If Kodak whithers our TMX's... Will it be "Hello Delta!" ?

One more...

Boy the TMax 400 looks better in those tests
Actually, I don't see anything that would led to my choosing one over the other.
But I wouldn't expect to see anything in resized scans from someone else's scanner, using that person's software and workflow, that would permit me to form that sort of conclusion.
I have no problem with someone going through that time and effort to reach their own conclusions about their own preferences.
FWIW, my preferred choice is TMax 400. My other prefered choice was Plus-X. I'm starting to get used to T-Max 100, and it shows promise.
I wouldn't start with Acros as I don't expect it to be around for long.

Alex400 said:

Actually, I've never even seen a post on-line of a person who posted a side by side test and didn't pick Acros. I think Acros preference over Tmx is almost universal.

Click to expand...

Would you accept that you may not have enough evidence that makes the second sentence true to the extent of statistical significance and you have now seen at least one person who hasn't picked Acros . I have used Acros and it is a fine film but I have also used TMax and can't say that when examining my prints I got a definite WOW from the Acros based ones compared to the TMax ones.

pentaxuser

Thanks Alex400.

My initial response is that the TMX100 @ EI50 looks quite similar to Acros at box speed, which I knew. In fact, with this particular series I probably would have tried TMX100 at EI64 as well. It probably would have been indistinguishable from the Acros at box speed.

But, I think that we need to get something out on the table here. I am using a little Lenovo x131e laptop screen to view your images. I already know that if I fire up the big desktop and view those same images on the 27" flat screen it will all look different. So to be fair to you I'll try to do that later this evening.

Lol, Pentaxuser. Yes you are correct.

Dan, yes you would need your bigger monitor to see the nuances (or you may try moving your head around the Lenovo screen to look at each crop from its zenith). All these are great films. Correct, (speed wise) I rate Tmax at 50 an Acros at 100. Acros has a much more attractive tonal response and higher acutance and looks much better on print. Almost as good as Trix.

Also it is easier to study the tonal relationship zoomed out (first or second set I posted). Or better, look at he top of the stool where the glow goes from dark to almost specular.

I have found significant variance between the way scanned negatives look and darkroom prints made from the same negative. For me, a scan means nothing as it will be very different from a wet print.

Pioneer said:

This may be a good move for me at this point considering that Kodak has stumbled a bit lately with their backing paper issues. I could end up with two options that I like equally. That is always a good thing.

Click to expand...

I dont know if getting into Acros is all that of a good thing now. Fujifilm seems to have marked this film for deletion. Large format films have been discontinued and IMO it's only a matter of time until we see this great film shut down by Fuji. Acros is by far my most favorite film so that will be an incomprehensible loss for me, until I load up on as much old stock as my house can hold.

Online visual comparisons are less than useless - like trying to rate a symphony performed with kazoos. All these films can produce great images if you understand them, and know both their strengths and weaknesses. I would never try to enlarge Tri-X to anywhere near the same degree as the more modern films. I revisited it recently and really prefer Delta 3200 for a wing-it film. HP5 can be gorgeous if you limit your degree of magnification; so I only shoot it in 8X10. The other films - ACROS, both T-Max's, FP4 can handle quite a bit of enlargement without getting mushy or gritty, but otherwise truly differ. I shoot both the TMax films at box speed, but ACROS and most Ilford films at half box speed. The characteristic curve of each respective film explains why. And I predominantly use PMK pyro developer, though I have experimented with many others. Just this morning I leafed through about 200 16X20 prints representing all these various films, sorting them out by drymounting priority. I is certainly fun to play with all these different films, papers, developers, and formats. But getting from Point A to B is certainly more efficient certain ways versus others.

DREW WILEY said:

...It is certainly fun to play with all these different films, papers, developers, and formats. But getting from Point A to B is certainly more efficient certain ways versus others.

Click to expand...

Drew, I agree with this 100%. I love trying different things but I spend more time spinning my wheels trying to get things printed the way I want because of all those different variables that I saddle myself with. I know for a fact that if I just worked exclusively with one or two films, developers and paper, my life would be so much easier.

RattyMouse said:

I dont know if getting into Acros is all that of a good thing now. Fujifilm seems to have marked this film for deletion. Large format films have been discontinued and IMO it's only a matter of time until we see this great film shut down by Fuji. Acros is by far my most favorite film so that will be an incomprehensible loss for me, until I load up on as much old stock as my house can hold.

Click to expand...

i was at samy's cameras in SF yesterday to buy some acros. after talking to the sales guy I bought all they had, 34 rolls. they have had it on order for three months, getting none in while getting 3 shipments of all the other fuji films. i asked why and he said the official news from the fuji rep, both local and US corporate is that acros is discontinued in all formats, they have just been selling the last master roll. no more will be made or shipped from japan. " its the official fuji statement from corporate" he said. sad indeed.

no idea if its true or not, just passing along what I heard

I have not seen the official Fuji statement affecting all formats.

