Fujifilm Neopan Acros II: Test Report

[Mick Fagan]

Thank you very much Henning, I really appreciate the work you have done on this.

Mick.

 

[mpirie]

I'm not an Acros user, but i appreciate the time, effort and cost that Henning has put into his extensive testing.

I also appreciate that he has given freely of his time and results to keep us all appraised of the new Acros product.

Thankyou Henning.

Mike

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Henning,

I would second Mike's comment, this work is helpful even for those of us who may be infrequent users of Acros, now or in the past. Rather too often with traditional photographic products, it can be difficult to work out exactly what a product is vs marketing efforts so it is reassuring that you've confirmed Acros II is a distinct Fujifilm product and not some kind of branding exercise.

 

[Henning Serger]

Dear photrio members,
thank you all very much for your kind words, thanks and all the appreciation.
That is motivation for me to continue with my test work. Further projects are in the pipeline for the summer, please stay tuned .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...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)...

In this post

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ble-soon-in-europe.173224/page-3#post-2296262​

I detailed the results of my ACROS II 135 test in Perceptol 1+1, which is reportedly a metol / sodium sulfite / sodium chloride developer like Fujifilm's Microfine. I have not purchased any 120 ACROS II yet because, even in Microfine, Fujifilm's data sheet for that size shows an upswept curve, whereas the 135 data sheet Microfine curve is straight. See attached excerpts from both those data sheets.

Have you noticed any differences in the characteristic curves between 135 and 120 sizes of ACROS II for each developer type? Thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[Henning Serger]

Have you noticed any differences in the characteristic curves between 135 and 120 sizes of ACROS II for each developer type? Thanks in advance for your reply.

Sal, no I haven't got significant differences.
I am convinced in the end it is really a "non-issue", at least for photographers with a basic knowledge in BW film developing. As written in my test report, if you get a steeper curve in the highlights, just reduce agitation. More agitation leads to denser highlights, and less agitation to less dense highlights. And (semi)compensation developers and higher dilutions are further measures to limit highlight density.
As you have the knowledge and a densitometer you are perfectly prepared to get optimal results for you . And you already have got and posted your first perfect results with Perceptol.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Hello dear BW film shooters, as promised some time ago (sorry for the delay), and on request of several photrio members, here finally is my detailed test report about the new Acros II....

Very informative, I greatly appreciate it! You definitely answered questions that I had.
I wish you well in your continued recovery!

 

[eli griggs]

Thanks for your rundown.

I have a few rolls of the original a d have been holding back on taking a decision as to try this 'new' film.

Cheers.

 

[markjwyatt]

Thanks for the report. When I started getting back into film photography a couple of years ago, I shot some Acros (I), mainly out of curiosity because my Fujifilm XT-2 has the ACROS sim on it. I did like it and was thinking it could become a regular film for me, but then they discontinued it. When ACROS II starting coming out a lot of people were not happy with the price. I said then, and still suspect it is in the "new thing" and "limited supply" mode still (I checked Amazon and only a couple of places had 120, and no 135mm; the photo places have it but not cheap). I suspect as it stops being the new thing and in limited supply, prices will approach other film prices. I also remember when Fuji was considered cheaper film. They took market share, but not fully heart and mind. Now in this environment, they have continues to support film plus have oriented their digital technology to maintain a film like look and feel. Fuji is now looked at as a premium photography supplier. Kudos to them.

 

[GLS]

Many thanks for the report Henning.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I ordinarily processed the original ACROS in staining pyro, and taming any highlight upsweep for printing purposes is integral to that, so no problem. It's helpful to learn that the new replacement product retains many of the key features of the previous one, including basically an orthopan sensitivity and almost completely linear long-exposure response, which still make it a rather unique film. I still have quite a few rolls of the previous version, so won't be commenting on the newer version anytime soon. But I only have one box of 4x5 left, and perhaps never will see it in sheet film formats again. But there are workarounds to that, since very fine grain is not a priority in large format applications. I consider ACROS, either way, to be a truly deluxe film, but question whether I'll be able to afford nearly four times as much per 120 roll as what I last paid for original ACROS in quantity. To a considerable extent, I've already switched over to the longer straight line, faster effective speed, and better ability to increase gamma with TMX100, especially since I've learned how to enhance its lackluster edge acutance using Perceptol 1:3.

