Merits of Fuji Acros

[robert_cardon]

I've seen a few postings on developing the Fuji Acros 100, but none

on what users thought of it vis-a-vis FP4 ot Tmax 100. My own

limited tests indicate that it was less than the rated ISO in pyro,

and it was fined grain. However, under a 7x lupe, I didn't see a

significant difference between it an the much less expensive FP4 (at

least not enough difference to switch). Haven't tried any T-Max 100

ever, so can't comment on such a comparison.

 

Any other users care to comment?

 

THX

 

RJ

[david_beal___richmond_hts.]

Why not expose at ASA 80 and develop in Rodinal 1:50? I've found this to be very satisfactory for Acros 120.

[tedharris]

Hello Robert,

 

I have been using ACROS 4x5 for about a year and my normall developing

combo is rating it at 100 and developing in a Rodinal 1:75 solution.

Sometimes I rate it a little slower and develop in 1:50.

 

I have seen little similarity between ACROS 100 and FP4. ACROS seems to

have a longer tonal scale and to be way more contrasty. Just eyeball

measurements. Nothing scientific and I don't use FP4 much.

[dr5 examples]

I would think that the primary benefit of this film in large format would be its (supposed) excellent reciprocity characteristics. Unless you were doing truly massive prints, I wouldn't think that the difference in grain would be noticable between it and fp4. My feeling is that this film has more benefits for the small format shooter than the large format one. I've been happy enough with fp4 to not feel compelled to try across in 4x5, especially at the price!

 

isaac

[jerry_hyman2]

I have shot Acros 100 and frankly don't see that much difference between it and TMAX100 except for the price which is higher. It's a good film but I would stick with TMAX for price and similarity. Both TMAX and Acros are substantially different in tonality, sharpness, and grain than FP4. I like the tonality of FP4, and it is less critical in development controls, but it certainly is not as fine grained or sharp as the other two.

 

-Jerry

[dr5 examples]

I agree that fp4 isn't as fine grained as TMX, or acros for that matter. That's why I mentioned that it's a better film for small format shooters. I don't blow my fp4 up enough to notice the grain, but it seems just as "sharp" if not sharper than TMX to me. I have a feeling that the developers that I like for fp4 are not the best match for tmx, so maybe that's where the discrepency lies...

 

Isaac

[dave_schaller]

I use Acros in both 4x5 and 8x10. I develop it in D76 1:3 for 10 minutes in a JOBO tank and for 12 minutes in trays. The main benefits are convenience (Quickloads) and the reciprocity characteristics, which are considerable. I've made no adjustments in time up to 8 minute exposures! It is damn expensive though, and I wish Fuji would sell it widely in the U.S.

 

--Dave