Nonetheless, every other week I order $50 of mix Trix and Acros from BH. No other reason than a freezer full of them puts me at ease.

Over the years I've been forcing myself to shoot fewer films as well. Mainly just two.

Now I shoot (and carry with me):

- 75% (Trix and Acros)
- 15% (Tmax, Portra 160 and 400, Velvia 50)
- 5% (Astia, CMS 20, Tmax 400, HP5, Ektar, Provia, Pan F)
- 5% or less digital (Sony A7Rii)

destroya said:

i was at samy's cameras in SF yesterday to buy some acros. after talking to the sales guy I bought all they had, 34 rolls. they have had it on order for three months, getting none in while getting 3 shipments of all the other fuji films. i asked why and he said the official news from the fuji rep, both local and US corporate is that acros is discontinued in all formats, they have just been selling the last master roll. no more will be made or shipped from japan. " its the official fuji statement from corporate" he said. sad indeed.

no idea if its true or not, just passing along what I heard

Click to expand...

Wow, that's dismal news. I had thought we'd get another year or two out of Acros before Fujifilm tossed it into the garbage. It's just horrible how many great films Fuji has discontinued.

I just did a check of most U.K. retailers and Fuji Acros is available from all of them. Can you trust the Samy's sales guy? I can't recall how many times I have seen a thread on: "Is X film discontinued" and when asked for the reason the thread starter says that a sales guy told him.

pentaxuser

I'd be skeptical of what someone at a retail counter tells you. In my experience, it's often wrong. Fuji has been completely up-front about official discontinuations. And remember, a master roll of sheet film is a completely different base material than roll film. It might have simply been the unprofitability of acquiring dedicated polyester base which led to this. To my knowledge, they stopped coating color films on polyester some time back. Too bad. It was superior to triacetate. Current Kodak sheet films are all on Estar it seems. Roll films are generally on thin acetate, so lie wholly outside this particular dilemma.

... And I wouldn't trust sales reps either. As a professional buyer, I had decades of training them not to BS me, or get the boot if they spoke misinformation. And in many corporations, Customer Service is often an entry level or even subcontracted position; and I've gotten completely wrong answers by people at the other end of the phone at Fuji USA, which is technically an importer and distributor, not the manufacturer.

DREW WILEY said:

Fuji has been completely up-front about official discontinuations.

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Reala 100 disappeared almost instantly That was my main color film and there was no advanced notice at all that it was on the way out. Had I known that Reala was going to go away I would have stock piled several hundred rolls (I was shooting 5-10 per week at the time). Instead, it just vanished from the stores I bought film at. I had either Portra or NPS to shoot in 120 size. Despite it costing more, I choose NPS as my primary color film, which Fuji later discontinued selling in China.

That could have been a distribution issue - who knows? All kinds of Fuji products were discontinued in the US that were still available in Japan for several years hence.

Hellooo Dolly...er I mean Delta.

Just ordered a 100 sheet box of 4x5 Delta 100 for my little Obscura. A wonderful little waste of time if there ever was one. I swap between TMX100 and Delta 100 every other year but at the current price of TMX I may just stay with Delta. But, I should be good for another year so I don't have to make that decision for a little bit.

I do have to say, none of this stuff is getting any cheaper.

Fool that I am, looking at Alex's shots... I've favored TMY every time 'cause I like the tonality... there's a rich chocolate feeling to it that seems to give it more life. Greater range from dark to light. Acros shots seem flatter and may be a "better" starting point for working in post with a scanned image, but I like to do as little as possible in post before my inkjet printing. My 120 experience with was that the Acros negs didn't like to like flat, and the base seemed to want to melt and not stay put in the frame holders for my scanner. Nit picks. Yep. That was months ago, and I should probably give it another try as I don't have the same issues with Fuji Velvia... so it may have been "me" that was the problem. New and improve "me" is easier to work with? Maybe.

And even if I'm not using Acros... which I'm not, I don't like to hear that it's gonna go away. If anyone here reads Luminous Landscape, there's a really sweet output on the Alpa 12TC with an B&W digital back that just made me realize why I shoot film is 'cause I ain't got that kind of dough!!! One look at 1st class digital B&W where the camera runs 20,000 and the digital backs run half again more...so at Tesla prices... you can do better in digital. But for the meantime... I'll continue making my crummy MF film images and be happy! And I won't complain about how much film costs!!! Film has made me a better photographer - which isn't to say "good" or "interesting" but merely approaching a level of competency - in ways that digital alone did not (and probably could not) without re-immersing in this training and experience.

