Fantastic review! I've been shooting T-Max and you've convinced me to give Acros a shot. Thanks for taking the time to produce such a detailed and helpful video.
Beautiful photographs and such a great video! I'm currently in an advanced darkroom class & I have to pick one film to shoot for the next 8 weeks. After a ton of films and research, I chose Acros 100. Thanks to your video and help, I'm looking forward to shooting it in both 35mm and 120mm! Keep it up!
Finally a video that extorts the beauty that is Neopan Acros! I've been using this since 2013 and it was for a time my go-to and default black-and-white film. And back home in the Philippines, a friend of mine sells this way way cheap (PhP195/$2-3), even cheaper than Tri-X or HP5+ (which runs at around PhP350/$6-7 a roll).
This is such a great video. I was planning on buying some but didn't know how it worked. I appreciate the effort put into the review with different development dilutions and times. Keep up the great work!
This is a very underrated film and it has always been one of my favorites. Thanks for doing such a nice video on it. In my experience, not many film shooters that I have come across have used it and I always encourage them to give it a try. And I agree about the Wow results with Rodinal. Thanks again.
David Hancock And thank you for the recommendation of RPX-D developer. I wasn't familiar with that developer. I have always developed my Acros with Rodinal (1+25) and been very pleased with the results, but I will have to give RPX-D a try.
I was waiting for this. Thank you David! I am anxious to see the other film videos. I have bee shooting some 400 acros I found in a local shop it's expierd but it has worked fine. I still have to work in my dark room skills more.
+Felipe Alvarez Suarez Thank you! I'm working to finalize my first color film video now -- Fuji Natura 1600. I have a few rolls left to shoot but hope to have it done in Q1.
Thanks for all the suggestions and encouragement here. Especially the Rodinal development dilution and time. I realize we are now dealing with Acros II; I’ll try your suggestions on it. Great work - incredibly useful to me.
thanks for this video and your other videos. I learned today so much about film reciprocity failure. and in one post somewhere, someone mentioned that type of film. I will buy me some roll's and test this. the reason is I like long exposures. 25 year's ago was the last time I have a film Camera in my hands. now I have to learn and this is what is exciting so much. I shot now about 8 years digital, it's not boring but film is like a new challenge for me. thanks for your videos.
Before switching to analogue I was shooting with Fuji X100 in Acros for 4 yrs but had no idea what Acros truly ment, I mean the quality of Acros film you described. Thanks for your input, it seems it's high time to try Acros film.
Hi David. Your comprehensive assessment on Acros 100 is spot on. Whilst shooting the film in 35mm is good it is outstanding when it is shot in medium format. I am stocking up right now to avoid disappointment. Are you able to share the best alternative to the Acros 100? Much appreciated.
Thank you! I haven't really found a good Acros alternative. I think the film that comes closest to it right now is TMax 100, but that stock can be painful to develop, fix, and rinse because the pink dye in it is very hard to remove. For a different ISO, PanF+ is another good alternative.
I got 11 rolls of this cheap last year, not tried it yet but I do love my Tri-x and FP4, I will give it a go when the sun returns and it will swim in Rodinal. nice video .
David Hancock hi David! thanks for your brilliant videos. like you, I think acros 100 is about the best thing ever to happen in monochrome film. I recently had an interesting result using it in low light. the grain became extremely pronounced, and I love the way it looks. I develop in rodinal 1+50 following fairly run of the mill massive dev directions. the thing is it only happened to this one picture and I've never seen the same effect before or since. this is a link to the photo flic.kr/p/YfSynU if you get a chance to have a look I'd love to hear your thoughts on what may have been the cause. all the best to you my friend
Thank you! As for your photos, are you 100% certain that's Acros? I looks more like expired P3200. A couple of things that could be contributing. 1- It's way underexposed. The white specs and lines are dust on the negative and with a properly exposed image there will be fewer of those. So your negative looks super thin based on that image. 2- The grain is pretty heavy but I supposed it could be reticulation instead of heavy grain. Grain is more apparent with underexposed images, so that might contribute to it. If the developer, rinse, fix, and wash were different temperatures (especially with a large shift in temperature from the developer to the wash) then the film can exhibit reticulation which could be part, or all, of what's going on there. If you'd like to have consistent grain that looks like that, I'd say to check out HP5+, Tri-X, Delta 3200, Kentmere 400, and Foma 400. Those have pretty strong grains and would give you a similar look on a more consistent basis.
David Hancock thanks so much for your response David. I think what you said about the inconsistency in temperatures and underexposure are probably spot on and the reticulation you mentioned is an interesting point. at this stage I've only been taking pictures for about 6 months and I love seeing all the different results and strange anomalies too. I'm in a very haphazard situation of trying many different films and many different development method and am loving all the little discoveries whilst at the same time refining my style and figuring out what really does work for me. I'm loving hp5 and triX for their unique textures and using hp5 most of the time. but when I want that smooth perfection I still always call on acros. on another note.. I'd love to see you do a segment on bergger panchro! I just want to say thanks again for taking the time out to get in touch with me, your videos are some of my favourite to watch over and over, learning new things each time. wishing you well
Bergger is an interesting film to me. I'm going to let it sit in production longer before I buy more. The last Bergger stock I bought went out of production before I could make an AAF video on it. So I'm waiting to see if Bergger will keep their new stock in production longer than a year this time.
Most informative videos about films!! So awesome! just one little doubt (i'm new to developing film). Do this developing formulas work wether its 35mm or 120mm film?? Thanks!
+Carl Miller You're very welcome. This is a great film to get into film with, but it will mean that a lot of other film stocks won't live up to the expectations you get from using Acros. :D
A couple of years ago I tried a few rolls in my Mamiya 6 without knowing anything about Acros 100, and I've been in love with it ever since. So I say, just try a few rolls--you'll might end up loving it, too!
Thanks David - your review sold it for me! Who knew I should have bought more than one roll (I laugh - B & H's stock is now gone). Recently, I've been shooting film (Nikon N70) along with my D300s, and cycled through your recommendations (FP4 plus, Tri-X; experimented with Arista Ultra 200 along the way), and have one unused roll of Acros 100. I'm looking forward to enjoying my first, and hopefully not last, roll.
David, quick question. On your Acros 100 development with RPX-D you list your best results with a 1+19 for 8 min. The massive dev chart has data for Stock at 13 min, 1+4 at 10 min and 1+9 at 16 min. Can I ask how you came up initially with 1+19 at 8 min? Thanks
When I need a new developer time that's not on the MDC I look at other films that have the same developing time in a known chemistry. So let's say that I need a time for RPX-D and MDC doesn't list it. I'll write down the times for that film for D-76, Rodinal, HC-110, and maybe a couple of other common developers. Then I scour the MDC for other films that have the same, or close, developing times with those known and common chemistries. With luck, one of those films will also have a time for the developer that I need (in this case RPX) and I can use that as a starting point to find a good developing time with that film and chemistry. When I have a good time, I also submit it to MDC. I think I've submitted close to 100 film and chemistry combinations to them, if I had to guess. If that fails, I look at the developing times for the chemistry I'm using with other films of the same speed in general, plot those, and make a guess. If the negatives are thin with my film then next time I bump up the time. Usually I'm pretty close to spot-on right out of the gate now, but sometimes it takes a second roll to get the proper time. One note is that the developer times for Acros II will be different than for this older stock, and also the older stock, now all of it being years expired, will need stronger or longer chemistry for the same results than it did when I made this video.
@@DavidHancock Thanks so much for the fast response. Yes I am getting thin negatives and was not sure how to proceed. will move the developing time out more and see what happens. I did try the Rodinal that you suggested for the Acros (1+3) at 6 min 30 seconds and got pretty good results today. I had enough time to scan one negative and will look at it closer tonight..
Hi David, very informative video. Question: your time for RPX-D 1+19 is 8min, but looking on MDC the time for same dilution is 10min. Wondering what you are seeing as the difference. I've used Acros mainly for pinhole work where the reciprocity of this film is helpful. I've only developed with Xtol and HC-110, only because it's what I had on hand at the time, and had good results. I noticed you didn't mention either in your video. Thanks for doing videos!
+tailwheel65 Thank you. Asfor RPX-D, I tried both 10:00 and 8:00. I submitted (I thought) the 8:00 time to MDC. The 10:00 time,for me, causes a lot of highlight detail loss, added grain, and in general over-develops the film. 8:00 delivered better highlight detail, better shadow, and less grain. I e-mailed Digital Truth about it just now.
i bought RPX-D as well (mixing DK-50 is not Wife-compatible :)) ) . Can you tell me about the agitation rythm? I find that missing at digitaltruth. Thanks!
Hi David. Quick question about Acros ii. I just bought a brick of 50 from adorama for 300 dollars. When I saw this 40 percent discount I was ecstatic, however when the film arrived I noticed it all had expired on 10/21. Adorama did not note this and simply had the film discounted. At 6 dollars a roll at the end of 2021 should I just be happy and enjoy my film or should I send it back and get a refund and put that money towards another b&w stock thats not expired? I primarily shoot b&w. I don't have a problem spending 300 dollars I just want to know that the film will be good to shoot for the next year or so. I keep all my film in the refrigerator. Thanks for any advice.
It should be fine in the fridge. It's made by Ilford for Fuji and Ilford gives their film very conservative expiration dates based on worst-possible storage.
Welp, Acros II is supposed to be out in a week -- have you heard if we can get our hands on it in the US? I've looked for pre-ordering options everywhere and can't find em.
An interesting review David. Another developer worth trying is Adox FX39 (formerly produced for Paterson) designed by the late, great Geoffrey Crawley. Try it diluted 1+19 for 11:30 at 20*C/68*F. This combo gives a 5x4 look with 6x7 rollfilm. D76/ID11 and Xtol diluted does well too, but lacks the bite of FX39.
+monochrome17 Thank you. I have shied away from XTOL since I had a series of poor results from it over two or three different, new packages. That said, when the results from it were good, XTOL is a great developer. The 1+19, is that RPX-D? Does developing longer at a lower temperature have different effects? I haven't experimented with temperature and time variations except to account for fluctuations in water supply temperatures.
Hi David I love your videos, so much depth. In the video interview you did with Chuck Jines a while ago you showed some photos with tri-x being pushed to 3200 and developed in rodinal 1+50. I assume the results you got applies to medium format. Do you reckon this formula would be to grainy with 35 mm? Cheers!
