Ilford FP4 and Fuji Neopan 100 Acros

[Guest]

Has anybody compared these two films. I have always used FP4 but read some bloke slagging it but saying the Fuji was SUPERB.
So, do I buy fifty rolls of my old 120 roll film or make the change because I am running out and need a fill up.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Acros 100 and FP4 are opposites, in my opinion.

Acros 100 is a modern iso 100 film
which is very sharp and almost grainless.
It looks very digital. It is also not very pushable.

FP4 is quite grainy but in a nice textured way.

Both films are fantastic as they have a lot of character,
in different ways. If I have to choose, I would prefer FP4
for outdoor street type where there are lots of shadows
and highlights. I use Acros 100 for studio work.

Just my opinion.

raytoei

 

[msbarnes]

I shoot both and sometimes side by side just to see the difference:

FP4

Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr

Acros

Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr

FP4+

Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr

Acros

Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr

I prefer FP4+ because of the mid tones.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

here are two images , one for fp4 and the other in acros100.
Both taken on the Rolleiflex.
The filenames show the film type.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I shoot both, but I use FP4 as my general purpose film in 120 size (I mainly use Tri-X in 35mm). To me, Acros is a specialty film for very low-light work, stuff requiring exposures of 30 seconds or more. It has virtually no reciprocity failure; I've done 5 minute exposures with Acros with great results.

Though it is great for such long-exposure work, Acros has terrible tonality in normal light. The midtones are very flat, and increasing developing time to fix that causes the overall contrast to be too high. Rodinal and PMK are two developers that give nice results with Acros, but it is still inferior to any other 100 speed film I have used.

FP4 has beautiful tonality. It is grainier than Acros, but it is not a grainy film. I develop it in PMK most of the time, but D76 1+1 and Rodinal both work beautifully on FP4.

If you want finer grain, use Tmax 100. It has a lot nicer tonality than Acros and less grain than FP4. I develop Tmax 100 in Rodinal, PMK, or D-76 1+1. All those developers work well for Tmax 100.

 

[Guest]

I am a landscape clicker, I will wait for hours for all humans to depart from the image area. Now when I am out and about on vacation, humans get in the image one way or another. I have a indoor lighting system, some Whitelightening monolights that sound good for the fuji film.
I think I will get 30 Ilford and 20 Fuji, going up to Canada soon, so landscapes a plenty. I use Hasselblad and an old folding 6x9 Zeiss ikonta that was my late Fathers, I have five backs for my Hasselblads so I will use my grey back for the Fuji film.
Just need to see how the Fuji will like the Ilford perceptol developer I use.

 

[Guest]

Now I have never thought of using T max, I like fine grain, that is why I use Perceptol. You have just got me thinking again. My late father swore by FP4 and I have just continued using it for thirty six years now. Living in England until 1990 we all used Ilford film, Kodak was for colour use only for some strange reason.
It is nice being able to get advice like this so quickly, **** when I was a kid, letters were the only form of asking a question, we had "Amateur photgrapher" a weekly rag, I think it was weekly, anyhow if you wanted a question answered, you wrote in and waited for the answer from the postman after a couple of weeks.

 

[rpsawin]

Another thing to think about when considering Acros is the reciprocity factor. It really is the best selection for doing time exposures. If you like to do long exposures Acros is the ticket.

 

[semilog]

Acros 100 and FP4 are opposites, in my opinion.

Acros 100 is a modern iso 100 film
which is very sharp and almost grainless.
It looks very digital. It is also not very pushable.

Where by "digital," we mean "technically proficient."

😉 😛

In higher contrast, ACROS does really well rated at EI 64 and developed for 80% of the normal time in XTOL 1+1, by the way.

This are at EI 100, shot with the 35/2.8 ZM Biogon-C. The slight graininess in the first is due to the scan, not the film.


20130730-1312_021.jpg by Semilog, on Flickr


30m, 60m, 100m, 145m. by Semilog, on Flickr

ACROS with XTOL developer gives incredibly sharp, smooth, grainless negatives that almost look like an old-fashioned black and white film shot in 645 format, if a good lens is used at optimum aperture and focus is careful.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Now I have never thought of using T max, I like fine grain, that is why I use Perceptol. You have just got me thinking again. My late father swore by FP4 and I have just continued using it for thirty six years now. Living in England until 1990 we all used Ilford film, Kodak was for colour use only for some strange reason.
It is nice being able to get advice like this so quickly, **** when I was a kid, letters were the only form of asking a question, we had "Amateur photgrapher" a weekly rag, I think it was weekly, anyhow if you wanted a question answered, you wrote in and waited for the answer from the postman after a couple of weeks.

Here are some Tmax 100 shots, all done on 120 size film.

Rodinal 1+50

Rodinal 1+50

PMK 1+2+100

PMK 1+2+100

The developing times I use are on my website's Tutorial pages.

 

[Brian Legge]

I love Acros in Rodinal. Easily my favorite combination for those times when I can can deal with an shooting it at ei 50.







Anywhere close to 100 and I hit tonality issues. At 25-50 though it is fantastic. I started with FP4 but didn't really care for the graininess, particularly when shooting 35mm.

 

[Nigel Meaby]

I like Acros developed in Rodinal Special (Studional)

 

[msbarnes]

I love Acros in Rodinal. Easily my favorite combination for those times when I can can deal with an shooting it at ei 50.







Anywhere close to 100 and I hit tonality issues. At 25-50 though it is fantastic. I started with FP4 but didn't really care for the graininess, particularly when shooting 35mm.

May i ask what dilution you use? and times.

 

[clayne]

Another thing Acros has going on is an upward swept curve akin to TXP320. I think it's a technically great film, but not for shots of people generally. I don't care for it's clinical look and would be heavily biased towards using FP4. Even TMX has a non-classical curve, but it generally fares better than Acros in looking more natural.

You could also throw in some PanF+ 50 and TMY in the mix to have some coverage on the low end and high end. Both are incredible films with PanF pullable to 25 for contrast control and TMY pushable to 1600 for low light.

 

[Brian Legge]

May i ask what dilution you use? and times.

Of course - most of my shots are tagged with the info if you search my Flickr page for the film. I usually shoot Acros at ~ei 50 and develop in Rodinal/Adonal at 1:50 for 10 minutes (a minute more or less depending on contrast, how I metered, etc).

 

[dshfoto]

Try Rollei RPX100

Try Rollei RPX100

Try Rollei RPX 100

http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/33162939

 

[dshfoto]

A couple of months ago I tested Rollei RPX100, Rollei 80S, Adox CMS 20, and Adox CHS50 (no longer available), and Arcos 100. For all but the Adox CMS 20 I used a Microdol-X clone developer. I prefer the Rollei RPX because the Adox CHS 50 is no longer available.

 

[znapper]

Some like the daughter, others like the mother.

"like" is a relative term.

I "like" my shots to be "snappy", from black to white, if I need flatter b/w's, I simply shoot digital 🙂

I like both films, but I find Acros, being the more modern emulsion, to be cleaner.
I've pushed it to 400 with no real issues in HC-110 H, so I don't understand the problem. (Yes, a little increased contrast, but increased contrast can actually be nice, depending on the situation).

And "digital look" ? Seriously...??

Acros in Rodinal 1:50 EI 100 (cannot remember the times)


Thirsty kitty by znapper74, on Flickr

A little gritty, personally, I love the contrast and tonality. (print looks very similar)

I like the look of FP4 too, the tonal response is very similar, it's a little bit grainier , so speed for speed, I used Acros as my main film these days, both in Rodinal and HC-110 B.

But I would never "slog" FP4 at all, it's a beautiful film from Ilford (HP5 too)

 

[Photo_Smith]

Acros and FP4 are different technologies as previously mentioned. I like and use both.

The Fuji emulsion is smooth with wonderful tones if you downrate it slightly say 50-64EI and devlop in Rodinai 1:50

p1 by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

Acros is an interesting film, some find it clinical and possibly that's why they feel it looks digital, also some say you can't push it, I tried to stretch it to EI800 with Ok ish results Rodinal 1:100 for 18 mins.


caught by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

Not great but not terrible either...

 

[rolfe]

To me, Acros works best in flat light -- maybe that is because I'm rating it at box speed. Hightlights tend to block up quickly and midranges seem sort of limited. Having said that, under controlled lighting it is fantastic...