FP4 or Acros or something else

[Steve George]

Hi folks

The sun is finally showing in a glorious blue sky, the pink blossom is contrasting against lush fields still green from the winter rain, the famers' markets are full of new seasonal veg of all shades and hues and buildings are getting a fresh coat of paint ready for tourists...

...so obviously I'm thinking of what black and white film to use.

For as long as I can remember I've been using tri-x all year round and an occasional HP5 but having spent the weekend struggling in the sun with a lens that only goes to f16 and a camera that won't go beyond 1/500th I'm accepting that I'm going to need to review my film choice for the next few months.

Any reason for choosing one of these films over the other in 35mm?

Thanks!

 

[Roger Hicks]

They are so different that the only possibility is to try both. FP4 is at least half a stop faster in most developers (true ISO 100-160 instead of 80-100), and significantly grainier. I find it much easier to get food tonality with FP4, and it has a much wider developer repertoire, so that's what I'd recommend. You might also care to try Fomapan 200: despite the nominal speed, it's roughly identical in true ISO speed to FP4 in most developers.

Cheers,

R.

 

[thegman]

Don't think I've ever used FP4, but I've used Acros and I really like it, very fine grain.

 

[user237428934]

Acros is a very fine grain film. I read that some people don't like it because it looks almost "too digital". I like it very much because of it's fine grain and sharpness.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Acros is very sharp, but as Roger says it has its own tonality. I think it can be a bit thin in the mid tones although I love the blacks and whites it can give. Here's a couple of Acros images, processed in ID-11 1:3 in Paterson tank @ 20C for around 16 minutes (as I recall). Standard agitation, (10 per min) and actually, one of the earlier films I did myself, too, so maybe even slightly over inverted. Both were off the same film. They're medium format, not 35mm sorry. Roger can speak to the considerations separating technique for the two formats better than I can of course but as I understand it 120 tolerates generous exposure a little better. Camera was a Rolleicord Va for the following two images.

This one was made with FP4 Plus @ 125 with Hasselblad and 80mm Planar.

FP4 Plus again, also 125 ISO, but Rolleiflex SL66 & 80mm Planar.

Same developing regime for all four images, except, of course, that the FP4 Plus was given a few more minutes (20, in total) in accordance with Ilford's recommendations for ID-11 at that dilution. Metering in every case was an incident reading (or readings, in the case of the interior image of the yacht) with a digital Minolta Auto Meter III.

Hopefully comparing these images will be of some use due to the minimal variables in development.
Regards,
Brett

 

[Steve George]

Thanks for such great advice and sample images. I think I'll give FP4 a go first on the basis of all the above and see how I like it.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

FP4 -
+ More grain, less clinical
+ More character to film
+ pushable

Acros-
+ Higher contrast
+ Very sharp

I use both. i like both.

Here are two examples, contrast and brightness adjusted.
(excuse the dev errors🙂 )

raytoei

 

[Photo_Smith]

Across has a more clinical look it can look steely or metallic especially in fine grain developers like FX39.
I like it, but it takes an effort and lots of testing to get traditional looking long scale tones. But it can be mastered I like it especially when processed in Rodinal 1:100 for 18-20 mins with one inversion per min agitation.

Rated EI 80 18 mins Rodinal 1:100

I think you've made the right choice FP4 is a more traditional looking film.

I'd also like to echo Rogers recommendation of Fomapan 200:

I'm especially fond of the 100 as well.

They are good value as well for about £2 a roll.

 

[znapper]

The "Too digital" term is getting pretty long in the tooth, it's surely one of the most silly terms used on the Internet today, concerning analog photography. 😛

I like both, but Acros in Rodinal 1:50, now that's something. Mostly, I use it in HC-110, good speed, good grain, plus you don't need any compensation for reciprocity failures, before you reach a 2 minute exposure.

FP4 is more traditional and grainier, but I like that too, haven't used it that much, as I'm mostly a Fuji-guy (for as long as that party last 🙂 ), shooting Acros and Neopan 400/Tri-X.

What's stopping you from trying both?
Does your store only have one roll of film for you to buy? 🙂
Can only afford one roll? 😀

 

[Kenj8246]

Another vote for Acros in Rodinal; either 1+50 or 1+100.


GW690 III, TMax 400 film by kenj8246, on Flickr


Dick's Classic Garage, San Marcos TX by kenj8246, on Flickr

Kenny

 

[Brian Legge]

I've tried both and really fell for Acros. FP4 almost felt like Tri-X grained by comparison. At that point, I may as well have been pulling 400 speed film. I found FP4 at ei 80 to give better tones for my development.

Acros on the other hand felt almost grainless. Maybe I just got lucky earlier with it but I didn't really have excessive contrast issues. I usually shoot it around ei 50-80 depending on the light though. Absolutely love this film.

 

[Kenj8246]

I've been picking up Acros 100 20 rolls at a time from B&H whenever I have a few spare shekels. Just in case, you understand. 🙂 Same thing with the 120 format.

Kenny

 

[gsgary]

Acros is very sharp, but as Roger says it has its own tonality. I think it can be a bit thin in the mid tones although I love the blacks and whites it can give. Here's a couple of Acros images, processed in ID-11 1:3 in Paterson tank @ 20C for around 16 minutes (as I recall). Standard agitation, (10 per min) and actually, one of the earlier films I did myself, too, so maybe even slightly over inverted. Both were off the same film. They're medium format, not 35mm sorry. Roger can speak to the considerations separating technique for the two formats better than I can of course but as I understand it 120 tolerates generous exposure a little better. Camera was a Rolleicord Va for the following two images.

This one was made with FP4 Plus @ 125 with Hasselblad and 80mm Planar.

FP4 Plus again, also 125 ISO, but Rolleiflex SL66 & 80mm Planar.

Same developing regime for all four images, except, of course, that the FP4 Plus was given a few more minutes (20, in total) in accordance with Ilford's recommendations for ID-11 at that dilution. Metering in every case was an incident reading (or readings, in the case of the interior image of the yacht) with a digital Minolta Auto Meter III.

Hopefully comparing these images will be of some use due to the minimal variables in development.
Regards,
Brett

I love how these look

 

[Austerby]

Agree with what many have said: I use both frequently but for different purposes.


Acros can produce stunning image quality when everything comes together and in my mind I associate Acros more with PanF+ both somewhat refined, classy films that reward patience and technique.

 

[steveyork]

Don't forget about neutral density filters.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I love how these look

Thanks, but it was just standard processing @20C 1:3, so very very easy to achieve, if you want similar results.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[maddoc]

Don't forget about neutral density filters.

Exactly might thoughts also.... if you are familiar with the characteristics of a certain film, like it for that and the lens doesn`t have that super-rare filter-thread, why not using a ND4 filter ?

 

[timor]

Any reason for choosing one of these films over the other in 35mm?

Thanks!

Why don't you try Tmax 100 and have the best of both worlds. Agreed, TMX is not the easiest to learn as it requires precision, but once you understand it's nature is easy.

 

[ibcrewin]

Since my 100ft roll of tmax 100 just finished I thought I'd try something different. So I ordered 8 rolls of iso 100 film. 2 rolls each of Delta 100, Acros, tmax 100, and fomapan 100.

I'm going to just shoot them as I usually do and develop them all in d76 1+1.. It's probably going to take me sometime to go through all of those but in the end I'm going to see which one I like best. I used tmax100 in the past and I liked it, but I'm curious about the other 3. So I'll have a baseline to compare it to.

 

[Vics]

Since my 100ft roll of tmax 100 just finished I thought I'd try something different. So I ordered 8 rolls of iso 100 film. 2 rolls each of Delta 100, Acros, tmax 100, and fomapan 100.

I'm going to just shoot them as I usually do and develop them all in d76 1+1.. It's probably going to take me sometime to go through all of those but in the end I'm going to see which one I like best. I used tmax100 in the past and I liked it, but I'm curious about the other 3. So I'll have a baseline to compare it to.

I'm in the midst of nearly the same test in 35mm. Acros, FP4, Delta 100, and Tmax 100. Trouble is that now I'm mostly shooting MF.