Fujifilm Neopan Acros II: Test Report

[Henning Serger]

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

You are welcome.
No, the original coating line (for the film base) is gone. That step is done in a new factory (Inovisproject in Germany, a daughter company of Polaroid). The production of the complete film ("assembling" of the negative film base + chemical pod + paper frame + packaging) is done in the original former Polaroid factory in Enschede, Netherlands.

Anything happening in the US?

No, not concerning Polaroid film production. Polaroid is essentially a European company now (Polish main shareholder, headquarter in the Netherlands, film production facilities in the Netherlands and Germany).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[SchwinnParamount]

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

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?

 

[mshchem]

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

Bright sunlight is sunny 16. This hasn't changed. The beach and snow has always been sunny 22, so to speak.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Bright sunlight is sunny 16. This hasn't changed. The beach and snow has always been sunny 22, so to speak.

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.

 

[Beestonite]

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

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

 

[Beestonite]

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.

Thanks for that Andrew, looking forward to it.

 

[Huss]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

 

[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.

Great. Useful for me and many others and it may prevent Huss from leaving us

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

I've got many examples of Acros I. I only started with version II recently. I was hesitant to even buy the new version as I have heaps of old version that I brought over from Japan, just before Fuji scrapped it. Eventually, I'll get some of the new stuff up here.

 

[dourbalistar]

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.

@Huss, I have a few examples posted in this thread. Caveat that I've only shot one roll of the original Acros I and this was my first roll of Acros II. So you could say I'm a Neopan neophyte...

Legacy L110 or R09 Rodinal for Acros II?

Which one, or are they not that different? I have been shooting for a few years now and until now I really cant tell what the differences between developers are, but I do know what I like (I do not like Xtol or Tmax developer). I have used L110 and Rodinal and PaRodinal before. I like them...

www.photrio.com

 

[Steve Goldstein]

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.

 

[gone]

It's an online forum Steve, so everything will have to be on the monitors. It's all we got. Can subtle differences be visible? Usually, yes. I've made lots of decisions based on what is here, along with reading the thread to get more info.

 

[Anon Ymous]

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.

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...

 

[K-G]

The Acros II is in itself an excellent film, just as the old version. As long as you use 35 mm film ( unfortunately I don't think it is made in sheet sizes ) there should not be any problem, but the 120-size films have had similar problems with mottling as Ilford had. The difference is that Ilford communicated and reacted directly but Fuji has remained silent. I enclose a link to another thread where this is discussed.

Karl-Gustaf

Spots on Negatives (Fuji Acros, PyrocatHD, TF4) - Please Help

Just developed 4 roles of Fuji Acros II and am seeing white spots across all frames. I did two batches of two films and all four films have the problem. Any advice on what could be the problem? I will try a different developer and fresh fixer, but am still curious on what your thoughts are on...

www.photrio.com

 

[Henning Serger]

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.

Hello,

I have not tested Acros II in 510 Pyro. Therefore I don't want to comment on this specific film-developer combination. It would not be trustworthy / reputable.
But from my experience with Acros I and II and all other BW films I have big doubts that you will get real box speed. Because of the following reasons:
1. We have the Zone System and we have the ISO norm. And if we compare both we see that in terms of the Zone System the ISO norm values lead indeed already to a Push 1 development. In terms of the ZS the ISO norm for BW film is too optmistic concerning the real sensitivity and shadow detail, and the resulting contrast is also higher compared to film developed according to ZS standards.

That is the reason why almost all experienced BW film photographers - and especially those who test their film-developer combinations also by evaluating the characteristic curve to get optimal processing - expose their BW films with 2/3 to one stop more light and develop accordingly. At least if they want to have good shadow detail and best tonality.
That is also the physical background / reason for the rule of thumb "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights".

2. In most developers Acros has about 1/4 - 1/3 stop less real sensitivity (shadow detail) compared to its direct competitors Delta 100 and TMX.

And let me make an additional general statement:
In about the last two years 510 Pyro has become a kind of "trend-developer", often praised as the new "Wunderentwickler" = "wonder / miracle developer".
A kind of "magic bullett" which gives perfect results with every film.
These claims e.g. were made in German facebook film photography groups. And exclusively made by people with very little experience in film developing. Recently we've also seen new commercial suppliers promoting this developer as a general "best-in-class" or a "must-have".

