Fuji Acros 100 - Developer and suggestions?

[Jack Brady]

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Greetings All,

I've been shooting TMax 100 in 120 and 4x5 developed in Tmax developer in my Photo-Therm SSK8R processor. I'm in HOtLanta, GA (Atlanta, GA) and have to process my film at 75 degrees F due to the temp of the water coming out of the tap. My times for Tmax 100 are running 4.5 minutes for 120 film and 4.0 minutes for 4x5 film. I'm shooting Tmax at ASA 100 with these development times and I'm getting a great density curve when I run the density tests on the films. (Densities check on my X-Rite 810). Negatives are scanned on a Howtek 8,000 line drum scanner and worked digitally thereafter.

I'm reasonable pleased with the results BUT I keep hearing good data on the Acros 100 film. In searching and reading a great number of prior posts on the Acros film, I felt that Rodinal was one of the preferred developers. However, I've found that the Rodinal is no longer available and thus will substantially change the value of prior post of that film.

I ask three questions:
1.) Those that have contrasted the Tmax 100 and Acros 100 in both 120 and 4x5 - what did you see as the advantages of each?

2.) What are the attributes of the various developers you have tried with the Acros 100 and what have you standardized on?

3.) Some suggested starting ASA's, rotation rates and development times for the developer that you fondest of with the Acros film?

PS: Emphasis on 120 film as frankly, I'm finding I'm doing far more of my shooting with 120 film these days when I travel by plane to the destination. Just a whole lot easier for me to hike with and I'm doing a lot of panorama shots these days - the H1 and a RRS pan head work great!

Jack

[Sal Santamaura]

See what I posted here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=14349&highlight=acros+perceptol

Also, since then, I've established a time of 9 minutes at 75 degrees F for the same protocol.

I find Acros to have the following advantages over TMX:

- Greater visual impression of sharpness
- A straighter curve, especially in the mid-tones
- Better reciprocity performance
- Developed as described, negatives are very neutral-colored. "New" TMX, when processed in a developer that mitigates its coarser visible graininess compared to "old" TMX, ends up warm in color, with particularly yellow highlights. This characteristic, most pronounced in Xtol, is non-linear with respect to density. As a result, TMX negatives distort the film-developer-paper curve, depressing high values when printed on VC paper and blowing them out on graded paper.

[Donald Qualls]

I haven't used Acros in large format, but in 35 mm and 120, it's excellent in Rodinal (well, I use Parodinal, but that seems to be identical working), 1:50, 19 minutes with agitation only every 3rd minute. Unfortunately, with a rotary processing system, you'll never see the acutance benefits of letting the film stand in a suitable developer, but you might still like Rodinal -- try 1:50 at around 10 minutes in your rotary, though that's likely to result in speed loss of one stop or more compared to the slower process.

[Ted Harris]

Rodinal was briefly unavilable but, AFAIK, it is available again and has been for at least a month. There is alos at least oneother developer tht uses the same proximate formula but a different name.

I use Rodinal at 1:50 for ACROS in a Jobo. You can easily adjust your developing time to compensate for the 75 degree temp.

[Ron Marshall]

I use D76 1:1 with both TMX and Acros.

The only signifigant difference I have found between these films, and the reason I sometimes use Acros, is it's superior reciprocity characteristics.

I hand roll in a Jobo 3006 on the $20 Jobo roller base at 50 RPM, reversing direction every two revolutions. Normal development at 68 degrees is 8.0 minutes.

Check Paul Butzi's website for a detailed comparison of these two films, and much development information.

[Henry Ambrose]

I suggest Xtol 1:3. I've used this with 35mm Acros rated at 80 and its great. in general, I think Acros looks more like standard older films than TMax. Unfiltered, Acros looks like I'm using a very light yellow filter.

I'm at 14 minutes or so in small tanks at 70 degrees. Constant agitation would cut that about 15%. If you can get enough working solution on the film I think you'll be very pleased with Xtol. I'm not familiar with your Phototherm processor chemical capacities.

By the time you make adjustments for 75 degrees and constant agitation you'll be around 10 minutes I'd guess. Getting enough working solution on the film is the only question I'd have about this combination in your machine. Kodak wants you to use at least 100ml stock Xtol per 80 sq. inches of film. Can you get 400ml of working solution in your drum for each roll of 120 or 4 sheets of 4x5?

[Jack Brady]

Henry,

The Photo-Therm SSK8R with the film tank I have holds 4 4x5 sheets or two rolls of 120 film. My tank takes 500 ml of chemistry.

I previously had the Jobo CPP2 and I find the SSK to be dramatically better and runs totally unattended. The development across a 4x5 sheet of film give a perfectly even density on all corners and in the center! You have total control over all variables in the development process.

There is a larger tank available that will hold 8 sheets of 4x5 and 4 rolls of 120 that I don't currently own - it's on the list for future purchase.

I would encourage all to look into it.

Jack

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Jack.

