Question about Neopan Acros 100

[photomem]

I have started working with this film and am ready to develop some rolls.

Here is my question: Which of these would be the best developer?

• Kodak D-76
• Kodak Microdol-X
• Ilford ID-11
• Ilford Perceptol

Any of you have an experience with this?

Tommy

 

[Ian Grant]

Of the 2 it's hard to decide

ID-11 is D76, and Perceptol and Microdol-X are very similar although I read a thread by David Kilpatrick somehwhere, he stated that Perceptol was slightly better.

Of you're 4 I'd go for ID-11/D76 rather tahn lose film speed for a fraction better grain, developers make less difference these days when the inherent grain of the emulsions is so much finer.

Ian

 

[photomem]

I have a rather large batch of d-76 mixed. I think I will use that.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Tommy,

Until recently I used D-76 1+1 with Fuji Acros. I was happy with that combination until I started using Rodinal 1+50 with it. If you ever get a hold of some Rodinal I would definitely recommend it for Acros.

 

[Aurum]

ID11 / D76 and Acros is a combination that works very well indeed

 

[Leighgion]

Acros and D76 works great. Try it and if you don't like the results, then you can think about tuning.

 

[Jeff Searust]

I use Diafine... nice smooth curve... takes all the messing around with times and temps out of the equation.

 

[Dave Swinnard]

Perceptol at 1+3 also gives beautiful Acros negatives. (IMHO)

 

[whlogan]

Diafine shot at ISO 160 for 4 min + 4 min.... excellent gradation.... use it 70 deg.... you'll love the results and use thaqt for all negs ... even TriX @ 800 Have some fun...

Logan

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Look, all those developers will give great results. Your results depend more on how you use your materials than the actual materials themselves.

Use ID-11 / D76 for a bit of sharpness and film speed gained over Microdol-X / Perceptol, in exchange for just slightly coarser grain. The difference is not big and you wouldn't even see a difference unless you compared side by side in a large print.

The best thing you can do is to use one of those developers, and use it for dozens, if not hundreds, of rolls continuously to learn how to eke the maximum possible out of that combination. That is how you obtain maximum results, by being familiar with your materials, not by switching around. Once you know how to tweak the results to your liking, you might want to think about using a different film or developer.

Good luck,

- Thomas

 

[winger]

May I jump in and ask about X-tol with Acros?

 

[MikeSeb]

May I jump in and ask about X-tol with Acros?

Haven't yet found a film that looks bad in Xtol.

I'd agree with D76/ID-11 among the choices listed, especially since the OP has a batch already made up.

 

[Andrew T]

I find that Acros in D-76 produces solid printable negatives, if a little bit flat. However, there's a look that the Rodinal gives it that I prefer, I use a 1:50 dilution.

 

[viridari]

Acros & Rodinal is a dreamy combination.

 

[fschifano]

I've been developing it in D-76 and I have absolutely no complaints. Works great. XTOL is good too, if you care to try that, but don't look for anything terribly different from D-76. I wouldn't even think about grain. It's almost not there regardless of the developer used.

 

[Anscojohn]

I have started working with this film and am ready to develop some rolls.

Here is my question: Which of these would be the best developer?

• Kodak D-76
  
  Any of you have an experience with this?
  
  Tommy

• 
  ^^^^^^
  
  I believe everyone should start with D76. It is the standard against which all developers are compared. Use the results with D76/Id11 as a benchmark for comparison of any subsequent soups.

 

[Dennis S]

Rodinal @ 1-100 was a very nice development combo for that film. Very nice film to use.

 

[clayne]

For slower fine-grained films like this I tend to throw them in Rodinal without thinking about it. While XTOL will cut metal with the sharpness you'll obtain, it's not necessarily needed with Acros or something similar like PanF. Acros tends to look a bit flat (to my eyes) so I usually prefer Rodinal 1+25 or Rodinal 1+50 with reasonable agitation.

In reality, any developer will work with these films. I don't believe it has a magic combination (e.g. Tri-X/D-76, APX/Rodinal).

Since you're not familiar with the film, you should keep it simple: D-76 1+1.

 

[polyglot]

Agree with all above that D-76 1+1 is a great starting point for Acros, though the contrast can be a little low. Rodinal is great too and gives you very fine, very sharp grain that will only start to be apparent with huge enlargements.

 

[Leighgion]

I quite disagree with the recommendation of starting with D76 1+1.

Acros is already such a mild contrast film that developing it in diluted D76 is taking it a bit far. I used full strength and still found the contrast rather soft for my taste. I recommend starting with straight D76 if you're going to use it.

 

[clayne]

I quite disagree with the recommendation of starting with D76 1+1.

Acros is already such a mild contrast film that developing it in diluted D76 is taking it a bit far. I used full strength and still found the contrast rather soft for my taste. I recommend starting with straight D76 if you're going to use it.

D-76 1+1 is a well known option that provides a stable platform from which to make comparisons. The entire point is in not going all custom/crazy/experimental when the person has no frame of reference with this particular film. If his negs turn out flat, that's what paper grades are for. Not really the end of the world.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I quite disagree with the recommendation of starting with D76 1+1.

Acros is already such a mild contrast film that developing it in diluted D76 is taking it a bit far. I used full strength and still found the contrast rather soft for my taste. I recommend starting with straight D76 if you're going to use it.

You can always extend development time to bump contrast, or use a harder paper/filter grade. The only real problem IMHO with low contrast negatives is the toe region of the characteristic curve, where shadow definition can be sub optimal.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Acros - Low contrast? No way.

Acros can be of low contrast and it can be of high contrast. And that is a function of your film development skills, certainly not a function of the film itself.
Some characteristics are built into the film. Any film can be processed to high contrast.
The attachment shows the contrast index of Fuji Acros 120 from Fuji's data sheet, and how it changes with development time.

ANY developer will work with Fuji Acros. Just pick one and run with it. Learn the controls of time, temperature, agitation, and consistency. Learn it well, and you will know how to process your negatives to suit your paper of choice.

 

[Lee L]

Did a quick regression on the data Thomas posted.
Here are the results. Estimated 13 minutes to gamma 0.80.
This won't format exactly right, but the info is there.

D-76 full strength 20C Acros
gamma...minutes
0.40.....2.9
0.44.....4.0
0.45.....4.6
0.50.....6.2
0.53.....7.0
0.55.....7.6
0.60.....8.8
0.65....10.0
0.70....11.1
0.75....12.1
0.80....13.0

Lee

 

[Anon Ymous]

Is that polynomial interpolation Lee?