But:
In the decades I've used and tested dozens of different developers, and countless film-developer combinations.
Results:
1. There are no "Wunderentwickler", no "one-fits-all solutions". This simply does not exist.
Period.
There are lots of excellent developers which do harmonize very well with certain films. But every developer - even the best ones - do harmonize very well or even excellently only with a limited number of films. But never with all films on the market!!
Because film emulsions are so different, and developers are so different. Sometimes we get a very good match, but often because of these differences the match is only so-la-la or subpar.

This is also valid for the popular standard developers like D-76, ID-11, XTOL, Rodinal etc. They deliver good or very good results with lots of films. But excellent results only with a quite limited number of films.
And that of course also differs from film and developer: So you might get excellent results with D-76 and film A, but not with Rodinal and film A.
But you might get excellent results with Rodinal and film B, but not with film B and D-76.
You get the picture.

2. It is completely understandable that BW film photographers prefer to / want to use only one developer, and that one for all the different films they like and use.
But because of the reasons explained above, it is very unlikely that the choosen developer gives perfect results with all of the favourite films.
With some of the film selection: possible.
With all of the film selection: very unlikely.
Well, with using only 2-3 films it can work. But the more different films are used, the less likely it is that the single choosen developer can deliver perfect results with every film of the favourite film selection.

3. Therefore for those photographers who want excellent results and who are using several different films it makes sense to use more than one developer. And as most developers today have a reasonable and long enough shelf life (especially if stored properly), that isn't a problem from a practible standpoint.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Huss]

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...

Only on photrio do we have lots of excuses why there are no images posted.
Other websites don’t have this problem.

I’ve posted lots of Acros pics in the DF96 thread, but this thread is specifically about Acros so this is the thread that would come up on a search.

But nothing. Sad.

 

[Henning Serger]

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

 

[Huss]

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

Ya know that old internet adage “this thread is worthless without pics”?
well, I wouldn’t say it would be worthless but it would be extremely beneficial. Last I checked photography is a visual art form.

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?

on the upside, if they did a search for Catlabs 320 and hit photrio, they would now actually see real photos! Not just text! What a concept!

It is so funny people defending not posting pics on a photography site. And so weird.

 

[lxdude]

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?

They couldn't have a high level of interest if this thread does it for them. This is obviously a technical report thread. It says so in the title. It's comparing old and new versions of a film, not showing what a film looks like. The test result was an explanation, given in depth, that the differences are small.
Maybe we just need to make sure that there is a thread for every film, showing what it looks like with different developers and techniques, with pictures, maybe including comparison pictures to other films and developers.
If their interest is so shallow as to leave because this thread has no pictures, they're not very serious. It will make it clear to them that this site is more serious than much of the stuff they will find elsewhere on the net. Like opening a book with lots of text and few if any pictures is a good indicator that it's not going to be such a light read, but likely more informative.
If they want to know about Acros II, including pictures, all they have to do is make the effort to ask.

 

[Henning Serger]

Ya know that old internet adage “this thread is worthless without pics”?

Yes, I know.
One of the numerous superficial and often just stupid generalizations.
In this case here:
All the needed information for someone who is interested in the question how Acros II behaves in comparison to Acros I are in my test report.
No additional pictures needed.

In other threads where pictures have been needed I had integrated them in my postings. Horses for courses.

The problem here was on your side, as you have not read the original post before making your comment.

And generally it is ridiculous that people who refuse to learn proper BW film developing techniques and refuse to invest so much time in intensive film tests critize others who does exactly that and share their results with the community.

on the upside, if they did a search for Catlabs 320 and hit photrio, they would now actually see real photos!

And, is that sufficient? No, not at all.
In that thread are so many mistakes and misinformation.
I will come to that thread later and give correct information.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Craig]

Ya know that old internet adage “this thread is worthless without pics”?

Rather, worthless with pics. As we move through subject, lighting, film, exposure, development technique, scanning technique, scan corrections, posting to the web and viewing on a device there are so many variables that the resulting picture is worthless for determining any useful properties of the film.

All you can really tell is if it's a pleasing picture or not, and even that is subjective.

 

[ags2mikon]

Henning, thank you so much for your extensive testing of this fine product. I have used acros 1 over the years and am ready to buy more as my frozen stock is almost gone. It is not my main film in 100 speed but It's excellent reciprocity characteristics make it a valuable film. As to the cost, well you get what you pay for. Fuji for the most part has always made good products. Thanks to your testing and Fuji's excellent customer support I will be able to dial in the acros 2 quickly. As to pictures I just don't think that anyone could show the subtle differences between the new film and the old film on the web. It would be a waste of time and bandwidth. There are just too many variables. Thank you for your thoughtful posts.