Speed difference between Acros II, TMX, and Delta 100 at same CI?

[DREW WILEY]

Today there are all kinds of diffusion light sources, variable speed papers are standard, and back when I used graded papers, I never did standardize on Gr 2, nor did many others, and grades varied somewhat brand go brand anyway. Degree of enlargement had a lot to do with it to. As long as we all know what each of us personally needs, we're on target. Otherwise, generic contrast prescriptions are only of so-so value at best.

 

[Bill Burk]

I have seen negative or derogatory comments about forum participants’ personal film speeds and/or contrast index (including my own) in just about every thread on the subject.

I’ve spoken derogatory comments to myself on the topics.

How do I get two wildly different CI (0.45 v 0.55 and speed (250 v 320 by Delta-X) for the same film (ok different batch) developed in the same tank for the same time?

A couple significant factors people are not checking is the hold time on their sensitometry exposures and “how promptly” they process the photographs they have taken.

 

[Alan Johnson]

If they are all developed to the same contrast index, is there any real speed difference between them?

Thanks.

To get ISO =100 for Acros II it was developed in Fuji Microfine, not the formerly used developer for ISO measurements. The contrast index is given in the data sheet (average gradient).

https://asset.fujifilm.com/www/ca/files/2020-07/fb477bd9803b3c27ab592edcf9f3567c/AF3-0258E_PIB-NEOPAN-100-ACROSII-135-3_data-sheet.pdf

I guess the use of a different developer means that the Fuji result is not much help for comparison purposes.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I would never say someone's own personal film speed is wrong as long as it was within the ballpark of normal. My saying that I get an EI of 320 for Acros is not normal as Drew pointed out. Different strokes for different folks!

My point is that when I developed the films so that they printed alike (i.e., they had the same contrast), Acros was noticeably slower than the others. It is also finer-grained (very close to Pan-F+). I see no reason for anyone to use Pan-F+. It is inferior in every way to Acros.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

If they are all developed to the same contrast index, is there any real speed difference between them?

Thanks.

YES!!!!!

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I’ve spoken derogatory comments to myself on the topics.

How do I get two wildly different CI (0.45 v 0.55 and speed (250 v 320 by Delta-X) for the same film (ok different batch) developed in the same tank for the same time?

A couple significant factors people are not checking is the hold time on their sensitometry exposures and “how promptly” they process the photographs they have taken.

Every measurement has noise. Every instrument has limits. Every model is an approximation. Every inference is probabilistic, not absolute. Sometimes small errors and variances cancel each other. Sometimes they compliment each other. ISO speed is the mean of multiple samples.

From ISO 6, 6.2 - ISO speed of a product. "The ISO speed of a product (as distinguished from that of a specific sample) shall be based on the arithmetic mean of the values of log10 Hm, determined from various batches of the product when selected, stored and tested as specified above."

It goes on to state, "Since ISO speed is dependent on the exposing and processing conditions, these should be indicated when quoting ISO speed values." The same principle should apply to any stated exposure index: the EI is inseparable from the method used to derive it. Without the accompanying information—testing procedure, development conditions, and evaluation criteria—the number itself has little relevance. It becomes an isolated result that cannot be compared, reproduced, or interpreted with any confidence.”

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Every measurement has noise. Every instrument has limits. Every model is an approximation. Every inference is probabilistic, not absolute. Sometimes small errors and variances cancel each other. Sometimes they compliment each other. ISO speed is the mean of multiple samples.

From ISO 6, 6.2 - ISO speed of a product. "The ISO speed of a product (as distinguished from that of a specific sample) shall be based on the arithmetic mean of the values of log10 Hm, determined from various batches of the product when selected, stored and tested as specified above."

It goes on to state, "Since ISO speed is dependent on the exposing and processing conditions, these should be indicated when quoting ISO speed values." The same principle should apply to any stated exposure index: the EI is inseparable from the method used to derive it. Without the accompanying information—testing procedure, development conditions, and evaluation criteria—the number itself has little relevance. It becomes an isolated result that cannot be compared, reproduced, or interpreted with any confidence.”

I agree. I do not know how Acros can be rated as ISO 100, when everyone who uses it gets a much lower number.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I agree. I do not know how Acros can be rated as ISO 100, when everyone who uses it gets a much lower number.

