Fuji B&W Films

[sherm]

Looking for input regarding Fuji Acros films. I've only used Tri-X, Plus-X and a little Adox. Would like to know what your general thoughts and impressions are as I haven't used this film before.

Thanks,

Scott

 

[Nachkebia]

My friend just bought for me Arcos, neopan 400 and 1600, so I will be testing them over weekend with my new 28mm ASPH! will try to post pictures!

 

[sherm]

Thanks.... 28 ASPH my heart goes out to you No one should have to suffer like you😀

Really have a great time with your new toy

Scott

 

[eric]

Looking for input regarding Fuji Acros films. I've only used Tri-X, Plus-X and a little Adox. Would like to know what your general thoughts and impressions are as I haven't used this film before.

Acros is the 100 speed film. I'm not a big Plus-X film fan. Used it a lot 20 years ago but I'd prefer FP4+ for that speed. With that said, I haven't used anything less than 400 speed film for my 35mm shooting in a long time. I use Neopan 400 in 35mm and 120 mm film. Did you want to know about the Neopans in general or just the Acros stuff?

 

[sherm]

Eric:

I have to plead ignorance to both of these films. I know zilch about either of them. Any information on them would be terrific.

Thanks again,

Scott

 

[Nachkebia]

Thanks.... 28 ASPH my heart goes out to you No one should have to suffer like you😀

Really have a great time with your new toy

Scott

Thanks! 😀 😀 its not the cron! so relax, it is new elmarit 😀

 

[eric]

Eric:

I have to plead ignorance to both of these films. I know zilch about either of them. Any information on them would be terrific.

My information is just my opinion 🙂 I'm no expert. I do love Tri-X processed in D76 1:1. Love it. But I don't shoot much 35mm so I want something cost effective so I went with Neopan 400 in 120 size. So I'll buy it in 35mm size so I can process them in the same tanks. I can't see the difference too much in a 8x10 or smaller print. But I've been printing 11x14's a lot this year. The grain is nice on the 35mm (when souped wtih d76 1:1). Not as smooth I think as Tri-X 1:1. Scanning is pretty easy on both 120 and 35mm film. Fuji is a little cheaper and quite frankly, for a little less money, its hard to find the diff from Neopan, Tri-X and HP5 in 35mm formats. I think it really shines in 120 format. Too bad they don't have it 4x5. I'm using HP5+ in 4x5 format.
You can see some shots taken with Neopan 35mm and 120mm format here:

http://www.maquiling.org/nyc06
http://www.maquiling.org/balikbayan

 

[bobomoon]

Some great pics there eric, especially the balikbayan set. I really dig the hand holding the fish by the head.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Relative to Ilford and Kodak offerings, I much prefer Acros, Neopan 400 and 1600. To my eyes, they have much smoother tonality, less and tighter grain, and more consistent development.

Develop a roll and I think you will find that the Fuji b/w's are quite exceptional.

 

[dcsang]

To use net.speak; I <3 Acros and Neopan 1600.

Neopan 1600 is, imho, truly 1600 - dev'd in D76 or such comes out awesome.
Acros is sublime.

The grain on Acros is extremely fine. Beautiful for portraiture.
Neopan 1600 is awesome for low light shooting - gives me the right "atmosphere" in the shot. I really really like it.

It's too bad I don't use them as much as I perhaps would like to - mainly because I don't bother to push/pull either and leave them as they are; at 100 and 1600 respectively.

Dave

 

[Northern_Bliss]

My experience using Acros is very simolar to that of using Ilford's Delta 100 IMO. Very sharp, tight grain, and excellent tonality especially when used with D-76 (ID-11) 1:1 and I my favourite XTol 1:1. Just try to avoid very contrasty scenes and lighting. I usually rate it at 80 asa and pull the development a lttle, helps tame those hard to record highlights.

Cheers!

 

[Mike Richards]

Neopan 1600 is my favorite high speed film. I expose at 1600 and develop in Xtol 1:1. The grain is very tolerable. You can check out some of my available light night images from the Preveza sardine festival:

http://homepage.mac.com/richam/PhotoAlbum107.html

 

[Harry Lime]

To use net.speak; I <3 Acros and Neopan 1600.