+Eli fan Those were 35mm images, actually. I don't own a medium-format camera that's really capable of taking 3200 ISO images, except overnight. Not every subject is going to be suited for pushing Tri-X. If you want to capture smooth tones and transitions, a 400 ISO film, in general, is not the best idea. If you want to have a gritty, journalistic or documentarian look, the Tri-X at 3200 can yield captivating results.
Hi David, First wanted to say I really enjoy your content. I have a quick question. I am into night photography and want to use my Nikon F and Nikon FA as second cameras to my D750 when going out to shoot longer exposers at night. My shutter speed tends to be anywhere from 2 secs to 5 minutes. I was wondering what film (negative or slide) you would recommend? I shoot cityscapes and sometimes landscapes with stars. Thanks and I look forward to hearing your recommendations. Thanks!
Thank you! If you're in a city using ambient light from buildings and lights, then you'll want to be at around 1600 ISO or higher. So Kodak Tri-X pushed a few stops is likely to be your best bet. When Kodak P3200 TMax goes up for sale in a few weeks, that might be a good bet, too. Delta 3200 exposed at ISO 1250 would work as well. For color, Portra 800 is the only fast color film still in production. If you're taking cityscapes with the night sky above (say from a mountain nearby or a tall building on the ouskirts of town), you have a LOT more options, especially if you have a gradient ND4 filter that you can use to reduce the brightness of the city in your image. Anything from 200 to 800 ISO would have different results and you could test that using the procedure I'm about to describe, but with shorter exposure durations. For landscapes, especially star trails or landscapes lit with moon light, there's a wide array of options. Anything from 100 to 1600 will work A-okay, but the question is how many stars do you want in your images. With Acros, in super dark skies, you'll get about 55 stars. With Portra 800 is super dark skies you'll get the Milky Way with a three-ish-minute exposure. So here's a good experiment if you have a free night. Pick up a roll of color (C-41) film in 200 and 800 ISO. I say C-41 because a good lab can develop that without any development variation between the two, but black and white works well if you develop yourself and have good quality control procedures. Then take a photo of your smartphone screen or a sheet of paper properly metered under light with data about the film type, camera used, and the following test shot sequence. That data frame gives you a known exposure point that you can use to compare the rest of the images on that roll and it lets you know easily which roll of film you used and how you structured the test. Determine how much time you have and break it into 30 blocks of increasing length -- 2 seconds, 5, 10, 30, 45, 60, and so on, however you see fit, until you get to something like 45 minutes on the last frame (these durations assume you're doing a star trails photo in a dark area.) Write that pattern on your sheet of paper or smartphone screen so that you have that reference in your film and can easily count the exposed frames from your starting point. So let's say that you get your film back and photo 15 looks perfect for what you want on your 800 ISO roll. You simply need to count down on your data sheet to get the exposure data. If photo 26 on the 200 ISO roll looks perfect, same thing. Then you have two data points to use for a known lighting situation -- time and relative darkness. Doing that will give you a good understanding, over time, of how different films work in different situations. All you need are two tripods, your two cameras, and two locking cable releases. Just set the cameras up facing the same way and then you can also compare the ideal 800 ISO and 200 ISO results to see how they differ and how the baseline film sensitivity affects the images. I just picked 800 and 200 ISO as examples. You could use 100 and 1250, 400 and 800, etc. But anything below 200 will have a significant decline in recoverable night sky image data.
I tried Microfine and I think I tried it with the original Acros, but I don't see it in the video glancing through it. I seem to recall it being fine but that overall microfine didn't impress me a ton.
I ran across this video while I just happened to have my first roll of Fuji Acros in one of my cameras... Why do you suppose there is a lot of grain with Rodinal at 1:50, but not 1:25? I use 1:50 for other films but never noticed particularly much grain. I wonder what might be different with the Fuji? Very puzzling.
hey btw i really like your review its very consrruxtive and well made. will you make comparaison video between for exemple fomapan 100 and across 100? i really like those two film but i still hesitated about wich one i should stick on for the 135 format
+Alexandre Lebel Hmm. I hadn't thought to compare films before. In terms of choosing between Acros and Foma, I think that Acros delivers better results, but the price and format availability of Foma is better. I think Foma is a pretty underrated film worth a lot more credit than it receives.
David forgive me for one last question tonight. Have you considered a “all About Film” on the ROllei RPX 100 and 400 films and the IR400 films? They are getting good reviews online and would love to know your take on them.
I have. RPX 25 will probably be the first, but not this year or next. My goal for the balance of this yeat includes CineStill 800T (Sept.), Kentmere 400, TMAx 100, and Delta 100 in October through December, and possibly a few other surprises in there if I can get enough photos with those films. For 2022, I'm planning Portra 800, Ezox Rerachrome, Foma 400, ShangHai GP3 100, J Lane Dry Plates (2 ISO), and a few others that I hope to complete. 2023 will see RPX 25. And yes, I do have to plan these 3-4 years in advance to make sure I can get enough photos for them and maximize the number of these I produce each year.
Thanks for this review! I never tried this film. I want to use this film in 120 format. I am also interested in using a color 120 film. Do you recommend a Fuji film 120 color film for portraits?
I wonder how this film does in D76 and Tmax developer. I will find out because i am shooting two rolls this weekend of Acros for the first time and will develop in both chemicals for a test.
Nice test! The D-76 results are good. I'm, personally, not a fan of TMax developer (though I know a lot of people who love it and I don't fault them at all.) I would be interested to see your results with the TMax developer.
You might want to review the new Acros, which to me is a out sourced student grade film at a premium price. First it's no longer a thick film, Acros was often recommended to people learning to develop film as it was easy to load on a reel. The new Acros is thin flimsy film, you might be able to load 24 exposer on a reel but 36 is likely to jam and once it jams it damages the fragile film and starting over is a waste of time it just jams worse. The new Acros is very similar to Ultrafine Extreme which I do use. It's cheap I buy a hundred foot role and only load 20 frames to insure it doesn't jam in the reel. Loading 120 takes a lot of patience to get it stared but then usually isn't an issue to get fully loaded. Your results will be similar to the new Acros at less then half the price. Acros is now made in the UK by Harman.
Hi David, I.m not sure why you mentioned XTOL. ADOX FX39 is different developer altogether than the RPX-D dev. It used to be sold by Paterson LTD, but it now made for Adox. Try a google search. FX39 is high acutance developer designed for modern films like Delta, T-Max and Acros.
+monochrome17 THe XTOL was just a response to the last line of your comment. I looked at FX39. THatnk you for the idea on that. I'm working (in passing) on getting photos for the Silvermax and CMS 20 videos, so I'm going to grab some FX39 and give it a shot with those films.
David, Acros 100 has been my favorite medium format film... and that was when I was developing it in DD-X. I tried RPX-D as you suggested and am in love with the film even more. I'm looking for a good 400 speed film & developer combo for medium format that I can push to 800 or 1600. Any recommendations? Thanks!!!
Thanks, Joe! I'm experimenting with HP5+ at varying speeds (400, 800, 1600) processed with DD-X. DD-X is my second favorite developer for Acros (and is cheaper than RPX-D). For simplicity, I prefer to have just one or two developers around. I have seen some great results with Tri-X in Diafine. I might have to try that. Do you shoot it at 1250 or 1600?
I usually send my film to thedarkroom and I'm really happy but it's getting expensive. I never developed film myself so I was thinking of trying it. I see this process call Stand Development which looks to be easier. Does that impact the image compared to normal development and is it noticeable? Thanks
I'm working on a stand development video, actually. I hate it. I will use it for sheet film, but not roll film of any kind. Stand development can leave bromide drag stains on film. Here's an album of examples showing bromide drag patterns on some thin or unexposed negatives. davidhancock.smugmug.com/Stand-Bromide-Drag/ Here's what that can look like on an image: photos.smugmug.com/10-7-16-MZ-S/i-M379DW9/0/f381d338/O/79.jpg photos.smugmug.com/10-7-16-MZ-S/i-7nb8BG4/0/b35634fd/O/84.jpg photos.smugmug.com/10-7-16-MZ-S/i-CRwvsPz/0/6a503fc5/O/88.jpg With sheet film, that hasn't been an issue. The bromide drag on those samples arises from mixing that happens as temperature differences in the tank cause fluid convection. Some of the developer rises or sinks in the space between the tank skin and reels and some passes through the film sprockets and tank reels. That causes areas with different developer concentrations and the flow patterns are left as over-developed areas on the negatives. With sheet film, convection results in a more even, laminar flow that spreads across the film surface more evenly. So my sheet film tests (none of which are scanned) have no far not exhibited any drag stain. In short, I'm not a huge fan of stand developing and suggest against it.
wow, that's pretty unfortunate. Nice F22 raptor :-) I can't wait for the video. I'm just afraid I might mess up the part where you put your hands on that dark cloth thing and try to put the film on the reel. Looks kind of tough.
For a reason I came across with this video last year. I've been shooting ACROS till then. And I feel I'm in the need to watch again after amazing results of ACROS. I am using a HC-110 developer and I can try another developer just for ACROS. But the thing is I can reach only Ilford and Kodak stuff in here. What I fell in love with ACROS is tonality, by the way. Maybe it's just not the tonality, I don't know, I taste something different in this film.Sharpness or fine grain are good to go but not prior for me (as a regular HP5+ shooter). I shoot only 35mm. Do you have any suggestion on developer? (In Ilford and Kodak stuff)
Hmm. I forget off the top of my head which developers I recommended for this film. D-76 generally works well. Fuji has a fantastic fine-grain developer but it's may not be available outside of Japan any more.
It may interest you that legacy pro 100 film is said to be rebranded acros (It even comes on a Fuji branded spool) and it can be had in 100 ft lengths. I learned film using "legacy pro" and once i learned this shot a LOT of acros and I think I can agree its the same film. I usually pulled to 80 though
Hi David, what a great video, I just inherited an old film camera in perfect working order. So I thought I would give black and white film photography a try, along with home development. I also inherited most of the equipment for that including some chemicals. I had watched your videos on fp4 and hp5 which were also great, and had pretty much settled on fp4 until I saw your acros video. Which definitely swayed to acros. My intention is to scan the negative with my d810. The format is 35mm. The chemicals I got are still unopened but are about 10yrs old. Ilfasol 3 etc. But am unsure if it would be usable at that age?. Could you point me in the direction of where I could purchase the rxp-d.maybe even a link to your post about it on massive dev. Cheers John
Thank you, John! So mixed news, for chemicals that age, I'd pitch them. They're likely spoiled. The exception would be powdered chemicals if they aren't clumped. RPX-D, insofar as I can tell, is out of production. Freestyle Photo will sell it if it's still available.