You're saying nobody rates Acros at ISO 100 or even slightly higher??????? I find that comment very hard to believe. If you said "I" instead of "everyone" I could believe it.

 

[Craig]

I agree. I do not know how Acros can be rated as ISO 100, when everyone who uses it gets a much lower number.

I don't get a lower number. I find it true to speed, and comparable with Delta 100.

 

[gbroadbridge]

This is such a pointless discussion.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

To each his own... but one person here just doesn't see it that way.

 

[miha]

This is such a pointless discussion.

Debating approaches to photography isn’t pointless, it’s why we’re here

 

[Milpool]

You could say that about pretty much any “technical” thread though.

I actually think there is some potential value to threads about film speed because they are opportunities for people to (maybe) come away with a better understanding of the ISO speed determination, what it means / what is is based on, how it relates to the typical non-printing-based EI methods etc. exposure theory, and in particular ISO speed, is not generally well understood and over time a lot of misinformation has become gospel. A basic understanding of exposure / tone reproduction theory and the lineage of ISO speeds can actually simplify things.

This is such a pointless discussion.

 

[loccdor]

Acros is a fine film rated at 50 or 100, and it can even go up to 400 in some limited circumstances. That works better on dull days and low contrast lenses.

I see no reason for anyone to use Pan-F+. It is inferior in every way to Acros.

Completely different films in their character. I'm glad both exist and wouldn't ever consider one as a substitute for the other. Acros is better for general purposes but not for everything. I found Pan F+ to excel for graphical detail shots on subjects with a lot of texture. Ex:

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan F has an exaggerated S-curve with limited contrast range; but under the right conditions that can provide some lovely results. And with the right developer it can exhibit a special "wire sharpness" edge effect which is somewhat unique. Very different indeed from Acros.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Pan F has an exaggerated S-curve with limited contrast range; but under the right conditions that can provide some lovely results. And with the right developer it can exhibit a special "wire sharpness" edge effect which is somewhat unique. Very different indeed from Acros.

Well, I think Acros is better across the board than Pan-F +. Faster (1 stop) easier to process, longer tonal scale, sharpness as good as Pan-F+ and grain is basically the same.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, I think Acros is better across the board than Pan-F +. Faster (1 stop) easier to process, longer tonal scale, sharpness as good as Pan-F+ and grain is basically the same.

...and reciprocity effect. Don't forget that important factor. But... overall, I still prefer the look of Pan F.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

...and reciprocity effect. Don't forget that important factor. But... overall, I still prefer the look of Pan F.

Did you ever do a strict comparison?

 

[GregY]

I don't find Pan F to be a great all around film, but for some things (in 120) it's just perfect:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Did you ever do a strict comparison?

Nope. But I use both, and know their characteristic quite well.

 

[Radost]

If they are all developed to the same contrast index, is there any real speed difference between them?

Thanks.

The one thing I notice “never printed any of them” in my scans is AcrosII “made by ilford” somehow never burns the extreme hghlights the same way Delta 100 and TMAX 100 does.
I think it goes:
1: Acros
2 Delta
3 TMAX.

And I shoot mostly TMAX because I love the overall clean look. So i am not biased.

 

[Radost]

I don't find Pan F to be a great all around film, but for some things (in 120) it's just perfect:

My least favorite film to get good detail. No idea why.

 

[Bill Burk]

I agree. I do not know how Acros can be rated as ISO 100, when everyone who uses it gets a much lower number.

Process promptly?

I have several studies that show significant speed differences between fresh exposure and film that has sat for several months between exposure and processing.

The test is straightforward. I put a sensitometric exposure on every other roll of film I roll as I load the cassette.

Then before processing I pull a strip of film from the loader and put a fresh sensitometric exposure on it.

Process in the same tank for the same time, I get two completely different contrast indexes and speeds.

The obvious lesson is: Process promptly.

Then you get the most speed and contrast.

The corollary is: give greater exposure and process to higher contrast index if you feel like you might delay processing.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

The best results I have seen from Pan F Plus were by Bill Spears who used to post here.
If I remember correctly, he rated the film at a low ISO/ASA rating of around E.I.12-16 and processed with diluted Perceptol. His prints were excellent.

 

[Craig]

If I remember correctly, he rated the film at a low ISO/ASA rating of around E.I.12-16 and processed with diluted Perceptol. His prints were excellent.

Makes sense, Perceptol typically loses a stop in speed, give or take.