 

[eli griggs]

I also like the original Acros in PMK pyro and I need to order that chemistry as it is one of the few developers I've held off compounding myself, simply because of the toxin factor.

If Fuji drops the new film prices so it's more affordable, I would go ahead and risk it, but there has to be the volume of film first, imo, to justify the chemical cost, vs, a P.F. kit per measured.

IMO.

 

[john_s]

I ordinarily processed the original ACROS in staining pyro, and taming any highlight upsweep for printing purposes is integral to that, so no problem.........................
....................................To a considerable extent, I've already switched over to the longer straight line, faster effective speed, and better ability to increase gamma with TMX100, especially since I've learned how to enhance its lackluster edge acutance using Perceptol 1:3.

Drew, I suppose you tried TMax100 in a pyro developer. Were you dissatisfied with the results?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Except for some early work with the earlier version of TMax100, I routinely used PMK pyro, and stictly shot 4x5 film back then. I was quite disappointed with the edge acutance; but TMX did provide me with longer scale and better rendition of the extremes of contrast typical in the high mountains, desert, and deep local redwood forests than FP4 etc. Then I worked almost entirely in 8x10 for over a decade, where more distinct film grain is a non-issue; and by then the newer version of TMY400 was around with much finer granularity than the first version, so fine, in fact, that I ended up shooting only it for 4x5 field applications, but used TMX100 and FP4 sheet film just for lab applications like masking. In more recent years, anticipating the need for lighter weight equipment with advancing age, I started doing more medium format work; and the trick was to make rich enough detailed prints to sneak into the same portfolios as prints from 4X5 and 8x10 film, which takes some serious optimization. I truly like ACROS, but it has certain limitations I already mentioned. So I did some new homework, and found a way to make TMax100 do almost exactly what I want, with better defined edge effect, yet still a long straight line way down deep into shadows, without loss of box film speed. The prints tell it all. I'm now essentially multi-format, but also multi-film. I like experimenting.

 

[NB23]

When it was the cheapest, it was a completely different time:
- At that time (around 2007 / 2008) the global market for photo film was still about 1 billion units p.a.. So still a huge mass market. In 2020 the market size is less than 10% of the that 2007/08 volume. It is a niche market now in comparison.
- At that time film demand was declining with yearly rates of 15-25% (depending on the regional market), and all film manufacturers tried to keep as much market share as possible by avoiding the necessary price increases (and Fuji's marketing strategy in "film boom times" has always been to sell cheaper than Kodak). That strategy of course could only work for a limited time in a strongly decreasing market. Some time later the critical point was reached and all manufacturers had to adopt to new market reality, with prices that cover at least the manufacturing costs.

Best regards,
Henning

It was the same time as when tri-x and hp-5 and tmx and foma were in the market.

Your analysis is a subjective flood of subjective over-analysis that mean nothing, really. Why isn’t tri-x worth 24.95 per roll, per your analysis? It very could be, according to all what you said...

 

[K-G]

Except for some early work with the earlier version of TMax100, I routinely used PMK pyro, and stictly shot 4x5 film back then. I was quite disappointed with the edge acutance; but TMX did provide me with longer scale and better rendition of the extremes of contrast typical in the high mountains, desert, and deep local redwood forests than FP4 etc. Then I worked almost entirely in 8x10 for over a decade, where more distinct film grain is a non-issue; and by then the newer version of TMY400 was around with much finer granularity than the first version, so fine, in fact, that I ended up shooting only it for 4x5 field applications, but used TMX100 and FP4 sheet film just for lab applications like masking. In more recent years, anticipating the need for lighter weight equipment with advancing age, I started doing more medium format work; and the trick was to make rich enough detailed prints to sneak into the same portfolios as prints from 4X5 and 8x10 film, which takes some serious optimization. I truly like ACROS, but it has certain limitations I already mentioned. So I did some new homework, and found a way to make TMax100 do almost exactly what I want, with better defined edge effect, yet still a long straight line way down deep into shadows, without loss of box film speed. The prints tell it all. I'm now essentially multi-format, but also multi-film. I like experimenting.

You wrote before that you use Perceptol 1:3 for Tmax 100 . Can you tell us somewhat more about your process, or is it a secret of trades ? In any way, it sounds interesting.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Henning Serger]

It was the same time as when tri-x and hp-5 and tmx and foma were in the market.
Your analysis is a subjective flood of subjective over-analysis that mean nothing, really.