The question is less whether the images we make are our best images EVER (in tones of "The Collector" from the Simpsons), but whether we're having fun. And I am definitely having fun just practicing shots the way a musician practices scales, and repeats measures until they're learned. I'm making technical progress sufficient to begin to have aspirations that the technical issues might become less important in their own right and something more of a tool of expression. This was part of my ambition in returning to film... to accept all that imperfect grain stuff as looking more alive than a wide canvas of overly smooth digitally shot and printed images. It's funny how my eye began to see digital B&W as almost presenting a Duncan Hines "frosted" view of smoothness that I found unappealing. It's not all that way, but some of mine were. And I could have gone in another direction to change the result - probably even have done so sticking with digital, but film breaks up things with a randomness and freedom that digital has to do more intentionally, and that's the way I've rolled.

So FWIW, my resolution for 2018: "I will worry less about grain, film, and developers and just go out and shoot the best I can by thinking more about line, contrast, tone and form... all that composition stuff. And I will have fun working more on certain themes or subject, and paying attention to the process behind (photographer) and before (in time) the camera does its thing. My images will be flawed, but I will try to let my flaws become my hidden signature."

Acros tends to have really low base fog so prints fast and nicely. If anything I find it a bit too contrasty but then I feel that way about all the slower films, much prefer the tonality in Tri-X and similar films. Acros seems to excel if you either want high key or nice strong contrast in bright conditions where the highlights are OK to be nice and bright, singing as some people say. I really like it as well but can't see the point buying it any more given that if Fuji haven't already killed it, it seems certain they will in the near future.

I quite like the grain structure of Delta 400, its less regular and more random in size and distribution I reckon than the other modern films (dev in DD-X). I like this sort of thing as its a bit more analog to me and I see Delta 400 as a sort of in between film, I came to it after Fuji killed off Neopan 400. This is using a 20x grain focuser on the baseboard.

All the prints I made yesterday were from ACROS 120 film. Delta 100 has too long a toe for my typical outdoor needs. If the bite in the wind tames a bit this afternoon, I might work with TMY for a couple of hours. Branches are still moving quite a bit after last night's brief storm.

NJH: Did you try Delta in ID-11 or Perceptol with Acros? I've got plenty of those. Don't got no DD-X. Thinking about picking up some Microphen for the Delta 3200 I'm planning to shoot over the holidays. Have to backtrack and say that my Acros experiment was really more of a handful of rolls and not dialed in. I was struggling just to figure out a Bronica SQ and MF at the time, so there were a number of casualty rolls I'm afraid the Acros kind of fell into this period. Will take your word for it. For me so far, I've liked FP4+ in the slow department for it's tonality - especially with Pyrocat-HD. But I'm trying to stay away from Pyro anything these days and focus on "normal" developers, and have used mostly Perceptol lately. The XTOL I used was nice... and didn't seem all that different for a hybrid guy... and I'd bet in a replenish routine would turn out really nice. My scanning at the time was off, and the grain came out too big (from 35mm at the time), and though I'm planning to get back to XTOL (I made a bunch of it up in September), I haven't used it and will probably need to pour it out and start fresh to give it a fair shot. Perceptol with TMAX has been that pleasing that I've been willing to sacrifice speed... but not forever. And everyone swears replenished XTOL "stock" is THE thing. Having accepted that powder developers are easy to mix safely, and easy to make to working solutions... I just need to try the replenished XTOL when I have time. It's this one camera, one film, one developer that just makes for a routine that has its own virtues.

Alessandro: I think most of us shoot digital in some form or other anyway... even if it's only an iPhone. Film is simply one way to produce an image. Film is like watercolor painting while Digital is like oil painting. I actually think of it this way... and look at my 35mm in particular as a "sketching" camera that's light, easy and quick to work with, while my MF involves more intentional, perhaps contemplative or at least determined style. Digital lets you paint over in ways film never will. I think in one way or another, film ... or similar chemical imaging... will always be here even if the circle gets much smaller.

JWMster said:

Alessandro: I think most of us shoot digital in some form or other anyway... even if it's only an iPhone. Film is simply one way to produce an image. Film is like watercolor painting while Digital is like oil painting. I actually think of it this way... and look at my 35mm in particular as a "sketching" camera that's light, easy and quick to work with, while my MF involves more intentional, perhaps contemplative or at least determined style. Digital lets you paint over in ways film never will. I think in one way or another, film ... or similar chemical imaging... will always be here even if the circle gets much smaller.

Click to expand...

Through my Rokkor 45/2 Fuji 200 sometimes looks like an oil painting when I get the exposure and development just right.

Craig said:

I have found significant variance between the way scanned negatives look and darkroom prints made from the same negative. For me, a scan means nothing as it will be very different from a wet print.

Click to expand...

This. Acros scans much better than TMX. I have no idea why.