• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What makes Acros "boring".

chip j

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
2,193
Location
NE Ohio
Format
35mm
I bought 80 rolls of it when Freestyle cleared it out under the Legacy brand, but have only shot a few rolls of it and can't print it yet(fractured knee). I know this can be subjective, but I've read a few times on APUG that it's "boring" & "clinical". What makes it so?
 
It's low grain to the point of almost looking digital. It that's the complaint I've seen. It's one of my two favorite films; I'd use it all the time if I had enough light to pull it off.
 
It has very flat midtone gradation, and increasing developing time to fix that makes the overall contrast too high. I've tried it with several developers with the same result. The best results I have gotten were with PMK, and Rodinal is ok too, but you'll get much nicer tonality from Tmax 100 if you want a fine grain film. Tmax 100 works great with D-76, Rodinal and PMK.

The one thing that Acros really excels at is very low light work, due to the fact that it has virtually no reciprocity failure with very long exposures. No compensation is needed until exposures exceed 2 minutes, then only 1/2 stop is needed. I've done 5 minute exposures with this film!






These were both very long exposures
 
Acros has really amazing highlight contrast, which is what makes the mid-tones look a little flat sometimes.

I don't think it gives dull tonality at all. I've used it with Xtol, which is a brilliant developer for it. Xtol tends to hold back those highlights a little bit, and then when you develop it to compensate for that the mid-tones come back up.
I've also used it with Rodinal, Pyrocat, and PMK, and those are also good developers, even though they area different.
 
every film is boring ...
acros ... it was made for caffenol c
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fortunately, I've mastered the ability to make any film boring.
 
Thanks, guys, for such quick responses. I'm getting the picture.
 

I found it not boring at all when trying to get it to lay flat in the negative carrier. In fact I was quite excited at the time...

Still delivered what I was looking for and that was with a very boring developer too (HC110)



RR
 
tools

Tools are not boring but some photographers can be. "A poor workman blames his tools."
 
I didn't like this film back when I was sending my negs out for developing. I think the lab I was using was going w/ T Max developer. Very flat looking and boring. Digital like.

But since then I've seen some good stuff from others who use the right developers and agitation schemes. It's never gonna look like Tri-X, but from what I've seen from people who know what to do w/ it, when it works, it's pretty good.
 
It looks digital? Once scanned and post-processed and posted on the web?

However, I can't see how it can look digital if printed on a fine FB paper, with proper dodging and burning.

My P3200 printed on 8x10 rc (also called garbage by me) glossy or pearl looks awfully digital, too.
 
What does "digital" look like? You can't see it, it is a virtual image format. You can only see it after converting it to something that can stimulate the retina; either colored lights or a paper print.
 
ic-racer said:
What does "digital" look like? You can't see it, it is a virtual image format. You can only see it after converting it to something that can stimulate the retina; either colored lights or a paper print.
Click to expand...

+ 1

The photographer here makes digital and film exposures. He has the knack of making digital as beautiful as film. https://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/


RR
 
Just two comments:

Only boring people get bored.

If you have scanned a negative and created a file with it then that file is a digital image….could be why it looks "digital".
 
I think you have to use the film for the right subject matter. The grain is minimal and tones are smooth. I used it for shooting shooting inside the dark interiors of Angkor Wat. It has minimal reciprocity failure for long exposures. I prefer Arista Edu souped in Xtol or HC-110. It has a crispy, lively look to me. But Arista Edu goes into reciprocity failure quickly.
 
 
I have been using Fuji Acros quite much. I decided to try it to have some reliable film to use for very low light, as not to get bored with waiting for endless exposures. It actually turned out that of all the films I tried, this is one of the most peculiar concerning response to bright sunlight. It has a warm look I like very much, I am not sure if because of being orthopanchromatic, but it makes bright sunlight look amazing. I have to specify that I only develop it in Rodinal 1+50 and I'd dare say there is rarely such a perfect match for a film/developer combination. I don't know if I can explain it well, but hopefully the image can be more explicative.
 

Attachments

  • 20.jpg
    154 KB · Views: 196
If it is orthopanchromatic, how do you use yellow or orange filters?
 
I do not generally use filtration in my images. I probably don't have enough experience to answer certainly, but being orthopanchromatic and not orthochromatic it is not necessary to use yellow or orange filters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register