@@DavidHancock Thanks for responding David, i guessed as much for the chemicals. i will have a look at freestyle, not been too optomistic . so will probably look at alternatives
Can you show some pics/video on the types of silver print papers you mentioned? that would be helpful as I've always used Ilford multigrade fiber paper.
I often hear from photographers who call Acros "too clean", "like digital", "soulless". I personally like and use it sometimes, but prefer TMax for a little more grain in medium format and keep buying only 35mm Acros. Also, Fujifilm (all sorts) is the only film type that leads to frame spacing issues in my old Kiev, apparently - at least my conclusion backed by my favorite lab - it's thinner than Kodak and Ilford which work fine.
+Casa de Chrisso I can't imagine calling Acros soulless, but there are people who will dislike something simply because no one else does. As for the spacing, I don't think that it's a film thickness issue. I have had that issue, too, with some TLRs. I believe that the cause it the film base material for Acros, and the fact that it does not retain as much spool-shape memory as Kodak film bases. I notice that in medium-format cameras that don't do a good job of keeping pressure on the film spool after winding that the film on the spool comes slightly loose, like a clock spring unwinding. That would push the film backwards in the camera and cause it to 'rewind' enough to overlap frames On one of my cameras, it's so bad that I lost an entire roll's worth of usable images because the film was wrapped so loosely that the film and paper roll were wider than the spool flanges, letting light into the roll.
I thought I'd already commented on this video so I apologise if this is a double up. This is my favourite film also. I love it in 35mm and 120. You're right about the detail. Man, so much detail. And it develops pretty easily. I usually develop in Rodinal 1+50 so it's interesting to hear you say it introduces more grain. I'll try it at 1+25 but I always understood that to increase grain and contrast. Is that your experience? I use to have some Ilford DD-X but never used that with Acros. Saved it for other faster films where I was trying to keep grain down. I'll have to give that a try some day, along with RPX-D if I can find it locally.
So, yeah, 1+25 SHOULD give a lot more grain than 1+50, but for whatever reason my experience was the opposite. Different films react to different chemistries in different ways.
Cool man, thanks for your feedback. I've got a couple of 35mm acros films to process and I only have rodinal at the moment. I was gonna do them both at the same time. I might try a 1+100 stand dev with a touch of salt. Have you heard of that? There's an english geezer that has a video on here showing how it seems to boost contrast and sharpness in rodinal. Worth a shot!
andrewford80 I've heard of stand development and know a lot of people who tout it as the best development possible. I've never tried because I also know people who have had awful results when the developer settles out. There are some advantages, I'm told, such as stand development delivering evenly developed negatives even if the film is exposed at different ISOs. I'm not sure how accurate that is, not having tried it.
+andrewford80 I only ever use Semi-stand develop and only when pushing film ie Tri-X at 1250 in HC-110 Dilution 1:100 for 40mins with about 1agitation half way through. I'm no expert, but I've read that longer in the developer means more grain. When pushing Tri-X that's what I expect and really like. I regularly shoot tri-x with a Yellow/Green X(0) filter, and shoot at 200 or 400 to compensate and develop at 640, 1250 so I can push the film in bright sun. For a 1 Stop push and at box speed, I just use Dilution B. It works for me. So I wouldn't use stand developing For Acros. I'd want to keep the grain as small as possible. Again I am no expert and I may be missing out on something magnificent and Acros is actually going strong.
Spehmaster G. Cool, thanks for your comment. I think I've got my Acros development pretty good right now so I'm reluctant to experiment too much in case I destroy a film :) The images come out pretty nice so that's good enough for me!
There will be an Acros II video, yes. I have not yet stocked up on it, however. I have some videos that are fairly far along in the image capture process, and I want to finish those before I grab a new film stock to shoot with.
You also made a great job with this video. Did you know that this film is also available at 8x10 format? At least Macodirect is selling this format but the pricing quite mad.... 188 EUR for 20 sheets. I think that 35mm and 120 films cost enough but near 10 euros for one frame is serious business! Have you tried fomapan 100 or 200 films? Those are quite inexpensive and that's why i'm interested in. I hope that at some point you will review a 400 speed B&W film of your choice.
+furlong512 I learned after the video was live that Acros 8X10 is available. I didn't know it was available outside of Japan, though. For Foma, I have used the 100 and 400 (maybe also the 200.) The videos for those will be a ways off, but I do want to get to some of the budget films, like Foma, Kentmere, and Ultrafine, soon. I actually have enough Ultrafine photos to do videos for the 100 and 400, but they're from a few year ago when I wasn't recording developer data.
Hi, really detailed and extra technical video. Most appreciated the attention to the detail. I feel like trying out your best suggestions to process the film. I was wondering if you could help as I have never properly learned how to process B&W film and to make things more difficult I don't have access to a dark room. May you could steal me in the right direction. You video really made me do it. Thank you.
Thank you, Vitor. Here are some videos I made a long time ago on home developing: ua-cam.com/video/8Y586-3KdOA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/z_jnn1RH5g0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/Tg5cQwR-WlI/v-deo.html My film developing setup stores on two shelves. I don't print at home. just develop.
@7:10 spectral sensitivity... Acros technical data sheet labels it as “OrthoPanchromatic”! Orthochromatic is less/not sensitive to red... so apparently this is somewhere “in between” both “pan” and “ortho” chromatic.
So panchromatic and orthopancrhomatic are, as I understand it, the same. Pancrhomatic simply means all visible light waves. Orthopanchromatic is a weird way of saying that the film sees all visible light spectra.
+Stephen Gomez That's a good stockpile. I used, literally, the last of my Acros for this video and won't be restocking until I finish a few more of the videos in this series. I'll miss using it for the next year or so.
Fuji says they've "improved" Acros, but I'm not sure what needed improving. I'm afraid they've modified it to make it cheaper to produce. I'll buy the first brick when it becomes available, but I'm worried.
+Alexandre Lebel I find Foma easier to work with than Kodak (at least the TMax line.) I'm not sure whether I like it more or less than Ilford. But I don't fault anyone for loving Foma; it's a really nice product.
Nice video but with a few misconceptions. 200 lpmm at high contrast is just under 35megapixels shooting a black and white newspaper. Many lenses (not just L) clearly outresolve that. Which I tested with Techpan in Technidol. My lenses also outresolve my 42 mp A7RII. Also Acros is faster, more expensive and looks better than TMAX (as a Porsche Gt3 is faster around the track, more expensive and looks far better than a Nissan GTR). TMAX outresolves Acros and has smaller grain. Acros has better tonality, it is sharper and a bit faster.
I have had allways perfect results with 1+50 Rodinal 12 min. You will get a very nice s shape curve with Rodinal and allways detailed shadows even in high contrast . The tonal range you get from Rodinal is very beautifull , deep black to briljant white and all the grey's in between . I have tried other devellopers but they gave a high contrast with Acros or a bad compressed tonal range . Yes Rodinal give grain , so what if you use 6x7 ...... But Acros is now RIP and I find it impossible to replace Acros with any black and white film .
@@DavidHancock I have find out that Kodak T-max 120 film from after backingpaper problem does not react in the same way on Rodinal 1+25 and 1+50 than the 120 film T-max 100 before 2016 . The contrast is lower same like the D-max . So white will not so white anymore . White is with Acros briljant . I develop T-max 100 120 film now in 1+25 Rodinal 7,5 min. for a better contrast and white . 2 minutes more . Before the backingpaper problem the 120 T-max 100 did very good in Rodinal 1+50 15 min. and came close to Acros in Rodinal 1+50 12 min. I think they reduced the amount off silver in T-max 100 ...... Yes the replacement for Acros is very hard to find , I will have to change my printing style ..... Greetings from the Netherlands Peter .
I live in Japan and just mixed up some Microfine tonight. I have been using D-76 and the results have been amazing, which makes me somewhat nervous to try anything else. Wish me luck
Thanks for another great video! But I have to say, I felt I a little cognitive dissonance as you compared Acros to a GTR. Not because of the car analogy, but because at that moment, the subject of your classy GTR was a trash panda.
Great video, I have it in 120 and 35mm so I better get to using it. Could you review Ultrafine extreme 400 120 as I hear it is a good MF film. keep up the good work.
+mamiyapress Thank you! The UF videos are in process. I'm closer with 100 than 400. The lineup for 400 films is 400 TX, Kentmere 400, and then I can do UF 400. I've shot a LOT of UF, but previously didn't keep track of developer information, so the photos aren't hugely useful for for the videos. I like UF, which puts me in a minority. To get the most out of your UF films, use a yellow filter. That adds enough contrast to make them look very nice.
I eventually got round to shooting a test roll of Acros.. I wanted to see how it looked pushed to 400 ISO, it turned out quite well.. The lens used was, for the most part, an original 1960's Mayer-Optik Görlitz 30mm f/3.5 Lydith (not the crazy priced crowd funded re-release), the photo of the wee bird used a Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm f/3.5, and the Developer used was Kodak HC-110 [Dilution B] for 10 mins: www.flickr.com/photos/133238604@N05/shares/n2sGK9
Nice! Those are great results! I like the flowers image a lot. The silver tones on the bell are great. And the bird shot has great contrast. Great work!
David Hancock I was surprised that HC-110 worked out so well with Acros, I was a bit worried it might not be the best developer for the job, the old Lydith 30mm though, is an excellent lens, and great fun to use.
ROLL-e-flex. ACK-u-tense. Please pronounce these correctly. I've been shooting since the late 70s, and your concept is intriguing. Hence my subscription. But your lack of experience is glaring. You should have shot Neopan 400 in 120 with Rolleiflex TLR, or Mamiya7 soured in Rodinal 1:50, or Studional 1:50. Would completely change your conclusions of Acros. For sharpest film, try Adox Silvermax.
