Film choice

shortstop

shortstop

Well-known
Local time
8:46 PM
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
524
Almost never use 100 iso (400 tmax and panF 50) are my film now both in 135 and in 120.
Do you think Neopan Acros 100 is a right choice for my Leica? I would very fine grain without go to a 50 iso like PanF.
I have a Welta Weltur 6x9; would like use it for some colour mountain landscape. Is Portra 400 a good choice?
Thanks
 
Delta and TMAX for very fine grain.
I switched from TMAX 100 because it was almost grainless, kind of "digital" for me :)

img384.JPG
 
I've bought: 135: 2 neopan across 100 and 3 tmax 100 (Ko.Fe.: interesting your observation about the grainless tmax). Both emulsions never used before!...
120 for weltur: 2 portra 400. For landscapes.
Thank you for your replies.
 
I like Acros, low grain, and nice tones too, I'm sure you could get the same with Tmax 100 though. Portra 400 I think is good for just about anything, and on 6x9 you don't need to worry about resolution (not that Portra 400 is low or anything).
 
i find acros images are very sharp.
fp+ images are grainy and nice.
i also push ilford Polypan f
(which uses the same dev time as Panf)
to iso 100.
 
I found it VERY picky on developers, time and temperature: you may need to try several iterations before you get exactly what you want. Also, it's only just ISO 100: at the bottom end of what can reasonably be called ISO 100, except in speed-increasing developers. The actual ISO range, depending on developer, is probably 50-100, whereas (for example) Ilford FP4 Plus is around 80-180.

Cheers,

R.
 
My personal favourites for ASA 100 film are -

- Delta 100 (Good mix of grain, slightly flatter than Acros)
- Acros 100 (Sharpest of them all, high contrast)

Going to shoot more FP4 to narrow down my search for 100 films!
 
Roger Hicks said:
I found it VERY picky on developers, time and temperature: you may need to try several iterations before you get exactly what you want. Also, it's only just ISO 100: at the bottom end of what can reasonably be called ISO 100, except in speed-increasing developers. The actual ISO range, depending on developer, is probably 50-100, whereas (for example) Ilford FP4 Plus is around 80-180. Cheers, R.
Click to expand...
Hi Roger,
do you suggest to set EI 50?
 
shortstop said:
Hi Roger,
do you suggest to set EI 50?
Click to expand...
That or 64, yes. I think I went to 80 in DD-X but didn't like the tonality. I normally expose about 1/3 top above true ISO because I prefer the tonality -- but of course a lot depends on how you're metering. With a spot meter on the darkest tone in which you want texture (and the appropriate shadow index) you could probably use 80 with normal developers such as D-76, but with a broad area meter on a sunny day you'd be better off with 50. I think I used to use 64 while "favouring the shadows" (taking meter readings from the darker parts of the scene).

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
That or 64, yes. I think I went to 80 in DD-X but didn't like the tonality. I normally expose about 1/3 top above true ISO because I prefer the tonality -- but of course a lot depends on how you're metering. With a spot meter on the darkest tone in which you want texture (and the appropriate shadow index) you could probably use 80 with normal developers such as D-76, but with a broad area meter on a sunny day you'd be better off with 50. I think I used to use 64 while "favouring the shadows" (taking meter readings from the darker parts of the scene). Cheers, R.
Click to expand...
Roger,
usually I favour the shadows, so I'll set 64 with the Acros. I am honored to have received this instruction from an expert like you. Thanks.
 
I dunno. I have used ACROS 100 a lot, like it a lot. I expose at the nominal 100 rating and have had the negs processed at the local lab their standard way, whatever that might be. The negs are beautiful.

G
 
I think we are talking about subtle difference and subjective taste.
Anyway I always prefer (except when have the time to use zone system and the measurement is "scientific") a bit of overexposure. It has always worked. Thanks to all.
 
3006462375_de30880510_z.jpg


Fuji Acros @ 100 iso, Beutler developer 1:1:8 for 7 min. Beutler you can mix yourself, no complicated chemicals and reasonable shelf life.
Bourbon distilley, Kentucky.
Bessa R4M, Leica 24mm f3.8 Asph.
 
I shoot a lot of ACROS and have about 600 ft of it in my 'fridge. It's my exclusive ISO 100 film choice for the last 4 years or so.



Leica M6, Pentax SMCP-M 50/1.4, ACROS, XTOL 1+1

But given what we've seen with other Fujifilm emulsions (Neopan 1600, Neopan 400) ACROS is likely to disappear soon.

Much as I love it, if I were starting now I would not standardize on ACROS.

For fine grain, I'd go straight to Delta 100 or TMX. And I would avoid Rodinal or Diafine. XTOL, ID-11, D-76, DD-X are better choices.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I found it VERY picky on developers, time and temperature: you may need to try several iterations before you get exactly what you want. Also, it's only just ISO 100: at the bottom end of what can reasonably be called ISO 100, except in speed-increasing developers. The actual ISO range, depending on developer, is probably 50-100, whereas (for example) Ilford FP4 Plus is around 80-180.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

You make the common mistake of not understanding how to use a meter Roger,......... given you recently told me that I didn't know how to use a meter for saying the very same thing. Now that's a strange thing isn't it?

But it is important to find the recipe for your exposure bias, with your chosen film, with your chosen developer, and with your processing technique. Personally I find Acros 100 responds more to a shadow reading, hence the 'slower' film speed people recommend, although if you know you are taking a shadow reading, as opposed to a grey card reading, the film speed can remain the same as the box speed. Which means the idea of a 'slow' film is only down to metering and the processing chain, there is nothing 'fundamental' about it given the myriad ways to get to the same full tonal negative with whatever subtle bias you want to give it.

V
 
I think this thread has started to touch upon one of the most interesting and most of the time, overlooked parts of the equation. When people speak about their favourite developer, film and how they prefer to rate that said film, the metering technique is seldom specified. Maybe there is, in some peoples mind, a universal "correct" way to meter any scene all the time? And maybe those people assume that everyone else is (or at least should) use the exact same technique (like the zone system for instance). I sometimes use an indicent meter for portraits, and sometimes i give preference to the bright parts and sometimes to the dark, depending on the mood I want my image to describe. Sometimes I use a spot meter, and sometimes I meter the shadows and reduce exposure with 2 stops from that metered value. Then again if im out in the snow without any distinc shadows present in the scene, I might take a reflective reading on the snow and then open up 2 stops. It all depends on then scene and my artistic interpretation/prioritization. These differences in how I chose to meter happens all the time and most of the time on the same roll. Since I don't actually follow the same metering methodology all the time, it's impossible for me to say that I always prefer to rate a film in a specific way. Talking about rating a film becomes pointless without mentioning how you meter and which look you are going for. Maybe I'm the only one being this flexible/crazy, and everyone else is using the zone system for everything?
 
Neopan Acros is generally my first choice when it comes to 100 speed film. Sharp, nice contrast, scans well.
 
I got worried when I saw "my" name in the listing, but apparently there are now two Dez's - one with and one without a period at the end.

Cheers,
Dez
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom