Fujifilm Neopan Acros II: Test Report

[Helge]

Huss, looking at scans to determine the qualities of a film is like listening to a recording of music done through speakers with a microphone pointed at them on YouTube, to determine the quality of the recording.

It’s adding so many layers of interpretation and artifacts on top that it gets pointless.
Sure, it can be done very well, to the point where if it’s done to a strict standard and to the highest ability, it could provide you with some semblance of an idea of the film or recording.
But no such standard exists, and we never know the chain or can be certain of the details anyway.

Often you end up with as much of an impression of the scanner (or the speakers and the room) as of the films subtle and not so subtle qualities.

You can do a sort of fudged overall amalgamation and statistical mean impression by looking at lots of examples online.
But more often than not, even that turns out to be false or a half truth at best.

What’s more, a non trivial concern is getting your photos and images stolen if you post them. Even (or especially perhaps) a test reports image material is too valuable to have them just appropriated by random strangers.

 

[grat]

So, basically, what you guys are saying is that film is only good for producing darkroom prints that no one will ever see.

I must be an alien-- I can look at scanned, processed images of film negatives online, and get a general feel for whether that film stock will produce images I like. If you can't tell in general terms, the difference between, say, T-Max 400, HP5+ and Pancro 400, even with all the variables of developing, scanning, inverting, wildly varying monitors (which don't vary that much anymore, especially if you've done basic gamma calibration for B&W images), then I'm not sure you're paying attention. Or perhaps, you're paying too much attention-- being so caught up in the technical numbers that you lose sight of what film is actually designed to accomplish.

Sure, tone curves, and density readings, spectral sensitivity all matter, as does developer, how the image is scanned, edited, and presented-- But if the same person follows a consistent workflow and produces multiple negatives on multiple film stocks, it's quite easy to compare those results and draw conclusions.

Of course, the last person to do that was vilified and persecuted for being a know-nothing idiot until he deleted his account and all of his posts from Photrio. Well done to the photrio community.

 

[MattKing]

So, basically, what you guys are saying is that film is only good for producing darkroom prints that no one will ever see.

No - that isn't it at all!
Film is good for a vast number of things, used in all sorts of interesting ways.
But the sort of platform offered by Photrio is better at hosting discussions and communicating information than it is at displaying photographs. The means of displaying here play too much of a role in the results to make it easy to tell a lot about the film.
A thread like this dives into the nerdy weeds, and communicates well the sort of technical things that help a lot of people - certainly not everyone - understand and make use of a film.
A thread like the ones Huss tends to start which show people how photographers are using a particular film tell us a lot about those photographers' inspiration, plus a little bit about how a film supports that inspiration, but due to the limitations of the platform don't reveal a lot about the role that the film actually plays in that effort.
What works really well for someone like me, who does like the nerdy technical stuff, is to look at both types of threads.
It sometimes is possible to combine the two, but generally I find that the useful words get in the way of the interesting photos - each tends to disrupt the flow of the other.
For anyone who complains about there being too few pictures, my response is to start a thread inviting examples, and people's responses about what they have observed about what they get out of a film. And for anyone who is unhappy with the amount of technical information about a film, my response is to start a thread inviting people to contribute what they can to that technical information shortcoming. And then we can make sure that people who want both, can find both.

 

[albada]

[...] look at both types of threads. [...]

There are two types of threads because, in my opinion based on observations, there are two types of photographers:

1. Technicians: They enjoy graphs and the technical details of cameras, films, developers, etc. They own densitometers. If they aren't careful, they can regard artists (below) as careless. I am a technician.
2. Artists: They love to get out and shoot. They can see things that technicians overlook, so they take the best photos. They don't own densitometers. If they aren't careful, they can regard technicians as over-thinkers. @Huss is an artist -- he has strong artistic skill that I wish I had.

A few people are strong in both. Ansel Adams and Ralph Lambrecht are salient examples. Lambrecht authored Way Beyond Monochrome, which I regard as a masterpiece as it's strong in both art and the technical.

The same is true of music and dancing. You can become good at these by following rules mechanically, but to become great at them, one must be an artist, expressing the emotion of the music or dance. A woman told me years ago that she was a technician in music, being good mechanically, but she lacked the feeling of what the music was expressing, and that blocked her -- she couldn't go past a certain point.

