Kodak T-Max 100 or Fuji 100 Acros?

[Monokrome]

I am asking here in the darkroom section because I want replies from people who enlarge their negatives rather than those who only scan their negatives.
With the Ilford price rises, I am looking at these two films in the ISO 100 speed group. Are there any obvious differences between them in general usage?

 

[HLing]

Just seeing your post now. I find it odd that you've no replies from the experts here, yet. I hope to find the answer soon...myself a New Yorker visiting Hong Kong, finding only these two film good price and available for B & W non-machine developing. Hope to give you some feedback in a few weeks after returning to NYC...

 

[Benjamin Marks]

My experience is that both require fairly careful exposure and development. I am still working my way through my first 100 feet of Acros. I will say that properly exposed and developed TMY negatives are a great thing. Overall, I find Acros easier to process than TMax100, but either is a great film, once you get used to its quirks.

Also, don't know if this affects you, but the reciprocity characteristics of TMax-100 make it a "faster" film than Tri-X for exposures of longer than a second. Don't know about Acros as far as reciprocity goes.

Ben Marks

 

[Roger Hicks]

T-max by a mile, for me (tonality, developer repertoire, speed), but you'll find others saying the exact opposite.

But is Ilford Delta 100 THAT much more expensive, if you're happy with it? 'Cause I'd back that over TMX.

Cheers,

R.

 

[f16sunshine]

I use them both in 120. The tmax to my eye has a bit more bite and responds well to the way I develop. One thing I can say absolutely is that tmax dries much more neutral. Sometimes I feel like I need to iron acros like a shirt collar before scanning.

 

[Ezzie]

I like both in 120, and can't quite say which is the better choice for you. However Acros has a thinner base and curls easily and is therefore a right nuisance if you plan on scanning it.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I used to print both films in the darkroom. I got the same results there as I now do with scanning: Acros has poorer tonality but incredible recprocity failure characteristics. I've done 5 minute exposures on Acros with only 1/2 stop extra exposure needed to compensate for reciprocity failure. Tmax starts needing compensation a 1 second exposures, while Acros needs none up to exposures of 2 minutes!

So, here's what I do. I shoot Tmax 100 for everything except low light stuf like interiors of old buildings and night shots. Acros for the low-light work.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Both have reduced, almost clinical, grain. I'm not too sure how much cheaper they'll be than Ilford, though...YMMV

I've had good luck with TMX and TMY-2 (depending on what speed you like), although now that I'm shooting a lot more 35mm I really like Neopan 400. I suppose if I had to choose one I'd go with TMY-2 but they're all quality stuff. It just seems a lot like those 100-metre runs in the Olympics, where the winner is 1/1000th second faster...is there really much of a difference?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Addendum: I responded because I WET PRINT, as requested by the OP.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ezzie]

I agree with Chris. Acros at anything up to 2 minutes exposure needs no reciprocity correction at all. Whereas TMX at 30 seconds metered is already in need of a doubling or more. Acros is fast in low light.

 

[semilog]

I've settled on ACROS/LP100. XTOL 1:1.

For a harder-edged look, Rodinal 1:50. But If I wanted a harder-edged look, I'd be shooting Plus-X or FP4 and developing in Rodinal.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

T-max by a mile, for me (tonality, developer repertoire, speed), but you'll find others saying the exact opposite.

But is Ilford Delta 100 THAT much more expensive, if you're happy with it? 'Cause I'd back that over TMX.

Cheers,

R.

Ilford film's are very expensive in the USA compared to either Kodak or Fuji. Acros 100 is actually the cheapest of all the 'good brand' (kodak, fuji, or ilford) black and white films; it is a lot cheaper than ilford and a little less than Kodak.

 

[Ezzie]

Funny, the same here. Ilford is more expensive than the other brands. Kodak is the cheapest, then Fuji, then Ilford. From Kodak to Ilford the price difference can be as much as 40%

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ilford film's are very expensive in the USA compared to either Kodak or Fuji. Acros 100 is actually the cheapest of all the 'good brand' (kodak, fuji, or ilford) black and white films; it is a lot cheaper than ilford and a little less than Kodak.

Dear Chris,

Yes, but the OP is in the UK.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Zonan]

Dear Chris,

Yes, but the OP is in the UK.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger,


I think Chris was just making a general comment about film prices in the US, which seems like the Norwegian situation as well. 🙂


Rick

 

[HLing]

Good to see all the replies! I didn't know how to keep track of posts yet, but kind of nice to find a windfall of knowledge in one setting, too.

Last week Kodak went up in price here in Hong Kong, so i got more Neopan and Acros. I'm not sure I understand what "reciprocity" is...I'll gladly study up on it on my long flight home to NYC today!