Well, if you have a better one, why don't you have shared it in the Acros thread in the Industry News subforum.....?

Why isn’t tri-x worth 24.95 per roll, per your analysis?

Tri-X has been for years and still is the most demanded BW film. It is produced in much, much higher volumes than Acros have ever been. Acros was very late in the market (TMX and Delta 100 were established for many years with a loyal user base), at the beginning of the "digital revolution": Introduced in Japan in 2002, and in the rest of the world in 2003. At that time the focus of the photo world was already on digital developments, and not on traditional BW film. Acros has always been a niche product with relatively low volumes compared to other Fujifilm films and other BW films in the market.
Last year a former Agfa (Germany) employee who worked in the Agfa film research department joined one of our workshops. He left the company just before the production stopped. We've had quite detailed talks about the industry and the photo market. He explained that in the beginning of the 00ies, when the global film demand was still almost on its high (peak demand was in 1999/2000), Agfa made only 1 Cent net profit per m² of color film. So they needed to sell 17 (!) 35mm films to make 1 tiny Cent net profit. And that at a time with a global film demand above 3 billion units.
Now the market for standard photo film (without instant film) is below 100 million units p.a.
Film production has been for a very long time now a low(est) margin business. That is a fact which is mostly ignored by lots of members here. You just have to look at the Harman technology financial data which is yearly published. If you look at their very small profit (significantly less than 1 million pounds), and compare that with their production volume (several million films, hundreds of thousands m² photo paper, dozens of thousands of litres of photo chemistry) you immediately see that the net profit per product is tiny. Especially if you consider that you have an extremely sophisticated, very complex high-tech product with film and photo paper.

Fujifilm definitely made some severe mistakes in market research in the 2014-2018 period, including product portfolio and production planning. They were not aware of or have underestimated the film revival for standard (non instant) films. Other film manufacturers did a much better job in this respect. But even Kodak has underestimated it, as their responsible film manager explained in an interview at the beginning of this year. But Kodak has been aware of the revival in general, but they underestimated the strength and momentum of it. Fujifilm has also made mistakes in marketing. The Fujifilm mistakes led to lower sales than possible and decreased market share. But it looks like Fujifilm has meanwhile realized their mistakes and the positive changes in the market. At Photokina 2018 they made clear statements in that direction, including a commitment to film. And now the Acros II.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

You wrote before that you use Perceptol 1:3 for Tmax 100 . Can you tell us somewhat more about your process, or is it a secret of trades ? In any way, it sounds interesting.

Karl-Gustaf

Karl-Gustaf, It would be very nice if you and Drew would discuss that in an own thread fully dedicated to that specific topic. Other members interested in TMX processing also could then find that topic much easier. No one expect such topic buried in a thread about Acros film characteristics.........

Thanks and best regards,
Henning

 

[foc]

It was the same time as when tri-x and hp-5 and tmx and foma were in the market.

Your analysis is a subjective flood of subjective over-analysis that mean nothing, really. Why isn’t tri-x worth 24.95 per roll, per your analysis? It very could be, according to all what you said...

Henning, there always appears to be an armchair expert who can't help showing that they know more than anyone else and that they love to hide behind the keyboard.

 

[NB23]

Henning, there always appears to be an armchair expert who can't help showing that they know more than anyone else and that they love to hide behind the keyboard.

I respect you all guys. And Henning’s passion is respectful.

But Henning is not a finance director. Not an international markets analyst. And by his vocabulary and explanations, surely he is NOT a PRODUCT OPERATIONS MANAGER. At least he doesn’t sound like one.

As for the armchair thing, I have a business university degree. And I tend to at least differentiate a real economic discourse from some subjective blabber. In this case, I’m very far from being convinced as to why Tri-x is not priced at let’s say 24.95$ per roll. Or 12.98$ for that matter. And Henning hasn’t come even close to explaining it.

I have my own educated idea on the Acros II price point, and I will say just this: if it doesn’t go under 7$ quickly, it will go out of the market. Or Kodak and Ilford go 13$++ per roll.
One or the orher.

 

[Henning Serger]

But Henning is not a finance director. Not an international markets analyst.

Completely wrong. He is indeed kind of both .
I am running two small independent companies: One is focussed on investment analysis and financial advice / consultancy. I started that during my studies at university. The second company is focussed on international market analysis (mainly in the photo industry), evaluation of economic and technological paradigma changes and company strategies. I started that after my work as a scientist at University.
I have designed market evaluation models, which are working very well. For example I have forecasted already in 2006/07 that we will have a film revival from 2016 on. It happened exactly that way. But that is only one reason why companies from the photo industry are appreciating my analysis.
By the way, I have been inside five different film factories now, having detailed talks with the engineers and CEOs.
How many film factories have you visited? None.
Companies from the photo industry are asking me for my analysis and assessments.

As your are thinking that I am an idiot and you are so much better in your assessments, feel free to contact the companies and offer your advice. Good luck!

In this case, I’m very far from being convinced as to why Tri-x is not priced at let’s say 24.95$ per roll. Or 12.98$ for that matter. And Henning hasn’t come even close to explaining it.

Well, if you haven't understood that a high volume product can be produced at significant lower costs than a small volume niche product, then you don't have understood 'economies of scale' at all. And as explained, the involvement of Harman technology is an additional cost factor, too. And then Fujifilm has explained that one reason for the Acros I discontinuation was the discontinuation of raw materials used in Acros I. It is possible that the replacement raw materials are more expensive. I know that some materials which are absolutely needed for film production have increased by a factor of 10x in the last 15 years.

I have my own educated idea on the Acros II price point, and I will say just this: if it doesn’t go under 7$ quickly, it will go out of the market.

The future will tell us. Acros II has some characteristics that are unique, and which no competitor can offer, like the reciprocity characteristic which is unsurpassed for BW films. We will see whether the customers appreciate these specifications and will pay the higher price for Acros II.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[John Wiegerink]

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. Of course you didn't ask me.
If TRI-X is the largest selling B&W film, which might or might not be true, it's because it's a fine product with a well established name, at a reasonable price point. Oh, and it comes in a very recognizable yellow box with the name KODAK on it. If you triple the price of TRI-X I'd be willing to bet it won't be "King of the mountain" very much longer.
If I had a project going that required very long exposures and didn't want do mess with Reciprocity tables I might use Acros II. If not, I'll just buy three rolls of my favorite/most used B&W film with the money I've saved by not buying Acros II. What's so funny about this whole discussion is the fact that the original Across used to be one of the cheapest big box B&W films on the market.. I used it in 120 a lot and could by a brick cheaper than Ilford or Kodak. Fuji's marketing and pricing has always been a little weird and a good example of this was there pricing of 4x5 Acros. I always wanted to try it, but was unwilling to pay the price when compared to the very same product in 120 or 35mm. Maybe we're just looking again at Fuji's weird way of pricing products? Sure makes one scratch his head that's for sure. JW

 

[removedacct1]

If I had a project going that required very long exposures and didn't want do mess with Reciprocity tables I might use Acros II. If not, I'll just buy three rolls of my favorite/most used B&W film with the money I've saved by not buying Acros II. What's so funny about this whole discussion is the fact that the original Across used to be one of the cheapest big box B&W films on the market.. I used it in 120 a lot and could by a brick cheaper than Ilford or Kodak. Fuji's marketing and pricing has always been a little weird and a good example of this was there pricing of 4x5 Acros. I always wanted to try it, but was unwilling to pay the price when compared to the very same product in 120 or 35mm. Maybe we're just looking again at Fuji's weird way of pricing products? Sure makes one scratch his head that's for sure. JW

The only practical reason I can see for choosing Acros II over ANY other film is if you desperately need the reciprocity characteristics. But for that one trait alone, you are going to pay 2X the price of any other premium quality film. Thankfully, I don't need a film with that particular reciprocity characteristic.

 

[pentaxuser]

It may just be that the current price is close to what the economists term as one that only has a reasonable profit in it and clearly if the price is anywhere near that point then a price reduction is out of the question. As Henning says. Time will tell

The future is worth watching

pentaxuser

 

[K-G]

Karl-Gustaf, It would be very nice if you and Drew would discuss that in an own thread fully dedicated to that specific topic. Other members interested in TMX processing also could then find that topic much easier. No one expect such topic buried in a thread about Acros film characteristics.........

Thanks and best regards,
Henning

OK , sorry for beeing somewhat off track.

Karl-Gustaf