I've used TMX for years, and recently began using Acros. The biggest differences betwen the two films, as far as I can tell, is the nearly opposite spectral sensitivities, and Acros' enhanced reciprocity behavior. TMX's sensitivity extends quite a way into the red (700nm, or so), while Acros is classified as orhtopanchromatic. I develop both films in 510-Pyro. For Acros and normal scenes, I develop in 510-Pyro 1:100 6min/70F at my Jobo ATL-2 Plus' slowest speed.

Jay

[Donald Qualls]

Acros? Orthopanchromatic (like Efke 25)? Really?!

Now I'll have to dig up my Acros negatives and see if I can recall the original colors -- I recall it bringing out clouds rather poorly relative to red-enhanced panchro films like TMY (more like Plus-X), but I don't recall any suggestions in the box documentation or on the web site to use unusually high filter factors with red filters. I understood it was a pretty standard Type B sensitivity curve, while TMX and TMY are closer to Type C...

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Donald.

According to the pdf, Acros is orthopanchromatic. I'll try to attach the pdf.

Jay

[Dan Jolicoeur]

Fuji across is my main film now mainly because of quickloads. I rate the film At 64 and process in Xtol 1:1 @70deg. for 6:30 constant agitation in a jobo 2509 reel. Not sure what the tank number is? I use about 600ml of solution compared to the recommendation of 375ml with no presoak. I get excellent results, and process manually with an enlarger, instead of digital. These are based on my test with my equipment. I could not get D76 to work good with this film that is why I switched to xtol. I love this combination. It will remain my main stay until I can no longer get the two.
Good luck,
Dan

[Donald Qualls]

Hi Donald.

According to the pdf, Acros is orthopanchromatic. I'll try to attach the pdf.

Jay

Okay, this is confusing. It's not at all the same response as Efke 25, the archetypal orthopanchromatic film; Acros only calls for 3 stops filter factor for a #25 red filter, same as I'd give Tri-X or Fomapan 100, while Efke 25 wants, IIRC, 5 stops. The response curve shows the same drop-off just below 650 nm that I'd expect to see on, say, Plus-X (though it doesn't carry out as far as TMX). They do in fact use the word "orthopanchromatic" but they clearly don't mean it the same way as when it's used to describe Efke 25. In fact, it appears to be a perfectly ordinary Type B panchro film, based on the response curve and filter factors.

I suspect Fuji is using the word correctly -- "ortho" meaning "true" as in "true panchromatic" -- while with Efke 25 it's used to describe a response halfway between orthocromatic and panchromatic.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Donald.

It is weird. Fuji Neopan 1600 seems to show a nearly identical spectral response, but they call that film panchromatic. I hadn't actually compared the curves until now, and you're right, I don't see how they arrive at the designation orthopanchromatic for Acros and panchromatic for Neopan 1600. That will teach me to take manufacturer's spec's as fact without looking a little closer. Thanks for bringing this discrepency to light.

Jay

[Kirk Keyes]

I don't see how they arrive at the designation orthopanchromatic for Acros and panchromatic for Neopan 1600.

Maybe it's a typo? Or perhaps some sort of Engrish?

[Donald Qualls]

Or perhaps some sort of Engrish?

Interesting possibility, but I'm pretty sure Fuji sells enough product in North America, England, and Austalasia that accurate translation is worth something to them; everything I've read from them is idiomatic and grammatically correct. I'm much more inclined to think they used that coining correctly without realizing it was already in use as a portmanteau to describe Efke 25, especially since Efke never, AFAIK, use that word themselves; rather, I've only seen it used by those trying to describe the Efke film's response, without knowing about the old Type A, Type B, Type C panchro response designations.

FWIW, for those who aren't familiar with that nomenclature, Type A is Efke 25 style -- film responds to red light, but much more weakly than to blue or green, typically also dropping response to near zero at a relatively short wavelength (say, 600 nm or so). Efke 25 and Efke 50 are the only Type A examples I'm aware of on the current market. These films show great speed loss (IIRC, Efke 25 loses two stops) under tungsten light, or with the yellowing light of the "magic hour"; these films are almost incapable of separating clouds from blue sky and holding detail in foreground objects because the filtration required has a huge filter factor (a #25 requires, IIRC, five stops on Efke 25). Type B is the common range, covering Plus-X, Tri-X, and almost all other current B&W films, films that typically need a filter to separate clouds from sky with exposures suitable for ground objects, but lose little speed (up to about 2/3 stop at worst) under tungsten light. Type C is extended red response, like Tech Pan, Classic 400, Ilford SFX -- Type C films can often, with the correct filtration, give IR-like effects such as Wood effect (which starts at around 680 nm, IIRC), and some Type C films actually have limited response in the fringes of near-IR, beyond 700 nm. Type C films usually show no speed loss, sometimes a small speed gain, under tungsten light, and can frequently separate clouds from blue sky without a filter, even at exposures suitable for objects on the ground.