Acros & HP5+

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

A tidbit...I've discovered that Fuji Acros 100 and HP5+ developed for the same times in Ilfosol-S or Rodinal 1:100 yield virtually identical CIs and curve shapes for N and N-1. Or iow, both films could be developed together; rather convenient.

Acros' CI is a little lower in D-76H 1:3 but I think it's likely close enough for any practical use.

Just FYI, your mileage may vary.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), August 22, 2001

Answers

John- Would this apply at regardless of dilution? I haven't had the opportunity to shoot any Acros, but I was not impressed with HP5+ at 1:9. Haven'y tried at 1:14, but Delta 100 is wonderful at 1:14. I love using Ilfosol for convienience, and Acros is sounding better and better the more I hear.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), August 22, 2001.

> regardless of dilution?

No idea; I've only used Ilfosol-S at 1:14 with Acros and HP5+.

What didn't you like about HP5+ in Ilfosol-S at 1:9?

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), August 22, 2001.


I've tried developing HP5+ and Acros together in Rodinal 1:50, and didn't like the results. Fuji recommends agitation twice every minute for Acros, and I stuck with that as the film has a lot of contrast to begin with. But HP5+ usually gets four inversions per minute, and with the reduced agitation it came out really flat and a tad underdeveloped---the Acros looked fine.

-- Chuck Albertson (chucko@siteconnect.com), August 24, 2001.

BTW I should have mentioned it; I'm using constant rotary agitation.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), August 24, 2001.

The best way to develop different films in the same tank is use divided developers, like Diafine or Divided D-76. From what I have found out from people that have tried Acros, the grain is no better than TMAX and has a EI of 40-64.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@att.net), August 24, 2001.


> the grain is no better than TMAX and has a EI of 40-64.

The reason for my interest in Acros is that (according to Fuji) it needs no reciprocity-failure corrections for exposure times out to 120 seconds and it's a Readyload-compatible competitor to TMX, now perhaps the only one.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), August 24, 2001.


My limited experience with Fuji's version of TMX is that it has an EI of 64 and develops, looks, and prints VERY similar to TMX. Neither of these films can get close to FP-4+ or Delta 100. Both Kodak and Fuji have chosen to be minor players in B&W and I, for one, don't support either. Why bother? Ilford makes the very best B&W materials and has no intention of abandoning 'real' photographers. Just a thought.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 03, 2001.

"My limited experience with Fuji's version of TMX is that it has an EI of 64 and develops, looks, and prints VERY similar to TMX. Neither of these films can get close to FP-4+ or Delta 100."

You are kidding right? fp4+ could never get the type of tonal scale fuji acros has, and subtle changes in contrast are a lot easier to acheive with TMX than Delta 100. They are different films and appropiate when used in the right circumstances and correctly.

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), September 03, 2001.


Now you've done it, Jorge! I'm going to have to run film tests to determine EXACTLY what the stuff will do. 'Scale' is easily seen by the shape of the HD curve. The test exposures must be made at the correct film speed and development time. Most films will have a reasonably straight curve when exposed and developed according to real world tests. We get into trouble when we take the manufacturer's specs as true. TMX is not one whit faster than 64, but when 'push' developed to 100, it gets real nasty and harsh. Some photographers blame their lab or just give up and use something else where the rated speed and suggested dev times are more nearly accurate. When you shoot TMX at 64 and develop for a straight curve, it's a very nice film. Just too slow for any practical use with handheld shooting. Delta 100 has a straighter curve and will give 2/3 stop more speed. A densitometer is indespensible if you want to get the most from your films. NEVER take a manufacturer's spec as gospel.

-- Michael Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 04, 2001.

Well, go ahead Michael, have densitometer can travel...:-)) I am telling you this because I just made the test with 8x10 fuji acros, beautifull long scale, the curve looks even better than TMX. As for the speed or EI, whatever you want to call it, it all depends on your convination of film and developer. With my developer ( catechol formula I developed) I see no difference in speed between TMX, ACROS, FP4+....well maybe FP4+ is a tiny bit faster. I dont know why you assumed I was taking the manufacturer's spec as gospel, since I don't even check them, I just shoot at the EI I think will work for me and go from there. Your comment that TMX is too slow at 64 when you want to shoot it at 100 I think is nit picking, you are talking about 1/3 of a stop, if you are shooting in ranges where reciprocity is a concern then maybe this 1/3 stop might be relevant, but at speeds less than 1/2 I really don't see where the adavantage is. Bottom line is you have worked with fp4+ and Delta, you like them and they produce the results you want with your particular set up, but to go and state that neither ACROS or TMX film come close to fp4 and delta is just nuts! PS. I don't know why you seem to think you are the only one with a densitometer out there, or that other posters don't run tests and just go and make statements because they developed a roll of film and it worked. So my answer to you is run your tests, I did, what I saw I liked and might even change to fuji ACROS, on the same hand when I ran my tests to compare Delta and TMX, delta did not even come close .....so for MY methods and set up, TMX was better, but I would never go out in a public forum and tell people Delta can't come close to TMX!

