dazedgonebye
Veteran
I've long used FP4 in 120. I'm satisfied with the results.
Fuji Acros costs only about 2/3rds what FP4 costs. Seems worth trying.
Any opinions on Acros vs FP4?
Thanks,
Fuji Acros costs only about 2/3rds what FP4 costs. Seems worth trying.
Any opinions on Acros vs FP4?
Thanks,
jja
Well-known
The look of FP4 is very comparable to Kodak Plus-X--a classic b&w film with good tonal gradation--something like Tri-X without the grain.
Acros is a modern film with much higher contrast. You have to be careful shooting it in full sun for this reason. It has almost no grain and produces very deep blacks.
I am not super picky about the final look of a film--I worry more about predictability under various shooting conditions, using different developers, and printing.
I've shot a lot more Acros (or Legacy Pro 100), and my favorite characteristic of this flm is that is scans so well--wysiwyg.
Acros is a modern film with much higher contrast. You have to be careful shooting it in full sun for this reason. It has almost no grain and produces very deep blacks.
I am not super picky about the final look of a film--I worry more about predictability under various shooting conditions, using different developers, and printing.
I've shot a lot more Acros (or Legacy Pro 100), and my favorite characteristic of this flm is that is scans so well--wysiwyg.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Thanks,
That's very helpful.
I don't mind high contrast, I usually get there by the time I print, one way or another. On the other hand, I can always increase contrast and I'd hate to lose details.
On the other-other hand, I develop in Barry's 2-bath and that usually controls the highlights pretty well, even here in too sunny AZ.
Worth trying I think.
That's very helpful.
I don't mind high contrast, I usually get there by the time I print, one way or another. On the other hand, I can always increase contrast and I'd hate to lose details.
On the other-other hand, I develop in Barry's 2-bath and that usually controls the highlights pretty well, even here in too sunny AZ.
Worth trying I think.
Costo Kim
Established
I would go for acros
I shot with both of them and I like acros much more as it waay less grainy (and I don't have an impression it is contrasty)
And if I need a grain then I get the hp5 or tx
http://www.flickr.com/photos/costo/tags/acros
http://www.flickr.com/photos/costo/tags/fp4
I shot with both of them and I like acros much more as it waay less grainy (and I don't have an impression it is contrasty)
And if I need a grain then I get the hp5 or tx
http://www.flickr.com/photos/costo/tags/acros
http://www.flickr.com/photos/costo/tags/fp4
Last edited:
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
JJA says it very well - it's been my experience, as well.
Acros is a very modern film with a distinctive grain pattern and overall look - contrasty, razor sharp grain which may or may not be to your personal taste. It's a distinct look from FP4.
Acros is a very modern film with a distinctive grain pattern and overall look - contrasty, razor sharp grain which may or may not be to your personal taste. It's a distinct look from FP4.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've developed both in Rodinal with great results. I prefer FP-4 for everyday use and Acros for low-light use.
Acros has rather flat midtones and is not the prettiest film for normal well lit scenes, but in low light it is great. it has virtually no reciprocity failure. Exposures up to 2 minutes need not compensation and exposures from 2-5 minutes need only one half stop more exposure!
Acros is finer grained.
Acros, developed in Rodinal in bright overcast light
Acros in low light, 2 minute exposure at f22
Acros in VERY low light, 5 minutes at f16
FP-4 in Rodinal
FP-4 in D-76 1+1, slightly backlit scene
Acros has rather flat midtones and is not the prettiest film for normal well lit scenes, but in low light it is great. it has virtually no reciprocity failure. Exposures up to 2 minutes need not compensation and exposures from 2-5 minutes need only one half stop more exposure!
Acros is finer grained.
Acros, developed in Rodinal in bright overcast light
Acros in low light, 2 minute exposure at f22
Acros in VERY low light, 5 minutes at f16
FP-4 in Rodinal
FP-4 in D-76 1+1, slightly backlit scene
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I'm shooting exclusively Fuji Arcos right now for a year in both 135 and 120. I tend to shoot a lot and it is not uncommon for me to develope 20-30 rolls at a time when I develope.
Primarily I shoot Arcos to save money, and I figured out that it is the ideal film to shoot with Diafine, but I shoot it at box speed (100 ISO) instead of recommended speeds by Diafine. The results are great negatives for wet printing for less than $3.00 a roll since Diafine gets reused. The cost of chemicals is really a few pennies of fixer per roll.
For night photography Arcos and Diafine is unbeatable, and Arcos does not have the tendency to produce thin negatives under low contrast lighting like HP5 and especially Tri-X with Diafine. It deals very well with harsh contrast. I'm acually looking forward to shooting in summer noontime light.
Perhaps the only downside of Arcos is that the base is rather thin.
Cal
Primarily I shoot Arcos to save money, and I figured out that it is the ideal film to shoot with Diafine, but I shoot it at box speed (100 ISO) instead of recommended speeds by Diafine. The results are great negatives for wet printing for less than $3.00 a roll since Diafine gets reused. The cost of chemicals is really a few pennies of fixer per roll.
For night photography Arcos and Diafine is unbeatable, and Arcos does not have the tendency to produce thin negatives under low contrast lighting like HP5 and especially Tri-X with Diafine. It deals very well with harsh contrast. I'm acually looking forward to shooting in summer noontime light.
Perhaps the only downside of Arcos is that the base is rather thin.
Cal