So, for the pronunciation, I have acutance correct. It's uh-KYOOT-ance: www.dictionary.com/browse/acutance For Rolleiflex, Rolleiflex is pronounced a number of different ways in different countries and differently within the U.S. Just like Nikon and Nikkor and pronounced differently in different areas. And, yes, certainly one way can be seen as correct and the others as wrong. When the Spanish-language students I used to tech English to called me DavEEd and the Arab-language students called me DaWOOd, it was fine. It was still my name. Different linguistic backgrounds have different pronunciations due to learned linguistic patterns and oral muscle memory. Pronunciation does not make the word unless the pronunciation alters the meaning within context. Judging by your screen name, I'm guessing that the pronunciation is important to you and I appreciate that. And, yes, I don't have as much experience as you. I've only been shooting film since 1986 and developing it myself since 1993. And photography is a process and I'm always glad to look back at the previous year and see how much I've learned about photography in that time. Someone will always know more than me and I will always know more than someone. If things weren't that way, they would become boring quickly. As for Silvermax, I love it. It's great film. I'm looking forward to making the AAF video about it. Silvermax has good grain but it is not sharper than Acros (in terms of contrast-based resolving power). Silvermax tests out at 100-115 l/mm (1,000:1 contrast). Acros tests at 200 l/mm (1,000:1 contrast). I couldn't find the Silvermax 1.6:1 rating, but Acros is 60 l/mm. Silvermax has a much greater development latitude and is designed like an older emulsion and has larger silver grains for lots of reasons, design being only one of them. A case that SIlvermax has better acutance is correct as it has larger, more distinct grains. That would give it the appearance of being sharper, just as HP5+ has the appearance of being sharper than Acros and about a dozen other films. Again, that's due to HP5+'s grain size and distinct inter-grain acutance, not sharpness derived from resolving power. But, realistically, any resolving power of 100 l/mm and higher looks effectively the same as very few lenses have the capacity to resolve much above 150 l/mm, and the majority of lenses out there struggle to break 120 l/mm. The sharpest commercial lens ever made resolved at 254 l/mm, and that was for a disc camera, so not a great use of that resolving power. Where Silvermax really shines is in dynamic range. The DMax exceeds 3.0, which is spectacular, and if it's developed correctly (in the Adox Silvermax developer) Silvermax can resolve exceptional tonality and image detail in 14 zones. That's far beyond, insofar as I know, any other film that's ever been made. However, SIlvermax does not have the chemistry resistance of most films and loses a good deal of dynamic range and gains a good deal of increased grain with a LOT of the common chemistries on the market. The sharpest film on the market right now is an Adox film, but it's Adox CMS20, which has a 1,600 l/mm (1,000:1 contrast) rating. And that makes sense since it started life as a microfilm stock. I have shot Neopan but only developed in in D-76. I liked it quite a bit. In general, Fuji films are very nice and well engineered. Thank you for your comment and subscription. I'd be happy to debate and discuss any time.
Thank you. I have been developing Acros 120 in Rodinal at 1+25 with great results. I will have to try the RPX. Acros is my favorite film. Thanks again.
hello, I'm a young photographer (15), and I mostly do digital photography, but I recently picked up an Argus MatchMatic c3 from a local antique shop (it's actually in pretty good condition, and I uploaded a picture of it to my artist page: gamersphotography.deviantart.com/art/my-new-old-camera-608074096), and I really like black and white; may I ask what film you would recommend to photographers who are just starting out with film (aka: inexperienced and not spending a lot)? also, if you wanna check some of my other works, I have them in my gallery on that site
+Jim Billy There are a few good starter films: Kentmere, Ultrafine, and Foma are the best value for the money and all deliver good results. They're also good for learning on as they're relatively inexpensive and easy to use at their rated speeds.
Here's an image of an old Japanese temple I took a few days ago on a Bronica ETRSi 6x4.5 using Acros II and a yellow filter. Some dappled light, shade. I think the yellow filter is fine. I used Fuji's "Microfine" developer, which I guess may only be available in Japan. instagram.com/p/CFn7bwfDzZv
Thank you and that's very nice. I'm just starting to use Across II (I've shot two rolls that I plan to develop tonight.) I'll be interested to dig into it and see if my results compare to yours.
This is pretty much the only film I shoot. Here is a latitude test I did using the final four frames on a roll (135). -1EV, 0, +1EV and +2EV all souped for 10.5 mins as per Massive Dev Chart. imgur.com/a/5fTQD
I wish I could disagree. Fuji tends to give a few months' notice, but not enough. My hope is that Across is selling well enough to justify its continued production.
shiit man, i was happy i've found a film photography page with some meat on it and then you said that shit with "photons" hitting the film/sensor! fail...
www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/cml/opt307/spr04/jidong/ Photons flip film grains from unexposed to exposed. It occurs when the energy of the photon strikes the film grain, dissipating the energy into the grain. Basically, film negative creation is the balance between photon strikes on individual crystals and latent thermal energy within the film working to keep it in its unexposed state.
what happens to these photons after hitting the film? do they fall out while changing film? or the sensor? do i need to send my camera to the shop to be cleaned of photons?
Interesting. How are you developing it (as in what chemicals and which developing method)? Are you using straight tap water or any kind of filtration before mixing your chemistry?
They call it "film noir" for a reason. It may be appropriate for certain scenes and I may give it another shot one day. The few times I've used this, I used DDX, which is recommended for T-grain films. As for the time, I couldn't tell you - except they were likely standard. I used straight tap water.
Believe me when I tell you we agree 100% on that. If it weren't for my All About film video series I think I would have almost no use for 35mm most of the time now.
I've heard, and can understand that criticism. It's a less film-like looking image than other films. Ektar is the same way. Photos from Ektar really look like digital images.
David Hancock I've never shot Ektar but I have a roll that I bought recently. I didn't know it was digital-like. Regarding Acros I keep on shooting it even if I don't like it that much, I use it to test lenses due to the sharp results. By the way, your video is excellent, lots of technical information and awesome images.
DarkRami Thank you! You may really like Ektar. I, personally, think it's the best color film ever made. I like it more than Kodachrome, though I know people who would string me up by my intestines for saying that.
It looks like a good film, but I just couldn't look ay any more of your far-underexposed photos. When somebody's eyes and eye sockets are solid black, something is wrong.
Fantastic review! I've been shooting T-Max and you've convinced me to give Acros a shot. Thanks for taking the time to produce such a detailed and helpful video.
+edma22 You're very welcome. I like TMax results, but find it hard to deal with during processing.
Beautiful photographs and such a great video! I'm currently in an advanced darkroom class & I have to pick one film to shoot for the next 8 weeks. After a ton of films and research, I chose Acros 100. Thanks to your video and help, I'm looking forward to shooting it in both 35mm and 120mm!
Keep it up!
Thank you!
Finally a video that extorts the beauty that is Neopan Acros! I've been using this since 2013 and it was for a time my go-to and default black-and-white film. And back home in the Philippines, a friend of mine sells this way way cheap (PhP195/$2-3), even cheaper than Tri-X or HP5+ (which runs at around PhP350/$6-7 a roll).
+studiosnch Thank you!
This is such a great video. I was planning on buying some but didn't know how it worked. I appreciate the effort put into the review with different development dilutions and times. Keep up the great work!
Thank you, I will. I really enjoy the All About Film series and I have a few more that are getting close to ready for production.
I'll be looking out for them!
This is a very underrated film and it has always been one of my favorites. Thanks for doing such a nice video on it. In my experience, not many film shooters that I have come across have used it and I always encourage them to give it a try. And I agree about the Wow results with Rodinal. Thanks again.
Thank you!
David Hancock And thank you for the recommendation of RPX-D developer. I wasn't familiar with that developer. I have always developed my Acros with Rodinal (1+25) and been very pleased with the results, but I will have to give RPX-D a try.
I'm sold. You were really passionate talking about Acros. Great review as always
Thank you! Acros is a pretty amazing film.
Absolutely great review of Acros 100. I completely agree and appreciate your detailed analysis
Thank you!
I'm so happy I found this channel! Thanks for your informative videos!
+RamaDrama06 Thank you!
I was waiting for this. Thank you David! I am anxious to see the other film videos. I have bee shooting some 400 acros I found in a local shop it's expierd but it has worked fine. I still have to work in my dark room skills more.
+Felipe Alvarez Suarez Thank you! I'm working to finalize my first color film video now -- Fuji Natura 1600. I have a few rolls left to shoot but hope to have it done in Q1.
Thanks for all the suggestions and encouragement here. Especially the Rodinal development dilution and time. I realize we are now dealing with Acros II; I’ll try your suggestions on it. Great work - incredibly useful to me.
Thank you!
thanks for this video and your other videos. I learned today so much about film reciprocity failure. and in one post somewhere, someone mentioned that type of film. I will buy me some roll's and test this. the reason is I like long exposures. 25 year's ago was the last time I have a film Camera in my hands. now I have to learn and this is what is exciting so much. I shot now about 8 years digital, it's not boring but film is like a new challenge for me. thanks for your videos.
Thank you! That's great to hear. It's nice to connect with photography in a different way through film.
Before switching to analogue I was shooting with Fuji X100 in Acros for 4 yrs but had no idea what Acros truly ment, I mean the quality of Acros film you described. Thanks for your input, it seems it's high time to try Acros film.
It definitely could be. Acros II is the current stock and I have a video on it as well.
@@DavidHancock Thank you very much.
Hi David. Your comprehensive assessment on Acros 100 is spot on. Whilst shooting the film in 35mm is good it is outstanding when it is shot in medium format. I am stocking up right now to avoid disappointment. Are you able to share the best alternative to the Acros 100? Much appreciated.
Thank you!
I haven't really found a good Acros alternative. I think the film that comes closest to it right now is TMax 100, but that stock can be painful to develop, fix, and rinse because the pink dye in it is very hard to remove.
For a different ISO, PanF+ is another good alternative.
I got 11 rolls of this cheap last year, not tried it yet but I do love my Tri-x and FP4, I will give it a go when the sun returns and it will swim in Rodinal. nice video .
+Harry Stevens Thank you. Rodinal 1+25 gave results I liked for Acros. I'm told that it stand develops in very-low dilution nicely.
I'm pretty encouraged to buy and try this film after your video, thanx!
+Dani Timo Thank you. That's fantastic to hear. Acros is really amazing film and I think it's easy to love the results.