 

[Agulliver]

The way I see this, Henning has produced a rather technical report. Which draws the conclusion that ACROS II is indistinguishable from ACROS I. It's a comprehensive report from someone with prior reputation for conducting good, accurate work. This isn't the thread I'd come to if I were looking for examples of pictures taken with ACROS. To be honest I'd look for reviews of ACROS II (and even ACROS I, having read they're almost identical)...and those are likely to feature lots of gorgeous photos that will help me decide if I want to buy the film.

Now...Huss is also a reputable poster who posts *lots* of lovely photos when comparing different films, trying out new films and so on. Nothing at all wrong with that. In fact it's most helpful with things like the new Shanghai GP3 and the CatLabs film. But it's not the same as what Henning is doing. Henning doesn't need to produce photographs to show that ACROS I is near identical to ACROS II because the report demonstrates that. Unless you choose not to believe him or can poke holes in his methodology.

I'm not a mod here, but what I see is an unfortunate clash. What do we want, a photo of Henning in his dark room conducting research?

 

[Henning Serger]

No - that isn't it at all!
Film is good for a vast number of things, used in all sorts of interesting ways.
But the sort of platform offered by Photrio is better at hosting discussions and communicating information than it is at displaying photographs. The means of displaying here play too much of a role in the results to make it easy to tell a lot about the film.
A thread like this dives into the nerdy weeds, and communicates well the sort of technical things that help a lot of people - certainly not everyone - understand and make use of a film.
A thread like the ones Huss tends to start which show people how photographers are using a particular film tell us a lot about those photographers' inspiration, plus a little bit about how a film supports that inspiration, but due to the limitations of the platform don't reveal a lot about the role that the film actually plays in that effort.
What works really well for someone like me, who does like the nerdy technical stuff, is to look at both types of threads.
It sometimes is possible to combine the two, but generally I find that the useful words get in the way of the interesting photos - each tends to disrupt the flow of the other.
For anyone who complains about there being too few pictures, my response is to start a thread inviting examples, and people's responses about what they have observed about what they get out of a film. And for anyone who is unhappy with the amount of technical information about a film, my response is to start a thread inviting people to contribute what they can to that technical information shortcoming. And then we can make sure that people who want both, can find both.

+1.
Exactly.
Thanks Matt. And thanks agS2mikon, Craig, Helge, lxdude and Agulliver.
And not to forget: We have a huge own section exclusively for photo presentation here on photrio, including a "Technical Gallery", and an "Experimental Gallery".

Just to make it even more clear from my side: My intention with the original post was simply to give absolutely solid and trustworthy information to photographers who have used Acros I. To the existing Acros user base.
And who of course then wondered whether Acros II will be essentially the same. And they of course absolutely know in detail how Acros I behaves and looks.
And Acros II is so extremely close / almost completely identical that you cannot distinguish them in a blind test. So Acros users just got the information they needed and were looking for.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[koraks]

I'm not a mod here, but what I see is an unfortunate clash.

Well, as a moderator I agree.

Our position as administrative staff is that we'd like to see people respect each other's standpoint and not spiral down into discussions that boil to, essentially, "my flavor of photography is better than yours". This extends to what kind of reviews or tests one likes to peruse.

As a result, feel free by all means to discuss what the merits of one or another flavor of testing is, but please refrain from derogatory comments about each other's preferences, a.k.a. 'bashing'.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's interesting how this thread has gone way off topic.
One of my tests will be to see if Acros II is worthy of Alt. processes. I'd like to make tiny Kallitype contacts. I hope one day Fuji reintroduces it in 4x5.

 

[koraks]

Not the case Huss, we think it's fine if you post pictures. But please refrain from posting sour comments to go with them.

 

[foc]

+1.
Exactly.
Thanks Matt. And thanks agS2mikon, Craig, Helge, lxdude and Agulliver.
And not to forget: We have a huge own section exclusively for photo presentation here on photrio, including a "Technical Gallery", and an "Experimental Gallery".

Just to make it even more clear from my side: My intention with the original post was simply to give absolutely solid and trustworthy information to photographers who have used Acros I. To the existing Acros user base.
And who of course then wondered whether Acros II will be essentially the same. And they of course absolutely know in detail how Acros I behaves and looks.
And Acros II is so extremely close / almost completely identical that you cannot distinguish them in a blind test. So Acros users just got the information they needed and were looking for.

Best regards,
Henning

Good to hear from you again in the forum, Henning.

 

[grat]

No - that isn't it at all!
Film is good for a vast number of things, used in all sorts of interesting ways.

My apologies, I left my "sarcasm" key on my other keyboard.

But the sort of platform offered by Photrio is better at hosting discussions and communicating information than it is at displaying photographs. The means of displaying here play too much of a role in the results to make it easy to tell a lot about the film.

Without trying to drag the thread in an undesirable direction, there's still information to be gained. Blanket statements like "you can't tell anything from an image on the internet" are a terrible oversimplification.

I'm reminded of the joke about the engineer and the computer scientist, who were placed in a long room, with a beautiful woman at the other end. They were told if they could reach the woman, she would go out on a date with whoever reached her first-- the catch is that each time they move towards her, they can only cover half the distance between their current position and her. The engineer becomes irate, and starts ranting about how it's a rigged contest, and he can never reach the woman. The computer engineer smiles, and says "I can get close enough".

Photrio is more than capable of displaying partial images, or links to full images. With the advent of services like Google Drive, OneDrive, dropbox, even flickr and imgur, there are many ways to share images, and there is always information to be gleaned, whether from Hennning's detailed technical analysis (which I really do appreciate), or from a string of non-random images developed, scanned, and displayed in a consistent manner.

I could just as easily claim that with all the variables in developing and printing, that there's no meaningful way to compare photographic prints-- and I think a number of people would be offended if I did.

And just to be clear-- I was not aiming my sarcasm at Henning, or you (or anyone in particular, really), but as general complaint against absolutism. I consider it the sign of a closed mind.

 

[Craig]

If you can't tell in general terms, the difference between, say, T-Max 400, HP5+ and Pancro 400, even with all the variables of developing, scanning, inverting, wildly varying monitors (which don't vary that much anymore, especially if you've done basic gamma calibration for B&W images), then I'm not sure you're paying attention.

In the spirit of posting photos, Here are two photos, one is Acros, the other is HP5. Which is which? And how can you tell which is which?

To make it fair, both negatives are the same format, scanned with the same machine at the same resolution and exported at the same size.

 

[Horatio]

@Craig I’m curious to know which is which. I would venture the one on the left is HP5, but your point is well-taken.

 

[grat]

.... me and my big mouth.

I should clarify, that I meant to say if you can't see the differences when comparing two similar photos, but fair enough-- I said it, it's my petard, and I'll suffer the hoisting.

I'm guessing assuming this is designed to trip me up, but in my total lack of personal experience with either film, I would say img015 is Acros.

My first post was somewhat adversarial. I hope my second explained my perspective a bit more clearly. Even here, we've got an indoor shot of a relatively limited space, vs an outdoor shot with considerably more depth of field (and probably smaller aperture as well). If someone took either shot twice, on different film stocks, with the same settings, and developed to the same standard (and to be fair, Henning was quite rigorous with his analysis), I would expect it to be easier to learn from the comparison.

Regardless, I really do think the first photo is Acros, and I look forward to being schooled.

 

[DREW WILEY]

With real negs or prints, I could spot the difference between HP5 and Acros in a split second provided I had my reading glasses on. Over the web, it can be difficult to discern the difference between a hippopotamus and a VW bus. I've shot Acros in 35mm, 120 roll, film, 4X5 (especially Quickloads), and 8x10. But until I finally run out of the last of my 120 and regular 4x5 sheets, the only thing I'm qualified to state in this dispute is that 120 Acros II costs six times as much as what I last paid for regular 120 Acros. Sensitometric per tech info, they seem very similar. One noteworthy issue per alt photography is that it is difficult to build that especially high contrast with Acros which many UV print media seem to need. The other problem is that this film can be slick as ****, and a real headache if your enlarger carrier or contact frame glass doesn't have Anti-Newton glass.

