Fujifilm Acros II announced

[davidnewtonguitars]

None yet at B&H...

 

[Ste_S]

Had an email this afternoon, Acros II in stock in the UK at the eye watering price of £14 a roll both 35mm & 120.

Analogue Wonderland Japan import price for the gullible rather the official UK stock ? I’ll wait and see for when AG have it in stock for a truer price

 

[aizan]

I have a roll of the old in the freezer and I’ve asked a friend traveling to Tokyo to get me a roll of the new. Perhaps I’ll shoot them side by side with my Nikons. Curious.

Make sure to test the reciprocity failure. There are several Youtube videos comparing old Acros to new Acros, but nobody has tested the most obvious thing people are interested in. 🙄

 

[dourbalistar]

Make sure to test the reciprocity failure. There are several Youtube videos comparing old Acros to new Acros, but nobody has tested the most obvious thing people are interested in. 🙄

Fujifilm Japan posted the Acros II datasheet recently:
https://fujifilm.jp/support/filmandcamera/download/datasheet.html?pScancMonochromefilm

Using Google translate, no correction is needed for shutter speeds less than 120 seconds. For 120-1000 seconds, (add?) 1/2 aperture open.

 

[Brian Atherton]

Had an email this afternoon, Acros II in stock in the UK at the eye watering price of £14 a roll both 35mm & 120.

Outsourced Acros 35mm, fourteen quid?? Nope, not for me.

If Fujifilm revived Neopan 400 ISO I might bite: it was my all-time favourite.

Incidentally, I’d like to see a Neopan 400 Professional simulation on the X-Pro3. That really would get my attention. 🙂

 

[Ted Striker]

Incidentally, I’d like to see a Neopan 400 Professional simulation on the X-Pro3. That really would get my attention. 🙂

Why? Not one Fujifilm film simulation, not a single one, looks anything even remotely like its namesake. They are a veritable joke in the industry.

I don't know which one is more embarrassing, Astia or Acros. Anyone with a modicum of experience with either of those two films would see immediately that their digital "simulation" is nothing of the sort.

 

[Brian Atherton]

Why? Not one Fujifilm film simulation, not a single one, looks anything even remotely like its namesake. They are a veritable joke in the industry.


I dont know which one is more embarrassing, Astia or Acros. Anyone with a modicum of experience with either of those two films would see immediately that their digital "simulation" is nothing of the sort.

Ted,

Why? Because I used Neopan 400 film extensively and would like to see what a Fujifilm simulation would look like.

Personally I use the Acros simulation as a matter of choice and I like the results far better than the monochrome setting. Whether Acros digital accurately simulates Acros film is of no interest to me, as I never used Acros film, so have no “modicum of experience” and therefore cannot make a personal comparison, which, I guess, supports your assertion.

However, it is a choice. I just like the results. I am not alone in liking and using the Acros simulation.

Can you share a link to industry sources who opine that Fujifilm’s Acros simulation is “a veritable joke”?

 

[Ted Striker]

Ted,

Why? Because I used Neopan 400 film extensively and would like to see what a Fujifilm simulation would look like.

Personally I use the Acros simulation as a matter of choice and I like the results far better than the monochrome setting. Whether Acros digital accurately simulates Acros film is of no interest to me, as I never used Acros film, so have no “modicum of experience” and therefore cannot make a personal comparison, which, I guess, supports your assertion.

However, it is a choice. I just like the results. I am not alone in liking and using the Acros simulation.

Can you share a link to industry sources who opine that Fujifilm’s Acros simulation is “a veritable joke”?

I have over 50 boxes of Neopan 400 in 35mm format and 25 boxes of it in 120 format on ice, so I know the attraction. I am certain that any Fujifilm "simulation" of this film, should they make it, will only have an accidental resemblance to the actual film.

 

[Brian Atherton]

I have over 50 boxes of Neopan 400 in 35mm format and 25 boxes of it in 120 format on ice, so I know the attraction. I am certain that any Fujifilm "simulation" of this film, should they make it, will only have an accidental resemblance to the actual film.

Certainty is not fact, Ted. Different methods of processing all bring something to the table with regard to a film's look. And since Fujifilm has not issued a Neopan 400 simulation, it is speculation as to how a digital version will look.

Can you share a link to industry sources who opine that Fujifilm’s Acros simulation is “a veritable joke”?

 

[DominikDUK]

The grain changes with the ISO the higher the ISO the higher the grain so basically you already have an Neopan 400 Simulation (not really). This alone disqualifies the simulation as being anything close to Acros, the tonal reproduction doesn't match Acros either. It is nice but it isn't Acros. To name it after a product which bears little resemblance to the simulation is imo not a good idea. Fuji could call the ISO 100 Setting Acros the ISO 400 Neopan 400 and the ISO 1600 Neopan 1600. Something for everyone. 🙂

 

[Brian Atherton]

Genuinely, I am interested in reading opposite opinions to the sometimes sycophantic ones lauding Acros digital as being fantastic, wonderful etc etc, as I have not come across (no pun intended) any that suggest the Acros simulation is an industry “veritable joke”. Maybe I haven’t searched enough.

Given the above, I would like to see and read examples as to why digital Acros is disliked to this extent compared to the film version.

There is no singular version of any black and white film, there are just too many variables in exposure and, especially, processing (time, developer) and printing (paper, developer).

Using the same film, my way of processing it for the look I want will be different to another person’s. If one adds in scanning the film to print digitally, this is another whole level of variables.

Therefore, in my opinion, a meaningful comparison of Acros digital with Acros film is difficult, at best, to make. But then I have never used Acros film, so perhaps this judgement is worthless.