David Hancock
hi David! thanks for your brilliant videos. like you, I think acros 100 is about the best thing ever to happen in monochrome film. I recently had an interesting result using it in low light. the grain became extremely pronounced, and I love the way it looks. I develop in rodinal 1+50 following fairly run of the mill massive dev directions. the thing is it only happened to this one picture and I've never seen the same effect before or since. this is a link to the photo flic.kr/p/YfSynU
if you get a chance to have a look I'd love to hear your thoughts on what may have been the cause. all the best to you my friend
Thank you!
As for your photos, are you 100% certain that's Acros? I looks more like expired P3200.
A couple of things that could be contributing.
1- It's way underexposed. The white specs and lines are dust on the negative and with a properly exposed image there will be fewer of those. So your negative looks super thin based on that image.
2- The grain is pretty heavy but I supposed it could be reticulation instead of heavy grain. Grain is more apparent with underexposed images, so that might contribute to it. If the developer, rinse, fix, and wash were different temperatures (especially with a large shift in temperature from the developer to the wash) then the film can exhibit reticulation which could be part, or all, of what's going on there.
If you'd like to have consistent grain that looks like that, I'd say to check out HP5+, Tri-X, Delta 3200, Kentmere 400, and Foma 400. Those have pretty strong grains and would give you a similar look on a more consistent basis.
David Hancock
thanks so much for your response David. I think what you said about the inconsistency in temperatures and underexposure are probably spot on and the reticulation you mentioned is an interesting point.
at this stage I've only been taking pictures for about 6 months and I love seeing all the different results and strange anomalies too. I'm in a very haphazard situation of trying many different films and many different development method and am loving all the little discoveries whilst at the same time refining my style and figuring out what really does work for me. I'm loving hp5 and triX for their unique textures and using hp5 most of the time. but when I want that smooth perfection I still always call on acros.
on another note..
I'd love to see you do a segment on bergger panchro!
I just want to say thanks again for taking the time out to get in touch with me, your videos are some of my favourite to watch over and over, learning new things each time.
wishing you well
Bergger is an interesting film to me. I'm going to let it sit in production longer before I buy more. The last Bergger stock I bought went out of production before I could make an AAF video on it. So I'm waiting to see if Bergger will keep their new stock in production longer than a year this time.
stunning review David!thank you so much!
Thank you!
excellent!
love this reviews!
Thanks David!
+Pablo Riquelme Thank you, Pablo!
Most informative videos about films!! So awesome!
just one little doubt (i'm new to developing film). Do this developing formulas work wether its 35mm or 120mm film??
Thanks!
Thank you!
In general, the developing times are the same between formats, but it's good to verify.
Thanks again : )
Just getting into film and in my research neopan 100 just jumped out at me unlike other bw stocks. Thank you so much for the video.
+Carl Miller You're very welcome. This is a great film to get into film with, but it will mean that a lot of other film stocks won't live up to the expectations you get from using Acros. :D
A couple of years ago I tried a few rolls in my Mamiya 6 without knowing anything about Acros 100, and I've been in love with it ever since. So I say, just try a few rolls--you'll might end up loving it, too!
Excellent advice. It's hard not to love Acros.
Thanks David - your review sold it for me! Who knew I should have bought more than one roll (I laugh - B & H's stock is now gone). Recently, I've been shooting film (Nikon N70) along with my D300s, and cycled through your recommendations (FP4 plus, Tri-X; experimented with Arista Ultra 200 along the way), and have one unused roll of Acros 100. I'm looking forward to enjoying my first, and hopefully not last, roll.
Thank you. Yeah, this is a great film and it's a huge loss to see it go.
David, quick question. On your Acros 100 development with RPX-D you list your best results with a 1+19 for 8 min. The massive dev chart has data for Stock at 13 min, 1+4 at 10 min and 1+9 at 16 min. Can I ask how you came up initially with 1+19 at 8 min?
Thanks
When I need a new developer time that's not on the MDC I look at other films that have the same developing time in a known chemistry. So let's say that I need a time for RPX-D and MDC doesn't list it. I'll write down the times for that film for D-76, Rodinal, HC-110, and maybe a couple of other common developers. Then I scour the MDC for other films that have the same, or close, developing times with those known and common chemistries. With luck, one of those films will also have a time for the developer that I need (in this case RPX) and I can use that as a starting point to find a good developing time with that film and chemistry. When I have a good time, I also submit it to MDC. I think I've submitted close to 100 film and chemistry combinations to them, if I had to guess.
If that fails, I look at the developing times for the chemistry I'm using with other films of the same speed in general, plot those, and make a guess. If the negatives are thin with my film then next time I bump up the time. Usually I'm pretty close to spot-on right out of the gate now, but sometimes it takes a second roll to get the proper time.
One note is that the developer times for Acros II will be different than for this older stock, and also the older stock, now all of it being years expired, will need stronger or longer chemistry for the same results than it did when I made this video.
@@DavidHancock Thanks so much for the fast response. Yes I am getting thin negatives and was not sure how to proceed. will move the developing time out more and see what happens. I did try the Rodinal that you suggested for the Acros (1+3) at 6 min 30 seconds and got pretty good results today. I had enough time to scan one negative and will look at it closer tonight..
Hi David, very informative video. Question: your time for RPX-D 1+19 is 8min, but looking on MDC the time for same dilution is 10min. Wondering what you are seeing as the difference.
I've used Acros mainly for pinhole work where the reciprocity of this film is helpful. I've only developed with Xtol and HC-110, only because it's what I had on hand at the time, and had good results. I noticed you didn't mention either in your video.
Thanks for doing videos!
+tailwheel65 Thank you.
Asfor RPX-D, I tried both 10:00 and 8:00. I submitted (I thought) the 8:00 time to MDC. The 10:00 time,for me, causes a lot of highlight detail loss, added grain, and in general over-develops the film. 8:00 delivered better highlight detail, better shadow, and less grain. I e-mailed Digital Truth about it just now.
+tailwheel65 Good catch, by the way.
i bought RPX-D as well (mixing DK-50 is not Wife-compatible :)) ) . Can you tell me about the agitation rythm? I find that missing at digitaltruth.
Thanks!
I'm sold. Love the line, 'dog fur...", so true.
:D
Hi David. Quick question about Acros ii. I just bought a brick of 50 from adorama for 300 dollars. When I saw this 40 percent discount I was ecstatic, however when the film arrived I noticed it all had expired on 10/21. Adorama did not note this and simply had the film discounted. At 6 dollars a roll at the end of 2021 should I just be happy and enjoy my film or should I send it back and get a refund and put that money towards another b&w stock thats not expired? I primarily shoot b&w. I don't have a problem spending 300 dollars I just want to know that the film will be good to shoot for the next year or so. I keep all my film in the refrigerator. Thanks for any advice.
It should be fine in the fridge. It's made by Ilford for Fuji and Ilford gives their film very conservative expiration dates based on worst-possible storage.
@@DavidHancock thanks for the prompt response
Welp, Acros II is supposed to be out in a week -- have you heard if we can get our hands on it in the US? I've looked for pre-ordering options everywhere and can't find em.
Nothing yet. I suspect it's shipping to distributors this week, and that would mean a lag here of some weeks.
Great review. I only have one (and my first!) roll in 120 in my fridge. After this review, I'm looking forward to putting it through my Rolleicord.
+Mark Borley That will be a great combination! Feel free to post a link to your results in the comments.
An interesting review David. Another developer worth trying is Adox FX39 (formerly produced for Paterson) designed by the late, great Geoffrey Crawley.
Try it diluted 1+19 for 11:30 at 20*C/68*F. This combo gives a 5x4 look with 6x7 rollfilm.
D76/ID11 and Xtol diluted does well too, but lacks the bite of FX39.
+monochrome17 Thank you. I have shied away from XTOL since I had a series of poor results from it over two or three different, new packages. That said, when the results from it were good, XTOL is a great developer.
The 1+19, is that RPX-D? Does developing longer at a lower temperature have different effects? I haven't experimented with temperature and time variations except to account for fluctuations in water supply temperatures.
Hi David I love your videos, so much depth.
In the video interview you did with Chuck Jines a while ago you showed some photos with tri-x being pushed to 3200 and developed in rodinal 1+50. I assume the results you got applies to medium format. Do you reckon this formula would be to grainy with 35 mm?
Cheers!
+Eli fan Those were 35mm images, actually. I don't own a medium-format camera that's really capable of taking 3200 ISO images, except overnight. Not every subject is going to be suited for pushing Tri-X. If you want to capture smooth tones and transitions, a 400 ISO film, in general, is not the best idea. If you want to have a gritty, journalistic or documentarian look, the Tri-X at 3200 can yield captivating results.
Hi David,
First wanted to say I really enjoy your content. I have a quick question. I am into night photography and want to use my Nikon F and Nikon FA as second cameras to my D750 when going out to shoot longer exposers at night. My shutter speed tends to be anywhere from 2 secs to 5 minutes. I was wondering what film (negative or slide) you would recommend? I shoot cityscapes and sometimes landscapes with stars. Thanks and I look forward to hearing your recommendations. Thanks!
Thank you!
If you're in a city using ambient light from buildings and lights, then you'll want to be at around 1600 ISO or higher. So Kodak Tri-X pushed a few stops is likely to be your best bet. When Kodak P3200 TMax goes up for sale in a few weeks, that might be a good bet, too. Delta 3200 exposed at ISO 1250 would work as well.
For color, Portra 800 is the only fast color film still in production.
If you're taking cityscapes with the night sky above (say from a mountain nearby or a tall building on the ouskirts of town), you have a LOT more options, especially if you have a gradient ND4 filter that you can use to reduce the brightness of the city in your image. Anything from 200 to 800 ISO would have different results and you could test that using the procedure I'm about to describe, but with shorter exposure durations.
For landscapes, especially star trails or landscapes lit with moon light, there's a wide array of options. Anything from 100 to 1600 will work A-okay, but the question is how many stars do you want in your images. With Acros, in super dark skies, you'll get about 55 stars. With Portra 800 is super dark skies you'll get the Milky Way with a three-ish-minute exposure. So here's a good experiment if you have a free night. Pick up a roll of color (C-41) film in 200 and 800 ISO. I say C-41 because a good lab can develop that without any development variation between the two, but black and white works well if you develop yourself and have good quality control procedures.
Then take a photo of your smartphone screen or a sheet of paper properly metered under light with data about the film type, camera used, and the following test shot sequence. That data frame gives you a known exposure point that you can use to compare the rest of the images on that roll and it lets you know easily which roll of film you used and how you structured the test.
