Fuji Acros Returns

They listen:

 

Fujifilm NEOPAN 100 ACROS II Ships Soon in 35mm and 120 (Exclusive)

Time to restock the freezer-I cleared out my last of it since I'd only shot a few rolls of it, and figured there was no point in learning a film I wasn't going to be able to get any more of.

 

I'll buy a brick or two in 35mm and a few boxes in 120 of this and proceed to actually learn it. The last I bought was about $5/roll in 120(it was around $26 or $27 for a 5 pack), and I think 35mm was $6-7. I just hope that it hasn't been infected by the same pricing that's driven 35mm Velvia and Provia to ~$18/roll...

I wish they’d bring back Neopan 1600 and Natura 1600.

Back around 2009 I purchased two rolls of Acros in Japan as a backup plan while on a business trip, but never used them during the entire trip. A year later I loaded one of them into one of my Nikons, but due to the fact I was shooting almost all digital at the time, I pretty much forgot about it until earlier this year when I finally shot the last frame, so it had been in my camera for 8+ years (!). Just for kicks, I did load up the other unexposed roll and used it up while hiking in the Sierras. A few months later when I was "actively seeking new employment opportunities" and had plenty of free time on my hands, I got hold of some Ilfosol 3 and processed it with about 20 other rolls of exposed film that has been hanging around for ages. The Pan F was a bust - NO image whatsover, not even edge markings. TMAX 3200 was heavily fogged (as expected) but so was the 400 film as well - I got some images, but they were marginal. The Arista 400 I shot had moderate base fogging but at least the negs had decent enough range to print. The Acros was the best of the bunch - NO base fogging on either roll, and good density on the negs. Didn't print anything as of yet, but negs looked reasonably sharp with an 8x loupe. Keep in mind that these had not been kept in cold storage either, they had just been kicking around in my camera bag for about 10 years. This alone tells me the film is quite stable and able to take a fair amount of punishment in terms of less than optimal storage, so I will be happy to have the opportunity to experiment more with it.

I have heard that Pan-F+ has poor latent image keeping, though you don't say how long you kept yours.

 

I had some Tri-X in a camera I borrowed from my father, which was then in his bedroom drawer

for 30 years before he found it again, sent the roll to me, and I developed it (in Diafine).

It came out well for 30 years, mostly white spots in areas that should be completely black.

 

I would hope other ISO 400 films would do well, too, unless kept in tropical temperatures.

 

Last summer, I had a roll of TMax 400 from 1992 in a Brownie 2F, which came out reasonably well,

though a small background fog was noticeable. Some days were cloudy, so I didn't overexpose it

as much as I could have. (The Brownie 2F is from the 1920's, so designed for slower films.)

 

You might have a different definition for "heavily fogged" than I have.

This is on TMax 400 expired 27 years before I used it last summer.

 

Early evening, so I suspect that I used the larger aperture available.

 

The car was built by the current owner's grandfather, which he then had restored.

 

 

Exciting news, but would be even better if Fuji would offer it in 100' bulk rolls.

I have heard that Pan-F+ has poor latent image keeping, though you don't say how long you kept yours.

 

The Pan F I shot was from 100' bulk rolls I purchased from Freestyle Photo back around 1991-1992, so yes, it was quite old.

 

Last summer, I had a roll of TMax 400 from 1992 in a Brownie 2F, which came out reasonably well, though a small background fog was noticeable. Some days were cloudy, so I didn't overexpose it as much as I could have. (The Brownie 2F is from the 1920's, so designed for slower films.)

 

You might have a different definition for "heavily fogged" than I have.

 

Based on the shadows, and the way I interpret your print, I would say it would have a bit less contrast than yours. If I were to set the print exposure time to have decent whites in the highlights, I would basically lose Zones I and II - muddy with loss of detail, no real deep black tones.