R'flex~ Fuji Acros

I used to shoot quite a bit of Acros in 35mm with good results, tried some yesterday

in 120 and notice the tonal range isn't as good as I've had with Tri-X, both dev. in

Xtol 1:1.

 

The negs were harder to scan as well, may be the glossier finish on the negatives, not

sure. Oh well, try, try again.

 

Here are a couple:<div></div>

another...<div></div>

I made the same experience with same type of camera and Kodak T 400 CN

versus Ilford FP 4. The tonal range in the conservative type of film is a lot richer, whereas grain is better in that C 41 process stuff.

Funny, I found Acros an incredibly well-scanning film in 120 when I shot the first roll on my R'flex.

 

Your shots look pretty darned nice to my eye!

They look pretty good to me. The compositions are excellent. You have a good eye.

Todd, I'm curious as to what your scanning set-up is?

I find a flatter neg for Acros scans better for me. Try cutting development time about 10% and see if they scan easier. I like Tri-X but love Acros. It's much less grainy and I find smoother toned.

Looks pretty good to me Todd. In 35mm I like acros in diafine @ 250. I've also been playing around with rating it at 320 and changing the times from 3 minutes to each bath to 5 minutes for each bath. Looks promissing.

Don't get me wrong, I like Acros, I just need to "massage" it till I get the results I am

looking for. Might try Rodinal with it, 1:50 or even 1:100 may be closer to what I

want.

 

Todd

I'm certain you will get every suggestion under the sun but I was pleased with processing it in HC-110 for the recommended time after exposing at EI 80.

Looks good to me.

 

Try Acros in Rodinal 1+100 for 18 minutes. Lovely tones, sharp, no grain and very easy to scan.

 

Paul

<i>"I've also been playing around with rating it at 320 and changing the times from 3 minutes to each bath to 5 minutes for each bath. Looks promissing."</i><P>

Not sure what affect this would have... A sol is merely a soak, right? I was under the impression that 3 mins was more than enough to saturate the film. B would set the A off, but that will expire in what... 7 mins? How much action would there be beyond the 3 mins suggested in the pamphlet?<p>

I have experimented with short-stopping the B sol, say, from 3 to 2 mins, but not the other way... supposing I will have to try it now. Do you have examples of images done from negs you cooked in this manner?

Yeah, I don't think increasing the time in Diafine will have any affect. My very un-scientific understanding is that, once the amount of sol. A that the film has absorbed in the first bath is used up by the reaction in sol. B, the development is pretty much over. One thing that does work for certain situations though, is cutting the time in sol. B short like CE mentioned. That's how I develop Tech Pan (based on Gene Crumpler's recommendations on photo.net) -- normal time in sol. A and then only 30-40 seconds in sol. B.

 

My personal experience has been that the films I have developed in Diafine have all scanned well (on Fuji Frontier) -- FP4+ @ 200, Acros @ 200 and Tri-X @ 1000ish. Maybe because Diafine tends give a little lower contrast.

"I was under the impression that 3 mins was more than enough to saturate the film. B would set the A off, but that will expire in what... 7 mins? How much action would there be beyond the 3 mins suggested in the pamphlet?"

 

I've noticed 2 things about diafine that seem to run counter to what the pamphlet says; time matters and temperature matters, although neither matters as much as with a traditional developer. I think there might be a stop of wiggle room in there, maybe a bit more.

 

I first noticed that temp matter over the winter when I was having a hard time getting my chemistry up above 65 degrees. You seem to loose about a stop of diafine's 'push' at 65 degrees. For giggles I did a few rolls at 75 degrees and notice that you gain about half a stop.

 

I've accidently messed with time for diafine as well. I initially followed the box recomendation of 3 minutes each bath. I did this for about 6 months. Then I put the diafine away for a while and moved on to other things. When I came back to it, I used 5 minutes for each bath after reading that many folks use the extended time for "saftey". In the interim I had also changed scanners, so I didn't initially noticed that the density of the negs had changed, but eventually I caught on to the difference.

 

It's just been in the last month or so that I have started to play around with these variations of time and temp. They do seem to make a difference. Today I scanned a roll of Acros that I shot @ 320 and developed for 4 minutes each bath. The density was exactly right for my scanner (scan dual IV) and the tones seem in line with my previous experience with Acros.

 

Now, I don't know if I would find the same effects if I only varied the time on bath B. That's the next step in the experiment, although at the moment I'm really more interested in the ability to use diafine more flexibly. At least for me, it seems to produce the best negs for scanning.

 

I should probably take this over to the B&W forum at some point.