Determine how much time you have and break it into 30 blocks of increasing length -- 2 seconds, 5, 10, 30, 45, 60, and so on, however you see fit, until you get to something like 45 minutes on the last frame (these durations assume you're doing a star trails photo in a dark area.) Write that pattern on your sheet of paper or smartphone screen so that you have that reference in your film and can easily count the exposed frames from your starting point. So let's say that you get your film back and photo 15 looks perfect for what you want on your 800 ISO roll. You simply need to count down on your data sheet to get the exposure data. If photo 26 on the 200 ISO roll looks perfect, same thing. Then you have two data points to use for a known lighting situation -- time and relative darkness. Doing that will give you a good understanding, over time, of how different films work in different situations. All you need are two tripods, your two cameras, and two locking cable releases. Just set the cameras up facing the same way and then you can also compare the ideal 800 ISO and 200 ISO results to see how they differ and how the baseline film sensitivity affects the images.
I just picked 800 and 200 ISO as examples. You could use 100 and 1250, 400 and 800, etc. But anything below 200 will have a significant decline in recoverable night sky image data.
David Hancock wow! You are amazing. Thanks for all your time and help!
After a little experimentation, it's definitely my favorite B&W film. It's so rich!
An excellent favorite! It's also my favorite black and white film.
Love these film reviews. Thanks.
+1717jbs Thank you!
Have you used Fuji's 2 developers; microfine and SPO or done any stand development with Acros?
I tried Microfine and I think I tried it with the original Acros, but I don't see it in the video glancing through it. I seem to recall it being fine but that overall microfine didn't impress me a ton.
I ran across this video while I just happened to have my first roll of Fuji Acros in one of my cameras... Why do you suppose there is a lot of grain with Rodinal at 1:50, but not 1:25? I use 1:50 for other films but never noticed particularly much grain. I wonder what might be different with the Fuji? Very puzzling.
I don't know why it does that.
Great! I'd love to see one about Pan F.
+iandvaag That's on the list, but I'm not sure exactly when. I have a good deal of photos taken with it, but not enough.
hey btw i really like your review its very consrruxtive and well made. will you make comparaison video between for exemple fomapan 100 and across 100? i really like those two film but i still hesitated about wich one i should stick on for the 135 format
+Alexandre Lebel Hmm. I hadn't thought to compare films before. In terms of choosing between Acros and Foma, I think that Acros delivers better results, but the price and format availability of Foma is better. I think Foma is a pretty underrated film worth a lot more credit than it receives.
David forgive me for one last question tonight. Have you considered a “all About Film” on the ROllei RPX 100 and 400 films and the IR400 films? They are getting good reviews online and would love to know your take on them.
I have. RPX 25 will probably be the first, but not this year or next. My goal for the balance of this yeat includes CineStill 800T (Sept.), Kentmere 400, TMAx 100, and Delta 100 in October through December, and possibly a few other surprises in there if I can get enough photos with those films. For 2022, I'm planning Portra 800, Ezox Rerachrome, Foma 400, ShangHai GP3 100, J Lane Dry Plates (2 ISO), and a few others that I hope to complete. 2023 will see RPX 25. And yes, I do have to plan these 3-4 years in advance to make sure I can get enough photos for them and maximize the number of these I produce each year.
@@DavidHancock Wow you are quite busy! Thanks for all your thoughtful work!
I haven't had much exposure to this film, but after seeing those images, I think I may grab a roll or two. thanks for the video
Acros is a stupendous film. Definitely worth trying, especially if you shoot 120. In any format, it's my favorite black and white film.
Thanks for this review! I never tried this film. I want to use this film in 120 format. I am also interested in using a color 120 film. Do you recommend a Fuji film 120 color film for portraits?
+Jorge Zeraba Thank you!
For color portraits, I recommend Ektar 100.
I wonder how this film does in D76 and Tmax developer. I will find out because i am shooting two rolls this weekend of Acros for the first time and will develop in both chemicals for a test.
Nice test! The D-76 results are good. I'm, personally, not a fan of TMax developer (though I know a lot of people who love it and I don't fault them at all.) I would be interested to see your results with the TMax developer.
I will post two shots from each roll and let you know.
You might want to review the new Acros, which to me is a out sourced student grade film at a premium price. First it's no longer a thick film, Acros was often recommended to people learning to develop film as it was easy to load on a reel. The new Acros is thin flimsy film, you might be able to load 24 exposer on a reel but 36 is likely to jam and once it jams it damages the fragile film and starting over is a waste of time it just jams worse. The new Acros is very similar to Ultrafine Extreme which I do use. It's cheap I buy a hundred foot role and only load 20 frames to insure it doesn't jam in the reel. Loading 120 takes a lot of patience to get it stared but then usually isn't an issue to get fully loaded. Your results will be similar to the new Acros at less then half the price. Acros is now made in the UK by Harman.
It's definitely on the list. I've only shot it in 120 so far.
Hi David. Could you tell me how to develop this film in Ilfotec LC29?
The best advice I have for you is to check the Massive Development Chart. I've never used LC29 and don't have any pointers on it.
Hi David, I.m not sure why you mentioned XTOL.
ADOX FX39 is different developer altogether than the RPX-D dev. It used to be sold by Paterson LTD, but it now made for Adox. Try a google search. FX39 is high acutance developer designed for modern films like Delta, T-Max and Acros.
+monochrome17 THe XTOL was just a response to the last line of your comment. I looked at FX39. THatnk you for the idea on that. I'm working (in passing) on getting photos for the Silvermax and CMS 20 videos, so I'm going to grab some FX39 and give it a shot with those films.
Acros is available in 8x10 too and sold by multiple sellers that will ship worldwide.
Yes, that's true. No official distributors export it, IIRC.
But you can’t buy rpx-d developer anywhere! Any ideas?
It was discontinued at some point after this video was made.
David,
Acros 100 has been my favorite medium format film... and that was when I was developing it in DD-X. I tried RPX-D as you suggested and am in love with the film even more.
I'm looking for a good 400 speed film & developer combo for medium format that I can push to 800 or 1600. Any recommendations?
Thanks!!!
Try Tri-X processed in Diafine. Is the world standard for a reason.
Thanks, Joe! I'm experimenting with HP5+ at varying speeds (400, 800, 1600) processed with DD-X. DD-X is my second favorite developer for Acros (and is cheaper than RPX-D). For simplicity, I prefer to have just one or two developers around.
I have seen some great results with Tri-X in Diafine. I might have to try that. Do you shoot it at 1250 or 1600?
+Matt Adams I shoot it from 800 to 1000, depending on lighting conditions, and results I'm going for.
+Matt Adams you should try HP5+ in HC110 1:50 for 10min. Amazing results.
Thanks for the info and endorsement. However, Acros and other Fuji BW products are being discontinued.
Yep. I posted this before Fuji discontinued Acros.
I usually send my film to thedarkroom and I'm really happy but it's getting expensive. I never developed film myself so I was thinking of trying it. I see this process call Stand Development which looks to be easier. Does that impact the image compared to normal development and is it noticeable? Thanks
I'm working on a stand development video, actually. I hate it. I will use it for sheet film, but not roll film of any kind. Stand development can leave bromide drag stains on film. Here's an album of examples showing bromide drag patterns on some thin or unexposed negatives.
davidhancock.smugmug.com/Stand-Bromide-Drag/
Here's what that can look like on an image:
photos.smugmug.com/10-7-16-MZ-S/i-M379DW9/0/f381d338/O/79.jpg
photos.smugmug.com/10-7-16-MZ-S/i-7nb8BG4/0/b35634fd/O/84.jpg
photos.smugmug.com/10-7-16-MZ-S/i-CRwvsPz/0/6a503fc5/O/88.jpg
With sheet film, that hasn't been an issue. The bromide drag on those samples arises from mixing that happens as temperature differences in the tank cause fluid convection. Some of the developer rises or sinks in the space between the tank skin and reels and some passes through the film sprockets and tank reels. That causes areas with different developer concentrations and the flow patterns are left as over-developed areas on the negatives.
With sheet film, convection results in a more even, laminar flow that spreads across the film surface more evenly. So my sheet film tests (none of which are scanned) have no far not exhibited any drag stain.
In short, I'm not a huge fan of stand developing and suggest against it.
wow, that's pretty unfortunate. Nice F22 raptor :-) I can't wait for the video. I'm just afraid I might mess up the part where you put your hands on that dark cloth thing and try to put the film on the reel. Looks kind of tough.
For a reason I came across with this video last year. I've been shooting ACROS till then. And I feel I'm in the need to watch again after amazing results of ACROS. I am using a HC-110 developer and I can try another developer just for ACROS. But the thing is I can reach only Ilford and Kodak stuff in here. What I fell in love with ACROS is tonality, by the way. Maybe it's just not the tonality, I don't know, I taste something different in this film.Sharpness or fine grain are good to go but not prior for me (as a regular HP5+ shooter). I shoot only 35mm. Do you have any suggestion on developer? (In Ilford and Kodak stuff)
Hmm. I forget off the top of my head which developers I recommended for this film. D-76 generally works well. Fuji has a fantastic fine-grain developer but it's may not be available outside of Japan any more.
It may interest you that legacy pro 100 film is said to be rebranded acros (It even comes on a Fuji branded spool) and it can be had in 100 ft lengths. I learned film using "legacy pro" and once i learned this shot a LOT of acros and I think I can agree its the same film.
I usually pulled to 80 though
That used to be true, yes. Fuji stopped selling their films for use under other badges, however. So Acros can only be had as Acros any more.
I love this film also. Thanks for the great info.
Thank you!
If there are other films that you love, this is pat of an ongoing series. I have five or six of these videos now.
Thanks I just use one film because it works and I have used other films however this is the best.
Hi David, what a great video, I just inherited an old film camera in perfect working order. So I thought I would give black and white film photography a try, along with home development. I also inherited most of the equipment for that including some chemicals. I had watched your videos on fp4 and hp5 which were also great, and had pretty much settled on fp4 until I saw your acros video. Which definitely swayed to acros. My intention is to scan the negative with my d810. The format is 35mm. The chemicals I got are still unopened but are about 10yrs old. Ilfasol 3 etc. But am unsure if it would be usable at that age?. Could you point me in the direction of where I could purchase the rxp-d.maybe even a link to your post about it on massive dev. Cheers
John
Thank you, John!