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), September 05, 2001.


Jorge, Sorry to nitpick, but snce the difference between ISO 100 and 50 is one full stop, then is the difference between 100 and 64 only 1/3 stop?

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), September 05, 2001.

ah, ok, so it is 2/3 I was thinking about 50 and 65 since I shoot both at 40, it does not bother me! it only bothers you not to be able to shoot it at a higher speed. Still I see you did not address the rest of my comments. what does the EI has to do with TMX and ACROS not being able to "come close" to FP4+ and Delta, and on what do you base those "conclusions"? I can only get 8x20 film from Ilford, and I am familiar with their films, so I still want to know what is so much more wonderful about the Ilford films.

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), September 05, 2001.

Jorge, I believe that you were conversing with the other "Michael". However, since you asked, I have noticed that Delta 100 is considerably faster than TMX when shooting near my home in Colorado. This may be due in part to the reduced blue sensitivity of TMX, which is designed to give more realistic renditions of the sky, etc. Since Colorado has much more blue light than most other locations, the same speed difference may not be observed (or measured) by others.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), September 05, 2001.

Ok, Mike Feldman: Yes I was talking to the other Mike and somehow confused you with him. But I appreciate your answer, I like it when people give specifics and not just flat out outrageous coments...:-))

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), September 05, 2001.

> Delta 100 is considerably faster than TMX

I concur; I've routinely found EIs for Delta 100 around 125 to 160 and TMX around EI 80 to 100, developed to about the same CI.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 06, 2001.



Delta 100 will (at 0.09>B+F) just make its published EI:100. It is blazingly sharp, particularly when developed in PMK. The extra 2/3 stop becomes very important for hand-held work. Using 4X5 or larger, I find that HP-5+ is a terrific film. It has just about a ruler flat 'curve' and at larger negative sizes, grain is not much of an issue. And unlike Kodak, Ilford films do not gain contrast with the long exposures required for reciprocity corrections. Even on a tripod, 64 speed is an issue because the required long exposures make photographing even in mild wind conditions quite difficult. I'd be much more interested in a 'new' film, if it were actually advancing the technology rather than copying an existing formula.

-- Michael Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 09, 2001.

>What didn't you like about HP5+ in Ilfosol-S at 1:9?

Sorry it's been awhile, John.

I simply tried it once- manufacturer's recommended time/temp, 2 min. pre-rinse, agitation every 60 sec. I could not print them to satifactory contrast and acutance was horrible.

I unexpectedly recieved two rolls of Acros from a friend who attended a Fuji seminar yesterday, and I think I'll give HP5+ a second try at 1:14.

Your thoughts on pre-rinse? Remember, I'm not using rotary. Much appreciated, John.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), September 12, 2001.


> Your thoughts on pre-rinse? Remember, I'm not using rotary.

I never use a prerinse, nor have I seen any need to, when using manual intermittent agitation or when developing sheet film with rotary agitation in a Unicolor tube. I only use a one-minute prerinse with the Jobo solely to eliminate airbells.

My standard manual agitation scheme is to bang the tank a couple of times to dislodge bubbles, then give 30 seconds initial brisk inversion agitation followed by two brisk inversions every 30 seconds. It shouldn't make any difference between agitation at 30-second intervals or one-minute intervals...but it may.

I also use a half-full tank with just enough solution to cover the bottom (loaded) reel.

For HP5+ in Ilfosol-S 1:14 I'm seeing slightly finer grain and slightly higher acutance than D-76H 1:1 or 1:3 , but _lower_ acutance and lower graininess than Xtol 1:1 to 1:3 or of course Rodinal 1:50 to 1:100. Of particular note is a more S-shaped curve than D-76, which is pretty much dead straight above the speedpoint.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 14, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