Hopefully, everyone by now should recognize that the spectral sensitivity of Acros is Orthopanchromatic, and not Panchromatic. Given that fact, the relatively bright rendering of the conifers in the train trestle image on the right make it the more likely candidate for Acros, unless some kind of supplementary filter was involved. But given that there is no foliage at all in the other picture to compare to, it's hard to say. A fairer challenge would be the very same subject shot with different films.

 

[Henning Serger]

Good to hear from you again in the forum, Henning.

Thank you very much for your appreciation, Félim.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Craig]

Given that fact, the relatively bright rendering of the conifers in the train trestle image on the right make it the more likely candidate for Acros, unless some kind of supplementary filter was involved. But given that there is no foliage at all in the other picture to compare to, it's hard to say. A fairer challenge would be the very same subject shot with different films.

Correct! No filter was used when exposing either negative. The indoor shot is 4x5 HP5+, the trestle is Acros.

 

[grat]

Correct! No filter was used when exposing either negative. The indoor shot is 4x5 HP5+, the trestle is Acros.

Fair enough.

 

[Craig]

Henning:

Back to the topic of Acros, have you used it with Xtol, and can you make any comment about the upswept highlights you mentioned in post #1? Would Xtol tend to accentuate or suppress the upswept curve?

Or to put it another way, if you wanted to flatten that curve to preserve highlight detail, if you had ID-11, Xtol, Pyro HD or Rodenal to chose from, which would you use?

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning:

Back to the topic of Acros, have you used it with Xtol, and can you make any comment about the upswept highlights you mentioned in post #1? Would Xtol tend to accentuate or suppress the upswept curve?

Or to put it another way, if you wanted to flatten that curve to preserve highlight detail, if you had ID-11, Xtol, Pyro HD or Rodenal to chose from, which would you use?

Hello Craig,

quoting myself concerning that topic :

"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."

Generally I would recommend that if you want a linear characteristic curve without the upswing in the upper highlight zones just start with less agitation (e.g. 1x per minute). Depending on the developer that can already be sufficient.

I have not used XTOL for Acros II so far. But with my knowledge about XTOL I am quite confident that using XTOL in 1+1 and 1+2 dilution will probably be successful.
Same is valid for D-76 and ID-11 in dilution 1+1 and 1+2.

ADOX Rodinal works in flattening the curve in the highlights in higher dilutions like 1+74/75 and 1+99/100.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

. Over the web, it can be difficult to discern the difference between a hippopotamus and a VW bus.

As bad as that! Then it's a good job we don't specialise in shots of African wildlife on Photrio

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd rather be staring into the eyes an angry rhino than the headlights of a texting driver on the morning commute. (Glad I'm retired now.)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

In the spirit of posting photos, Here are two photos, one is Acros, the other is HP5. Which is which? And how can you tell which is which?

To make it fair, both negatives are the same format, scanned with the same machine at the same resolution and exported at the same size.

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

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There are two types of threads because, in my opinion based on observations, there are two types of photographers:

1. Technicians: They enjoy graphs and the technical details of cameras, films, developers, etc. They own densitometers. If they aren't careful, they can regard artists (below) as careless. I am a technician.
2. Artists: They love to get out and shoot. They can see things that technicians overlook, so they take the best photos. They don't own densitometers. If they aren't careful, they can regard technicians as over-thinkers. @Huss is an artist -- he has strong artistic skill that I wish I had.

A few people are strong in both. Ansel Adams and Ralph Lambrecht are salient examples. Lambrecht authored Way Beyond Monochrome, which I regard as a masterpiece as it's strong in both art and the technical.

The same is true of music and dancing. You can become good at these by following rules mechanically, but to become great at them, one must be an artist, expressing the emotion of the music or dance. A woman told me years ago that she was a technician in music, being good mechanically, but she lacked the feeling of what the music was expressing, and that blocked her -- she couldn't go past a certain point.

There used to be a series of books by different authors called the Zen of Skiing for example, the Zen of whatever, etc. All are designed to allow you to let go spiritually to reach a peak in your activity. We have to learn to let go. We need a Zen of Photography.