So mixed news, for chemicals that age, I'd pitch them. They're likely spoiled. The exception would be powdered chemicals if they aren't clumped. RPX-D, insofar as I can tell, is out of production. Freestyle Photo will sell it if it's still available.
@@DavidHancock Thanks for responding David, i guessed as much for the chemicals. i will have a look at freestyle, not been too optomistic . so will probably look at alternatives
@@DavidHancock hi David, have you ever tried acrs in prceptol or hp 5 in microphen?
Can you show some pics/video on the types of silver print papers you mentioned? that would be helpful as I've always used Ilford multigrade fiber paper.
Can you link a time stamp in the video? I can't recall off the top of my head which ones I named.
@6:57
I often hear from photographers who call Acros "too clean", "like digital", "soulless". I personally like and use it sometimes, but prefer TMax for a little more grain in medium format and keep buying only 35mm Acros. Also, Fujifilm (all sorts) is the only film type that leads to frame spacing issues in my old Kiev, apparently - at least my conclusion backed by my favorite lab - it's thinner than Kodak and Ilford which work fine.
+Casa de Chrisso I can't imagine calling Acros soulless, but there are people who will dislike something simply because no one else does.
As for the spacing, I don't think that it's a film thickness issue. I have had that issue, too, with some TLRs. I believe that the cause it the film base material for Acros, and the fact that it does not retain as much spool-shape memory as Kodak film bases. I notice that in medium-format cameras that don't do a good job of keeping pressure on the film spool after winding that the film on the spool comes slightly loose, like a clock spring unwinding. That would push the film backwards in the camera and cause it to 'rewind' enough to overlap frames On one of my cameras, it's so bad that I lost an entire roll's worth of usable images because the film was wrapped so loosely that the film and paper roll were wider than the spool flanges, letting light into the roll.
I thought I'd already commented on this video so I apologise if this is a double up.
This is my favourite film also. I love it in 35mm and 120. You're right about the detail. Man, so much detail. And it develops pretty easily.
I usually develop in Rodinal 1+50 so it's interesting to hear you say it introduces more grain. I'll try it at 1+25 but I always understood that to increase grain and contrast. Is that your experience?
I use to have some Ilford DD-X but never used that with Acros. Saved it for other faster films where I was trying to keep grain down. I'll have to give that a try some day, along with RPX-D if I can find it locally.
So, yeah, 1+25 SHOULD give a lot more grain than 1+50, but for whatever reason my experience was the opposite. Different films react to different chemistries in different ways.
Cool man, thanks for your feedback. I've got a couple of 35mm acros films to process and I only have rodinal at the moment. I was gonna do them both at the same time. I might try a 1+100 stand dev with a touch of salt. Have you heard of that? There's an english geezer that has a video on here showing how it seems to boost contrast and sharpness in rodinal. Worth a shot!
andrewford80 I've heard of stand development and know a lot of people who tout it as the best development possible. I've never tried because I also know people who have had awful results when the developer settles out. There are some advantages, I'm told, such as stand development delivering evenly developed negatives even if the film is exposed at different ISOs. I'm not sure how accurate that is, not having tried it.
+andrewford80 I only ever use Semi-stand develop and only when pushing film ie Tri-X at 1250 in HC-110 Dilution 1:100 for 40mins with about 1agitation half way through.
I'm no expert, but I've read that longer in the developer means more grain. When pushing Tri-X that's what I expect and really like. I regularly shoot tri-x with a Yellow/Green X(0) filter, and shoot at 200 or 400 to compensate and develop at 640, 1250 so I can push the film in bright sun. For a 1 Stop push and at box speed, I just use Dilution B. It works for me.
So I wouldn't use stand developing For Acros. I'd want to keep the grain as small as possible.
Again I am no expert and I may be missing out on something magnificent and Acros is actually going strong.
Spehmaster G. Cool, thanks for your comment. I think I've got my Acros development pretty good right now so I'm reluctant to experiment too much in case I destroy a film :) The images come out pretty nice so that's good enough for me!
This is screaming out for an Acros II sequel. Any initial thoughts on the new stock?
There will be an Acros II video, yes. I have not yet stocked up on it, however. I have some videos that are fairly far along in the image capture process, and I want to finish those before I grab a new film stock to shoot with.
@@DavidHancock Can't wait!
You also made a great job with this video. Did you know that this film is also available at 8x10 format? At least Macodirect is selling this format but the pricing quite mad.... 188 EUR for 20 sheets. I think that 35mm and 120 films cost enough but near 10 euros for one frame is serious business!
Have you tried fomapan 100 or 200 films? Those are quite inexpensive and that's why i'm interested in. I hope that at some point you will review a 400 speed B&W film of your choice.
+furlong512 I learned after the video was live that Acros 8X10 is available. I didn't know it was available outside of Japan, though.
For Foma, I have used the 100 and 400 (maybe also the 200.) The videos for those will be a ways off, but I do want to get to some of the budget films, like Foma, Kentmere, and Ultrafine, soon. I actually have enough Ultrafine photos to do videos for the 100 and 400, but they're from a few year ago when I wasn't recording developer data.
Hi, really detailed and extra technical video. Most appreciated the attention to the detail.
I feel like trying out your best suggestions to process the film.
I was wondering if you could help as I have never properly learned how to process B&W film and to make things more difficult I don't have access to a dark room.
May you could steal me in the right direction.
You video really made me do it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vitor.
Here are some videos I made a long time ago on home developing:
ua-cam.com/video/8Y586-3KdOA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/z_jnn1RH5g0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Tg5cQwR-WlI/v-deo.html
My film developing setup stores on two shelves. I don't print at home. just develop.
@7:10 spectral sensitivity... Acros technical data sheet labels it as “OrthoPanchromatic”! Orthochromatic is less/not sensitive to red... so apparently this is somewhere “in between” both “pan” and “ortho” chromatic.
So panchromatic and orthopancrhomatic are, as I understand it, the same. Pancrhomatic simply means all visible light waves. Orthopanchromatic is a weird way of saying that the film sees all visible light spectra.
Acros 100 is probably my favorite bw film for clean prints. I have about 200 rolls stored in my fridge.
+Stephen Gomez That's a good stockpile. I used, literally, the last of my Acros for this video and won't be restocking until I finish a few more of the videos in this series. I'll miss using it for the next year or so.
I hoped the new version is anything like
The original. Almost made me switch to digital when they discontinued it.
Same here. I'm really looking forward to using it for the first time.
Fuji says they've "improved" Acros, but I'm not sure what needed improving. I'm afraid they've modified it to make it cheaper to produce. I'll buy the first brick when it becomes available, but I'm worried.
i think so too actually i prefer foma film instead of kodak and ilford way much
+Alexandre Lebel I find Foma easier to work with than Kodak (at least the TMax line.) I'm not sure whether I like it more or less than Ilford. But I don't fault anyone for loving Foma; it's a really nice product.
Recent rumors say that Fujiflim is going to discontinue Acros in October 2018 :(
That's what I'm hearing in the news, too.
So sad to hear today about Fujifilm discontinuing Acros 😣😣
Yeah, that was bad news to wake up to.
Have you tried it in Pyrocat-HD? It has become my favorite combination (18 mins, 1+1+100, 20C)
I have not tried it. Do you have some samples? You can link to your work in the comments.
I accidentally deleted your link instead of approving it. Can you post it again?
goo.gl/rmXdiC
This and most others in the B&W album with acros in description. Some are XTOL.
Nice video but with a few misconceptions. 200 lpmm at high contrast is just under 35megapixels shooting a black and white newspaper. Many lenses (not just L) clearly outresolve that. Which I tested with Techpan in Technidol. My lenses also outresolve my 42 mp A7RII. Also Acros is faster, more expensive and looks better than TMAX (as a Porsche Gt3 is faster around the track, more expensive and looks far better than a Nissan GTR). TMAX outresolves Acros and has smaller grain. Acros has better tonality, it is sharper and a bit faster.
Thank you!
No thank you for the great videos.
Do you mix your DK-50 by yourself?
I had some cans that I picked up and used those. DK-50 isn't hard to make at home with the right chemistry, though.
I have had allways perfect results with 1+50 Rodinal 12 min. You will get a very nice s shape curve with Rodinal and allways detailed shadows even in high contrast . The tonal range you get from Rodinal is very beautifull , deep black to briljant white and all the grey's in between . I have tried other devellopers but they gave a high contrast with Acros or a bad compressed tonal range . Yes Rodinal give grain , so what if you use 6x7 ...... But Acros is now RIP and I find it impossible to replace Acros with any black and white film .
That's a good combination, yes, for medium format. I'm still trying to find a suitable replacement for Acros. So far, no real luck.
@@DavidHancock I have find out that Kodak T-max 120 film from after backingpaper problem does not react in the same way on Rodinal 1+25 and 1+50 than the 120 film T-max 100 before 2016 . The contrast is lower same like the D-max . So white will not so white anymore . White is with Acros briljant .
I develop T-max 100 120 film now in 1+25 Rodinal 7,5 min. for a better contrast and white . 2 minutes more . Before the backingpaper problem the 120 T-max 100 did very good in Rodinal 1+50 15 min. and came close to Acros in Rodinal 1+50 12 min. I think they reduced the amount off silver in T-max 100 ......
Yes the replacement for Acros is very hard to find , I will have to change my printing style ..... Greetings from the Netherlands Peter .
RIP ACROS.
I can't believe they are ditching this gorgeous film...
Yeah, it's a big loss.
Great review...
+Marek K Thank you!
Acros looks amazing in Fuji microfine 1:1
Yes! What a great combo. Microfine is only available in Japan, though.
I live in Japan and just mixed up some Microfine tonight. I have been using D-76 and the results have been amazing, which makes me somewhat nervous to try anything else. Wish me luck
Bill M. Good luck!
+Bill M. Nothing to be afraid of. Be sure to get the temperature down to 20c.
A couple I've tried. Tmax400 @400, 1:1 11:00
Tri-x @400 1:1 8:30
Too bad we can't get it in 100' rolls. I would fill my freezer with it.
+nerdanderthal IDontLikeGooglePlus No kidding. I would never buy another 100 ISO film if I could get Acros bulk.
Great video, as usual. RS
The ASA rating is 100 = 21 DIN
Correctly, the "ISO" is written as 100/21 . If one mentions the 100 number only, one should say ASA 100. Not ISO 100.
Good point. I stated that incorrectly.
