Comparison of Acros & FP4+

[ross nolly]

I've searched the boards but am having trouble finding a direct comparison

between Acros and FP4+ in 35mm.

 

I'm new to B&W after having shot colour slide for the last 20 or so years.

 

I'm deciding between Tri-x, HP5+ and Neopan 400 for my overseas PJ work. All

three are excellent from my tests so far, but Neopan gives fantastic skin

tones for darker skin. But am also looking for a slower film to shoot in

conjunction with 400ASA.

 

I have a couple of rolls each Acros and FP4+ to test but was hoping for anyone

else's experiences.

 

Am going to start processing my own soon, but find lab processed film

difficult to judge unless you know the developer they use.

 

Thanks in advance.

[amund_aaeng]

Acros is a "modern" film wich is virtually grainless compared to FP4+, it has great resiprocity specs and does good in most developers. FP4+ is a traditional film with nice grain and sharpness, with a quite different "look" from Acros. You really have to try them both, to decide what you like best... I like both of them :-)

[stephen sullivan]

Acros 100 is closer to an EI 64 or 80 ISO film. IMO you may want to try something in the middle of Acros 100 & FP4+, like Plus-X.

[leicaglow]

I would choose Neopan of the ones you mention, but I also would add to the list: Delta. Depending on developer you can get radically different effects, and it is very easy to control with pushing or pulling. The HP4 and 5, and Acros, are a little finicky when it comes to developing for a great print with a wide range of tone, but it can be done.

[victor_loverro]

Here is a comparison between TMAX 100 and Acros, but you might learn something about both from this:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/tmxacros.htm

[jordan_w.]

I think you'll find that all these films -- Acros and FP4 Plus included -- will benefit from careful attention to exposure and processing (especially Acros). You may want to wait until you are able to process these films yourself before doing a serious comparison. In the XP2 Super may be a good option (C-41 process). Its "look" reminds me of the "new technology" films like TMAX and Acros.

[ross nolly]

Thanks for the fast responses, they're greatly appreciated. I'm trying to keep everything as simple as possible and like my colour work, want to stick with a couple of films (Velvia & Provia).

 

Most of my work is from the rural areas of New Zealand and the Pacific Islands (Vanuatu, Tonga etc) and have found Neopan 400 to be an excellent general purpose film. But I also love Tri-x, HP5+ as well!

 

Have used Tmax100 and for some reason doesn't really do it for me, but that's just a personal thing anyway.

 

The Acros and FP4+ will be used for some portraits, nature (waterfalls and nature details etc.).

 

As an aside it's amazing how the advent of digital has caused some editors to want traditional B&W!

 

Using B&W has given my attitude to photography a new lease of life too!

[paulh]

Your final choice may be dictated more by what is more readily available, and which one works best in your developer. Both FP4 and Acros seem relatively easy to get hold of even in photo processing shops that cater mainly for digital, at least here in Wellington. I like both, but if forced to choose, I'd probably go for Acros.

 

You can of course push Acros to 200 if you develop in (say) Diafine - I've not tried this my self. Similarly, I've shot Neopan 400 at 250 & 400 and developed in Rodinal (1+100 and 1+50) with good results, and 640 when developed in Diafine.

[pics]

As others have mentioned, Acros is a new technology film made by Fuji to compete with the Tmax and Delta offerings. Thats not to say it is identical to these films but it has more in common with them than tradtional films like FP4+ or Tri-X. I personally prefer traditional grain films and found Acros to look too much like Tmax 100 which isn't a favorite of mine. In the end though its more about how you use the film than anything else. You can get great results with just about anything on the market today.

[jay_de_fehr]

Acros is indeed more similar to TMX than FP4+, but there are significant differences. Acros has a very straight, slightly upswept curve, while TMX tends more toward a gentle S-curve. TMX has extended red sensitivity, while Acros is classed as orthopanchromatic, like Efke 25. Acros develops contrast more quickly than either TMX or FP4+, and since it doesn't tend to shoulder, highlights can get out of hand when overdeveloped. Acros is reputed to be finer grained than TMX, but at some point grainless is grainless, and any differences are beyond my ability to discern. Good luck, and enjoy your trip.

 

Jay

[aurelien_le_duc]

As far as I am concerned, I prefer FP4, because it's more traditionnal film. Acros is too modern, and washing it is quite difficult (calcium traces).

[ross nolly]

Again, thanks for the answers!

Acros is not available in NZ except in 120 format so bought half a dozen rolls to try in my last shipment from Adorama.

[chris_waller]

I've shot Acros and find it almost indistinguishable from TMax 100 (TMX). It has its merits, extremely fine grain being one, but it is a little bland for my taste. I've just recently returned to FP4 (120 format) after a 'separation' of about 15 years and I have to confess I like it - it has that slightly gutsy tonality. I dev both in Rodinal.

 

That attached scan (not very good) is of a print from FP4 in Rodinal.<div></div>

[User_502260]

I like both films. I find FP4+ easier to work with. There is often the temptation to use acutance developers with fine grain film, especially in 35mm format. My best results with ACROS have been with undiluted Fuji Microfine. The grain with this combination is at least as good as anything you will get with TMX but I find TMX more difficult to work with. Several internet postings have claimed that Microfine is similar to Microdol-X or Perceptol. Microfine tames the contrast nicely and gives me the box speed of 100.

[jon_noble]

I have used all of the films you describe (except acros) extensively. My main developers has been ID11 and Rodinal.

 

Personally, HP5+ lacks too grainy (muddy/clumped grain) for my liking for a 400 film, it also lacks character. However, if you are after a film that even a monkey can use and get usuable neg's, this is the film.

 

Tri-x is a film i just cant get to work well. Ive tried various dilutions with rodinal and ID11 and results seem to be hit and miss. I have no idea what it is but i do not know what it is that its lacking. However, at 1600, i found it pushed extremely well in rodinal 1+25 without huge grain.

 

Neopans are my personal favourites. They are not as forgiving as HP5+ but are surprisingly fine grained for old-tech film structure. These are always the films i reach for whenever i need consistent results. http://galleryjon.fotopic.net/c932085.html is a link to gallery of images all made with neopans. If you explore more the other 75% of black and white images are made with neopan too. Neopan 1600 is grainy but thats ok as its what i expect from a 1600 film.

 

FP4+ is another film i have never got on well with. The only reason i am still using it was because i bought 35 rolls for ~60p each. For such a slow film i was expecting fine grain. Fine grain has only been achieved in very dilute rodinal (1+200 stand developed). At standard dilutions its just too grainy and in ID11 it looks good, tonally, but still has too much grain. Again, its not too forgiving despite what the spec sheet says.

 

After saying all this it is down to personal preference and how skilled you are in the darkroom. Run a couple test rolls of acros and fp4+ of various situtions to get a feel for them.

 

Hope that helps

[jon_noble]

lacks=looks

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

You are using Rodinal and complaining about grain? Then stop using Rodinal, it's not the film's fault.

[jon_noble]

Dan

 

I know that Rodinal accentuates grain. Thats why i use it. However, i am talking relatively speaking to other films

[pics]

"For such a slow film i was expecting fine grain. Fine grain has only been achieved in very dilute rodinal (1+200 stand developed). At standard dilutions its just too grainy and in ID11 it looks good, tonally, but still has too much grain. Again, its not too forgiving despite what the spec sheet says."

 

 

Using it highly diluted with stand development will also increase (not decrease) the appearance of grain compared to standard dilutions and agitation. I'm not sure how you are seeing the opposite. FP4 should definitely be more forgiving compared to Acros. Acros is a "new-technology" film and like Tmax and Delta it is more suceptible to changes in exposure and development.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

11x14 printed from 35mm FP4+ should be grainless from the usual viewing distance.

[peter_schrager]

I know that this is purely subjective but I love acros and those put it down haven't really tried to use it. I'm doing 120 film developed in Rodinal 1:100 and getting incredible negatives. Of course this is with an old Ricoh TLR. Old lenses new tech film. A very hard combination to beat.