'Pulling' is substantially meaningless unless:
(A) You're metering the darkest area in which you want shadow and texture, with a spot meter, and basing your exposure on that. With most metering techniques, 'overexposure' means 'giving the exposure you should have given in the first place, if you'd been metering properly'
AND
(B) You're reducing development time to reduce contrast (gamma, CI, call it what you will) in order to accommodate a longer-than-average brightness range
AND
(C) You're wet-printing instead of scanning, because in the latter case you can introduce a very considerable degree of correction in the computer. Slightly thin negs almost always scan better; slightly 'rich' or dense negs almost always print better. By 'slightly' I'm talking about 1/3 to 2/3 stop over and under.
Personally, I'd counsel against any experiment with Acros on an assignment as in my experience it is extremely sensitive to both exposure and development. In most developers it's well under ISO 100 -- 80 is typical and 64 is far from unknown -- and at EI 50 you may well be looking at no more than 1/3 stop overexposure which with many films (but not including Acros in my experience) gives better tonality. Leave experiments with Acros until you have PLENTY of time with unimportant subjects. FWIW I found that EI 50-80 with dilute developers and development times adjusted for the dilution were the only way to get tonality I liked. There's a reason it's the finest-grained 'ISO 100' film: it's also the slowest.
Acros addicts will no doubt call me all sorts of names for this advice, but all I can do is to say that some people get on with it and some don't. If you do, you'll have no problems. If you don't, the advice above will make sense. I'd also add that if you can plot a D/log E curve and compare different fim speeds you are unlikely to call me a liar about the speed.
Tashi delek,
R.