Thanks for another great video! But I have to say, I felt I a little cognitive dissonance as you compared Acros to a GTR. Not because of the car analogy, but because at that moment, the subject of your classy GTR was a trash panda.
Aren't trash pandas just the GTR of the landfill, though? 😀
@@DavidHancock When you look at it from that perspective, yes :) I'll never look at a racoon (or a GTR) quite the same way ever again.
Great video, I have it in 120 and 35mm so I better get to using it. Could you review Ultrafine extreme 400 120 as I hear it is a good MF film. keep up the good work.
+mamiyapress Thank you! The UF videos are in process. I'm closer with 100 than 400. The lineup for 400 films is 400 TX, Kentmere 400, and then I can do UF 400.
I've shot a LOT of UF, but previously didn't keep track of developer information, so the photos aren't hugely useful for for the videos. I like UF, which puts me in a minority. To get the most out of your UF films, use a yellow filter. That adds enough contrast to make them look very nice.
I eventually got round to shooting a test roll of Acros.. I wanted to see how it looked pushed to 400 ISO, it turned out quite well.. The lens used was, for the most part, an original 1960's Mayer-Optik Görlitz 30mm f/3.5 Lydith (not the crazy priced crowd funded re-release), the photo of the wee bird used a Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm f/3.5, and the Developer used was Kodak HC-110 [Dilution B] for 10 mins: www.flickr.com/photos/133238604@N05/shares/n2sGK9
Nice! Those are great results! I like the flowers image a lot. The silver tones on the bell are great. And the bird shot has great contrast. Great work!
David Hancock I was surprised that HC-110 worked out so well with Acros, I was a bit worried it might not be the best developer for the job, the old Lydith 30mm though, is an excellent lens, and great fun to use.
ROLL-e-flex. ACK-u-tense. Please pronounce these correctly. I've been shooting since the late 70s, and your concept is intriguing. Hence my subscription. But your lack of experience is glaring. You should have shot Neopan 400 in 120 with Rolleiflex TLR, or Mamiya7 soured in Rodinal 1:50, or Studional 1:50. Would completely change your conclusions of Acros. For sharpest film, try Adox Silvermax.
So, for the pronunciation, I have acutance correct. It's uh-KYOOT-ance:
www.dictionary.com/browse/acutance
For Rolleiflex, Rolleiflex is pronounced a number of different ways in different countries and differently within the U.S. Just like Nikon and Nikkor and pronounced differently in different areas. And, yes, certainly one way can be seen as correct and the others as wrong. When the Spanish-language students I used to tech English to called me DavEEd and the Arab-language students called me DaWOOd, it was fine. It was still my name. Different linguistic backgrounds have different pronunciations due to learned linguistic patterns and oral muscle memory. Pronunciation does not make the word unless the pronunciation alters the meaning within context. Judging by your screen name, I'm guessing that the pronunciation is important to you and I appreciate that.
And, yes, I don't have as much experience as you. I've only been shooting film since 1986 and developing it myself since 1993. And photography is a process and I'm always glad to look back at the previous year and see how much I've learned about photography in that time. Someone will always know more than me and I will always know more than someone. If things weren't that way, they would become boring quickly.
As for Silvermax, I love it. It's great film. I'm looking forward to making the AAF video about it. Silvermax has good grain but it is not sharper than Acros (in terms of contrast-based resolving power). Silvermax tests out at 100-115 l/mm (1,000:1 contrast). Acros tests at 200 l/mm (1,000:1 contrast). I couldn't find the Silvermax 1.6:1 rating, but Acros is 60 l/mm.
Silvermax has a much greater development latitude and is designed like an older emulsion and has larger silver grains for lots of reasons, design being only one of them. A case that SIlvermax has better acutance is correct as it has larger, more distinct grains. That would give it the appearance of being sharper, just as HP5+ has the appearance of being sharper than Acros and about a dozen other films. Again, that's due to HP5+'s grain size and distinct inter-grain acutance, not sharpness derived from resolving power. But, realistically, any resolving power of 100 l/mm and higher looks effectively the same as very few lenses have the capacity to resolve much above 150 l/mm, and the majority of lenses out there struggle to break 120 l/mm. The sharpest commercial lens ever made resolved at 254 l/mm, and that was for a disc camera, so not a great use of that resolving power.
Where Silvermax really shines is in dynamic range. The DMax exceeds 3.0, which is spectacular, and if it's developed correctly (in the Adox Silvermax developer) Silvermax can resolve exceptional tonality and image detail in 14 zones. That's far beyond, insofar as I know, any other film that's ever been made. However, SIlvermax does not have the chemistry resistance of most films and loses a good deal of dynamic range and gains a good deal of increased grain with a LOT of the common chemistries on the market.
The sharpest film on the market right now is an Adox film, but it's Adox CMS20, which has a 1,600 l/mm (1,000:1 contrast) rating. And that makes sense since it started life as a microfilm stock.
I have shot Neopan but only developed in in D-76. I liked it quite a bit. In general, Fuji films are very nice and well engineered.
Thank you for your comment and subscription. I'd be happy to debate and discuss any time.
Super nice video :)
That is Mt. Diablo!
It definitely is. I get up there every so often.
Rollei 25?
Yes. It's in process. I LOVE that stock. It's become a favorite. The dynamic range on it is absolutely incredible.
What would your recommendation for developer for Acros 35mm be? RPX-D?
If you can find RPX-D, yes. If not, Rodinal 1+25 works very well.
Thank you. I have been developing Acros 120 in Rodinal at 1+25 with great results. I will have to try the RPX. Acros is my favorite film. Thanks again.
It'll be discontinued in 4x5 in May 2018, so if you like Acros in 4x5 stock up!
Thank you for the head's up. That's too bad. I just got my Velvia 4X5 order in this week.
David Hancock Yeah, probably didn't sell well enough for Fuji to think it's worth keeping in production.
hello, I'm a young photographer (15), and I mostly do digital photography, but I recently picked up an Argus MatchMatic c3 from a local antique shop (it's actually in pretty good condition, and I uploaded a picture of it to my artist page: gamersphotography.deviantart.com/art/my-new-old-camera-608074096), and I really like black and white; may I ask what film you would recommend to photographers who are just starting out with film (aka: inexperienced and not spending a lot)? also, if you wanna check some of my other works, I have them in my gallery on that site
+Jim Billy There are a few good starter films: Kentmere, Ultrafine, and Foma are the best value for the money and all deliver good results. They're also good for learning on as they're relatively inexpensive and easy to use at their rated speeds.
David Hancock ok, thanks
Here's an image of an old Japanese temple I took a few days ago on a Bronica ETRSi 6x4.5 using Acros II and a yellow filter. Some dappled light, shade. I think the yellow filter is fine. I used Fuji's "Microfine" developer, which I guess may only be available in Japan.
instagram.com/p/CFn7bwfDzZv
Thank you and that's very nice. I'm just starting to use Across II (I've shot two rolls that I plan to develop tonight.) I'll be interested to dig into it and see if my results compare to yours.
This is pretty much the only film I shoot.
Here is a latitude test I did using the final four frames on a roll (135).
-1EV, 0, +1EV and +2EV all souped for 10.5 mins as per Massive Dev Chart.
imgur.com/a/5fTQD
Nice! Thank you!
discontinued as of nov 2018 :(
Yeah. They discontinued it earlier this year, I think. I'm racing to complete the Velvia video because I suspect it's not long for this world, either.
Buy it up and get it in the freezer! You never know when Fuji is going to pull a stock. They often do so without warning.
I wish I could disagree. Fuji tends to give a few months' notice, but not enough. My hope is that Across is selling well enough to justify its continued production.
shiit man, i was happy i've found a film photography page with some meat on it and then you said that shit with "photons" hitting the film/sensor! fail...
www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/cml/opt307/spr04/jidong/
Photons flip film grains from unexposed to exposed. It occurs when the energy of the photon strikes the film grain, dissipating the energy into the grain. Basically, film negative creation is the balance between photon strikes on individual crystals and latent thermal energy within the film working to keep it in its unexposed state.
what happens to these photons after hitting the film? do they fall out while changing film? or the sensor? do i need to send my camera to the shop to be cleaned of photons?
Touch my body, Acros.
...
Bit of Nissan GTR guy.
A bit, yes.
I find Acros has no tonality at all; it's all white or black. It may look very good scanned, but looks very flat when printed in the darkroom.
Interesting. How are you developing it (as in what chemicals and which developing method)? Are you using straight tap water or any kind of filtration before mixing your chemistry?
They call it "film noir" for a reason. It may be appropriate for certain scenes and I may give it another shot one day. The few times I've used this, I used DDX, which is recommended for T-grain films. As for the time, I couldn't tell you - except they were likely standard. I used straight tap water.
A message to the past. Don’t fall in love with acros, and there won’t be 100 ft nor 220 packaging of the film
Yeah, no kidding.
İtro müsiğini bilen varsa sonulrrr söylesin.
Dont forget subscribe this channel ^^
+animation movies Thank you!
Keep in mind this video is five years old and Fuji acros 100 is no longer available in 4x5 😭
I hear you on that. I have tried the new Acros II, but I haven't developed it yet. With luck, Acros II will come out in sheet format.
David Hancock since finding 4x5, it’s really all I want to shoot 😩
Believe me when I tell you we agree 100% on that. If it weren't for my All About film video series I think I would have almost no use for 35mm most of the time now.
RIP Acros 2018.
Yup.
RIP
Yup. Sad news for sure.
I find Acros to be very flat and boring. Almost digital-like. I prefer the look of TMax 100.
I've heard, and can understand that criticism. It's a less film-like looking image than other films. Ektar is the same way. Photos from Ektar really look like digital images.
David Hancock I've never shot Ektar but I have a roll that I bought recently. I didn't know it was digital-like. Regarding Acros I keep on shooting it even if I don't like it that much, I use it to test lenses due to the sharp results.
By the way, your video is excellent, lots of technical information and awesome images.
DarkRami Thank you!
You may really like Ektar. I, personally, think it's the best color film ever made. I like it more than Kodachrome, though I know people who would string me up by my intestines for saying that.
People say that TMax 100 looks like digital. Go figure.
It looks like a good film, but I just couldn't look ay any more of your far-underexposed photos. When somebody's eyes and eye sockets are solid black, something is wrong.
Check your monitor brightness. On my computer, irises and pupils are discernable without difficulty in all these photos.