Acros II: How is everyone getting along with it?

farlymac

farlymac

PF McFarland
Local time
5:37 PM
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
7,657
Being in the market to restock my film supply, I was thinking about adding some Acros II to the mix (though not a lot due to the price).

1) Does it compare favorably in looks with the old stuff?
2) Do you have any issues with development?
3) Any problems with exposures?
4) Any storage or latency issues?

I used my last roll of the original a couple of years ago in my Zorki-1e with the I-22 lens. I really liked what I got with it, and would like to use that combination again on an every-so-often basis.

They worked so well together.


Half Off! by P F McFarland, on Flickr

PF
 
Honestly as someone that sees a lot of this we’ve seen lots of issues with some kind of emulsion damage.

Happens on 35 and 120. Haven’t discovered the root cause yet. No latency, exposure or tonal issue compared to previous.
 
farlymac said:
Being in the market to restock my film supply, I was thinking about adding some Acros II to the mix (though not a lot due to the price).
Click to expand...
Just do it, you will not regret it.

1) Does it compare favorably in looks with the old stuff?
Yes, identical results: Same resolution, same sharpness, same fineness of grain, same spectral sensitivity, same tonality.

2) Do you have any issues with development?
No. I prefer semi-compensating developers for this film.

3) Any problems with exposures?
No.

4) Any storage or latency issues?
No.
 
I still have 20 rolls of the original Acros in 120, and one stray 135 roll.

From what I hear the new Acros II has a bit more contrast, but you have to A-B side by side to notice.

What makes Acros so valuable to me is for night shooting doing bulb exposures with a tripod. I get great negatives using Diafine due to the lack of reciprocy failure of the original Acros.

My hope is that Acros II responds the same. For night shooting Acros and Diafine is magic. Nice mids and since Diafine is a compensating developer not UBER high contrast, yet mucho shadow detail.

It has a HDR effect, but it is film.

Cal
 
I have shot one roll in 35mm and do like it. I cannot compare exactly, but it seems similar to the old ACROS. All my old ACROS was developed and scanned at The Darkroom in DDX, the ACROS II I developed myself in HC110 and used my Fuji XT-2 to digitize. The ACROS shots seem a bit snappier, but that could be developer, agitation, scanning, etc.

ACROS


trail by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


a guy and his car by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


running by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

ACROS II


old trunk by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


bamboo by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


building by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
 
Acros in Diafine

Acros in Diafine

Calzone said:
I still have 20 rolls of the original Acros in 120, and one stray 135 roll.

From what I hear the new Acros II has a bit more contrast, but you have to A-B side by side to notice.

What makes Acros so valuable to me is for night shooting doing bulb exposures with a tripod. I get great negatives using Diafine due to the lack of reciprocy failure of the original Acros.

My hope is that Acros II responds the same. For night shooting Acros and Diafine is magic. Nice mids and since Diafine is a compensating developer not UBER high contrast, yet mucho shadow detail.

It has a HDR effect, but it is film.

Cal
Click to expand...

I was wondering about the iso when developing in Diafine. Is there an increase in grain? thanks ---john.
 
jbrubaker said:
I was wondering about the iso when developing in Diafine. Is there an increase in grain? thanks ---john.
Click to expand...

J,

I shoot it at box speed (100 ISO), 5 minutes+5 minutes Part "A"/ Part "B," and I minimize aggitation to only two gentle inversions per minute in a stainless steel tank.

Diafine is a strong developer and I lowered the agitation for less contrast and broader mids. I think the less aggitation also makes smaller grain.

I think Diafine is a pretty fine grain developer with Tri-X and Acros. Know that I like to print big.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
J,

I shoot it at box speed (100 ISO), 5 minutes+5 minutes Part "A"/ Part "B," and I minimize aggitation to only two gentle inversions per minute in a stainless steel tank.

Diafine is a strong developer and I lowered the agitation for less contrast and broader mids. I think the less aggitation also makes smaller grain.

I think Diafine is a pretty fine grain developer with Tri-X and Acros. Know that I like to print big.

Cal
Click to expand...
Thanks Cal - I have a large supply of Diafine, so I think I will give it a try. --jb.
 