Neopan 1600 is, imho, truly 1600 - dev'd in D76 or such comes out awesome.
Acros is sublime. Dave

Actually Neopan 1600's true speed is more like 640 asa. It is a beautiful film, but at 1600 asa the contrast really starts to creep up and shadow detail falls away. I think you would be better off rating it at 800 or 1200asa.

Delta3200 really is about 1200asa and looks very good at 1200-2000 asa in a good push developer.

I also would suggest something like XTOL, ilford DD-X or Diafine for these highspeed films, because basically you are push processing them and that isn't a forte of D76.

Cheers,

HL

 

[rover]

I am going to try to shoot some expired Neopan 1600 at 800 and 1000 and soup it in diafine Friday.

 

[dcsang]

Actually Neopan 1600's true speed is more like 640 asa. It is a beautiful film, but at 1600 asa the contrast really starts to creep up and shadow detail falls away. I think you would be better off rating it at 800 or 1200asa.

Delta3200 really is about 1200asa and looks very good at 1200-2000 asa in a good push developer.

I also would suggest something like XTOL, ilford DD-X or Diafine for these highspeed films, because basically you are push processing them and that isn't a forte of D76.

Cheers,

HL

And that's why I always preface my opinion with "imho".

For you it's probably great at 800 or 1200 but for me, and what I use it for, I love it at 1600..

Dave

 

[peter_n]

Scott the Neopans are fine grained and Acros and NP400 look terrific when developed in XTOL as stated above. Take a look in my gallery at the shots from Spain, most of those are NP400. NP1600 looks fantastic when souped in HC-110.

Personally I think I like my film to be just a bit more grainy so I'm trying Agfapan 100 and HP5+ at the moment. But I still have quite a bit of NP400 in the fridge and I'm looking forward to using it.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I worked with Acros and Neopan 400 for a while as Fuji's is the only b/w film i can buy on location in Cambodia but no matter how many times i varied the dev times of the PMK and PYroCat HD i found the 400 too contrasty without much lattidude and with a harsher grain than TriX or HP5.

The Acros on the other hand i found too smooth in 120 format - the 16 x 20" prints were virtually grainless but i felt they lacked any bite especially when made as lith prints.

 

[NickTrop]

I've used Neopan/Acros 100 and 400 in 120, both developed in D76 1:1. Never tried it pushed to 1600. It's an interesting film - not a bad one, but not my taste. I prefer HP5+, TMax, or TXP/TX(35).

IMO it has a steely(?) look? Different, a little on the "dreary"(?) side? Hard to articulate the subtle differences between black and white films. It definately has a distinctive signature - noir-y(?) and it depends if you like the look or not. I prefer the Kodak and the Ilford stuff in the few my few trials, particularly HP5+. The Fuji is "overdramatic". Not sure if that makes sense.

For high speed stuff, I like TX(P) in diafine @ 1000 best of all, and I've gotten good results with Ilford 3200/120, so I stick with those.

Try it. See if you like it. Fuji seems committed to B&W, and I admire that. There may come a day when it's Acros or nothing, and if that was the case, I'd happily shoot Acros, and "learn" to like it more. Right now, though, it's not the one I plan to re-purchase, and have no desire to give it another go. There's too many others I prefer or others I would like to try.

 

[peterc]

Acros is a very nice film, but as stated above avoid high-contrast situations as, in my experience, it blows out very easily.
I find it somewhat fiddly, with little tolerance for exposure errors, but well worth it if you get it right.
I soup Acros in 1:100 Rodinal (18 minutes, 15 seconds agitation in each of the first three minutes and one tilt every 3 minutes til done).
A couple of examples (the car detail shot is an SLR photo, sorry).

Peter

 

[eric]

f the PMK and PYroCat HD i found the 400 too contrasty without much lattidude and with a harsher grain than TriX or HP5.

Usually, from what I've developed, and backed up on sources, that PMK and staining developers tend to be more grainy. Its the nature of accutance developers.

The Acros on the other hand i found too smooth in 120 format - the 16 x 20" prints were virtually grainless but i felt they lacked any bite especially when made as lith prints.

I'll have to try Acros in 120mm soon. I have a bunch of APX 100 and JandC 100 for slow shooting.