All I know is, I like the Acros simulation on the X-Pro2. If it bears little or no relationship to a defunct film of the same name it is of no importance to me.

 

[Ted Striker]

Certainty is not fact, Ted. Different methods of processing all bring something to the table with regard to a film's look. And since Fujifilm has not issued a Neopan 400 simulation, it is speculation as to how a digital version will look.

Can you share a link to industry sources who opine that Fujifilm’s Acros simulation is “a veritable joke”?

I can't point to a single link, instance, or analysis that can demonstrate that Fujifilm's simulations have ANY relationship whatsoever with their namesake film. Not one. Zero. Nada.

What can be found, if you are interesting in looking, are opinions across the internet that show the opposite. I'll give you mine. I have shot Fujifilm FILM for 30 years. I know them intimately. Take Provia and Astia. Provia has significantly more contrast than Asita film does. That's by design and Fujifilm's marketing makes that clear, or at least it did back in the day when both films were available at the same time.

With the film simulations, it is Astia that has MORE contrast than Provia, and greater color saturation, again in opposite to the real films. I have shot tens of thousands of digital shots with my X camera so know the film simulations and what they look like.

Further, the digital version of Velvia is god awful ugly. It makes a total mess of yellow. The real film is one of the most beautiful out there.

I've heard of no one who thinks that the digital version of Acros is even remotely similar to the recently lost version of this film. I have examined many images made digitally and can only conclude that some marketing hack at Fujifilm decided to appropriate the name of this great film and recklessly use it on something totally unrelated.

Fujifilm should have stuck to the fake film simulations like "Classic Chrome" and "Standard Negative". Anyone with film experience can see that the others are simply a total miss at approximating Fujifilm's films.

A shame as if they could have pulled this off, it would be a nice feature. But Fujifilm mailed it in and devoted no resources to the effort other than marketing.

 

[Ted Striker]

All I know is, I like the Acros simulation on the X-Pro2. If it bears little or no relationship to a defunct film of the same name it is of no importance to me.

This is the attitude to take. Being a fake film simulation does not mean that it doesnt look good. I love the look of Fujifilm's Astia film simulation. But I'm not foolish enough to think that it has any look whatsoever like the real Astia. I don't, because it doesnt. Not even a little bit.

 

[Brian Atherton]

You may indeed be correct about Fujifilm’s colour simulations, Ted, I have no way of making a judgement about them and their film counterparts, as I have never used them.

Likewise you may be correct about Acros digital/film, similarly I cannot make a judgement as I have never used Acros film.

I do find it interesting, however, that you write that Fujifilm’s simulations - Acros included - have no relationship to its film counterpart, when for black and white film there is no singular, standard way of processing a particular film, Acros included, other than a manufacturer recommended one.

Am I to understand that the Acros digital/film comparison is limited to the manufacturer recommended film processing?

Users choose to process their black and white films in all sorts of different ways for an individual ‘look’ within the film’s capabilities. Therefore the final print results can be vastly different for the same film.

Are those critical of the Acros simulation really saying that the digital version bears no relationship whatsoever to any of the Acros film’s looks? If so, I find it perverse that Fujifilm would make such a comparison if it is blatantly, obviously untrue.

Acros has become my digital simulation of choice, so any input to its use would be useful.

Are you able to share your Acros-critical findings?

 

[Ted Striker]

You may indeed be correct about Fujifilm’s colour simulations, Ted, I have no way of making a judgement about them and their film counterparts, as I have never used them.

Likewise you may be correct about Acros digital/film, similarly I cannot make a judgement as I have never used Acros film.

I do find it interesting, however, that you write that Fujifilm’s simulations - Acros included - have no relationship to its film counterpart, when for black and white film there is no singular, standard way of processing a particular film, Acros included, other than a manufacturer recommended one.

Am I to understand that the Acros digital/film comparison is limited to the manufacturer recommended film processing?

Users choose to process their black and white films in all sorts of different ways for an individual ‘look’ within the film’s capabilities. Therefore the final print results can be vastly different for the same film.

Are those critical of the Acros simulation really saying that the digital version bears no relationship whatsoever to any of the Acros film’s looks? If so, I find it perverse that Fujifilm would make such a comparison if it is blatantly, obviously untrue.

Acros has become my digital simulation of choice, so any input to its use would be useful.

Are you able to share your Acros-critical findings?

You are correct that b & w film can be processed in an almost unlimited number of ways, with vastly different results. Can one film simulation replicate that? No.

The end result that I look at is, does it look like film? The answer is always no. 10 times out of 10 I can see within 10 milliseconds which image is made from digital and which is scanned from film. The film simulations are simply not film like. At all. I have seen some external editors come pretty close to simulating film. I can't recall the name of the software that produced these images...maybe it was Nik's software suite. Using software it is possible to get somewhat close to a film look. But using Fujifilm's film simulations is not going to do it.

 

[Brian Atherton]

...10 times out of 10 I can see within 10 milliseconds which image is made from digital and which is scanned from film...

Infallible and truly impressive, Ted. Respect.

 

[Ted Striker]

Infallible and truly impressive, Ted. Respect.

Anyone with film experience or eyes can do this.

 

[bwcolor]

at that price, ill shoot something else. acros was/is a good film. but not that much better than others/. hopefully its a small batch production cost and prices will come down if and when fuji finishes the film in house.



here is to hoping the film comes down in price

Likely that a year from now it will go out of production because we.waited till the price came down.

 

[kram]

Too true, if people don't buy something, manufacturers stop making it. If there is more film competition in the market, prices come down, if less price can go up.