Minimal agitation in Diafine is good. But agitation in "A" is not critical, as in this stage the emulsion is simply soaking up the developer. Part "B" is an activator, developing what was soaked into the emulsion earlier. Minimal agitation is important here so as not to wash the developer out of the film which results in underdevelopment. And be gentle! The compensating action of Diafine requires the developer to stay in contact with the area of the film in which it soaked in, then it works to exhaustion. It took me a while to realize why I so often had thin negs with Diafine! Process time is also not important once above a minimum, say 5 minutes or so, and temps aren't critical either as long as all liquids are about the same temp. Very useful developer.
 
Doug said:
Minimal agitation in Diafine is good. But agitation in "A" is not critical, as in this stage the emulsion is simply soaking up the developer. Part "B" is an activator, developing what was soaked into the emulsion earlier. Minimal agitation is important here so as not to wash the developer out of the film which results in underdevelopment. And be gentle! The compensating action of Diafine requires the developer to stay in contact with the area of the film in which it soaked in, then it works to exhaustion. It took me a while to realize why I so often had thin negs with Diafine! Process time is also not important once above a minimum, say 5 minutes or so, and temps aren't critical either as long as all liquids are about the same temp. Very useful developer.
Click to expand...

Doug,

Thanks for the addition. I did not stress how gentle my inversions are. Also I go slowly.

BTW I get great mids. My development is a bit HDR like, but I'm shooting film. With Diafine I get more shadow detail than with a straight solvent developer, and the highlights are nice and fluffy with smooth roll off.

Also Diafine gets "seasoned" with use after about 25 rolls of film.

I call it my "Slacker's-Brew" because it is Panthermic, it gets reused, and has a long-long shelf life. Cheap-cheap-cheap... You don't have to replenish, and unlike one shot developers you don't pour it down the drain.

Tri-X and Acros with Diafine is all you need to do mucho photography.

Cal
 
Diafine with Ilford HP-5

Diafine with Ilford HP-5

Is this a bad combination? I never hear about HP-5 in Diafine. ---jb.
 
Calzone said:
Doug,

Thanks for the addition. I did not stress how gentle my inversions are. Also I go slowly.

BTW I get great mids. My development is a bit HDR like, but I'm shooting film. With Diafine I get more shadow detail than with a straight solvent developer, and the highlights are nice and fluffy with smooth roll off.

Also Diafine gets "seasoned" with use after about 25 rolls of film.

I call it my "Slacker's-Brew" because it is Panthermic, it gets reused, and has a long-long shelf life. Cheap-cheap-cheap... You don't have to replenish, and unlike one shot developers you don't pour it down the drain.

Tri-X and Acros with Diafine is all you need to do mucho photography.

Cal
Click to expand...

Can attest to Cal's points all being true although I think I need to improve my agitation regimes a bit to be even more gentle. After some Q&A some years ago, I took up Slacker's Brew as the way to keep film development doable with my family and work commitments and the results have been great. Tri-X at 400/800 or 1250 are my go to combination with a Nikon F or Leica M. I have some really nice rolls of original Acros in 35mm and 120 also although I never fell in love with the tones quite as much.

@Calzone, I'll also say that I experimented with FP4+ exposed at 200 in 35mm with Diafine and have really enjoyed the tones with that combination for daylight shooting.
 
jbrubaker said:
Is this a bad combination? I never hear about HP-5 in Diafine. ---jb.
Click to expand...

I've used 35mm HP5 plus in Diafine at 400/800 with results that are fairly similar to Tri-X. I don't like it as much as Tri-X at 1250 though.

Not very scientific, but that was my impression from limited shooting (probably 5-6 rolls of HP5 plus in similar conditions that I've shot Tri-X, indoor, outdoor daylight and evening)
 
jbrubaker said:
Is this a bad combination? I never hear about HP-5 in Diafine. ---jb.
Click to expand...

J,

I love the look with Tri-X.

HP5 is just okay.

Acros and Diafine is a killer.

BTW Diafine made it EZ-PZ to shoot and process on average 150 rolls a month during a 8-9 month "shooting season" here in NYC.

One shot developers I would have been pouring down the drain. $$$

Cal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom