 II 120, exposed at E.I 40/17°, developed in ADOX FX-39 II, dilution 1+9, 7 minutes developing time, first minute permanent agitation, then 1x agitation / turn (Kipp) per minute...In the original negative there is even more detail, as these are just quick scans with my very cheap office flatbed scanner (Epson V550)...

Henning,

Those appear rather grainy on my screen, especially from 120 originals at the small image sizes I'm viewing. Do you attribute this to a scanning artifact, or is the same thing visible on your negatives? Thanks in advance.

Sal

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning,

Those appear rather grainy on my screen, especially from 120 originals at the small image sizes I'm viewing. Do you attribute this to a scanning artifact, or is the same thing visible on your negatives? Thanks in advance.

Sal

Sal, it is due to scanning artefacts. The V550 photo belongs to the cheapest scanning options. I cannot recommend it at all for scans of negative / positive film. And I normally only use it - very rarely - for selection purposes. Normally I make classic contact prints in my darkroom.
Honestly, I was very hesitant to upload these scans here because of that. But as some members have requested scans......

Well, anyway, my main point was the development with FX-39 II to manage the contrast challenges. Despite being worse compared to the original, I think it is nevertheless visible in the scans that the detail / texture is there both in the shadow and highlight areas.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[alanrockwood]

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.

When I worked for a company our rule of thumb was that the direct costs to the company to make the product should be about 30% of the selling price.

 

[MattKing]

When I worked for a company our rule of thumb was that the direct costs to the company to make the product should be about 30% of the selling price.

And even that may be high - some things are considerably more expensive than others to get into the hands of end users.

 

[albireo]

Those appear rather grainy on my screen, especially from 120 originals at the small image sizes I'm viewing. Do you attribute this to a scanning artifact, or is the same thing visible on your negatives?

I doubt it's a scanning artifact. I have the same scanner (although I don't use it anymore after upgrading to a better workflow) and it's really pretty good on well exposed, and well developed 6x6 and above. It's pathetic on 35mm and still quite poor on 6x4.5 though.

I went to check some of my 6x6 V550 scans from some years ago and I see far better looking grain from my Foma 100 and Tmax 400 negatives than shown above. Acros should look much better, with very fine, and very high quality grain rendered.

What you're seeing is more likely a compression artefact, or a poor film/developer match, or the result of a slightly overdeveloped and/or overexposed negative, or a combination of some or all of these.

 

[HeikoW]

The scene was quite challenging because of the very high contrast of the deep black dress to the the very bright white stairway.

The contrast between the black dress and the white background is challenging. However, maintaining the visibility of the texture of the black dress is impressive. I also noticed that the pictures seem a bit grainy. On the other hand, FX 39 II is not known for producing fine grain. I use it frequently, but primarily with medium format films in the meanwhile. Recently, I've transitioned to using XT3 for 35 mm.

 

[Henning Serger]

What you're seeing is more likely a compression artefact, or a poor film/developer match, or the result of a slightly overdeveloped and/or overexposed negative, or a combination of some or all of these.

I can absolutely ensure you that it is neither a poor film/developer combo, the result of a slightly overdeveloped and/or overexposed negative, nor a combination of these.
I have evaluted the characteristic curve of this film / developer combination with sensitometric tests. Measured all values with my Heiland TRD-2 densitometer (which offers outstanding precision, a highly recommended tool).

And these negatives look absolutely fine under a 10x loupe, the 30x40 cm prints are grainless, and on 45x60 cm prints you don't see any grain from a normal viewing distance.
Of course ADOX FX-39II produces a more visible grain compard to e.g. an extremely fine grain, excellent sharpness developer like SPUR HRX, but as Acros II is so extremely fine grained you need high enlargement factors to get a really significant difference in grain appearance. And in medium format you normally don't need such high factors.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[albireo]

I can absolutely ensure you

I am not satisfied with your absolutes, sorry. We'd need to do a proper controlled test with a couple of well functioning Epson V550 to ultimately decide this.

It might be just simply that the developer you used is the main culprit. I have seen a lot of extremely grainy images from 120 negatives developed with that product. But again, this would also require proper testing.

Lacking proper testing, placing the blame on a consumer scanner, which in other hands does not return this kind of result, is (no offense to anyone here) lazy.

 

[Henning Serger]

Lacking proper testing,

Sorry, a very arrogant claim.
Do you know which and how much tests I have done with this film / developer combination?
No, you don't know. Period.

I know how to properly do such tests. I am running an independent, non-profit photography test lab for many years, and film and developer tests belong to the most demanded tests. I have tested almost all films on the market, and dozens of different developers.
And the results of my negatives and prints are as I have described them in my post above.

 

[albireo]

Sorry, a very arrogant claim.
Do you know which and how much tests I have done with this film / developer combination?
No, you don't know. Period.

I know how to properly do such tests. I am running an independent, non-profit photography test lab for many years, and film and developer tests belong to the most demanded tests. I have tested almost all films on the market, and dozens of different developers.
And the results of my negatives and prints are as I have described them in my post above.

Your Epson V550 is not the reason for that graininess, unless a) it's working incorrectly or b) it's a faulty sample. I'm completely ready to assume, for example, that there is extreme variance in factory specs and yours produces extremely grainy scans of fine-grained 100 ISO film in 120 format. But I'd need to see some evidence to definitively conclude this is the case.

But that's just me, you carry on with your Ipse dixit Aristoteles-style

 

[koraks]

Moderator note: sometimes, there's no other solution than to "agree to disagree". In this case, @Henning Serger is clear about his observations (with the negatives in his possession). The rest of us can take or leave his claims as we please, but there's only so much we can (and should) do to try to get to the bottom of it.

As it stands, it seems that the constructive part of the exchange has run its course and it's now entering a decidedly less constructive phase - which is a good moment to put a stop to it.

Please continue in another direction from here.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Moderator note: sometimes, there's no other solution than to "agree to disagree". In this case, @Henning Serger is clear about his observations (with the negatives in his possession). The rest of us can take or leave his claims as we please, but there's only so much we can (and should) do to try to get to the bottom of it.

As it stands, it seems that the constructive part of the exchange has run its course and it's now entering a decidedly less constructive phase - which is a good moment to put a stop to it.

Please continue in another direction from here.

Hear, hear! Well said koraks.

 

[doctorpepe]

I just wanted to share that if you use a Rolleiflex (SL or TLR) with the auto load “feeler” feature, the tape connector where the film starts on the paper backing may not be sufficiently thick to trigger the auto-stop to allow the film to be set for the first exposure. I tried several Acros Ii rolls in my Rolleis and experiences this. No such problems with all other 120 films in my cameras.