Questions: Developing Fuji Acros 100

[nixarma]

Hello!

First a slightly lengthy background:

I bought two rolls of Acros 100 to investigate its tonality after having read a few websites that had very positive things to say in this regard.

I shot the first roll through my Contax G2 (with the 45/2.)

Now, I do not (yet) develop my own B&W film and I understand that probably handicaps my judgement of results. However, there is an independent photolab close to my house and the two guys that run it are very friendly, seem fairly knowledgable about B&W film processing and they do not mind if I just hang around and ask questions.

They do not get a lot of B&W film processing orders and when they do its usually Ilford or Kodak. TMAX is the only developer they use and they are well experienced in processing those films. They are not very familiar with processing Fuji films and said they would do their best.

The results:

Here are three of the photographs from the roll. These are approx 12 MB scans of the negatives.

1.

2.

3.

I was a bit disappointed with the high contrast though it perhaps does not detract entirely from the photographs. 2 and 3 were shot in high contrast conditions but the light in 1 was filtered through blinds and I don't recall it being harsh.

My questions:
1. Are these results characteristic of Acros 100?
2. Is the high contrast just a result of the conditions and metering?
(i) if yes, should I have underexposed 1/3 of a stop (or more)?
(ii) if no, was the choice of developer and developing time the reason?
3. Could you suggest developing times for Acros 100 in TMAX?
4. Would you suggest I use a different developer? These guys would be quite open to my supplying them a developer of my choice.

I am going to have the second roll developed at a "pro" lab that has experience with this film. The photographs on that roll will be shot in very similar light. I'll share any differences that might be noticeable.

Thanks for your help!
Nikhil

 

[mrtoml]

Unless you start developing yourself you will never be able to get a good handle on what is going on with your negatives. There are too many variables and it'snot just about the developer (for example the agitation during development affects contrast).

I find Acros and Neopan to be quite contrasty films compared to, say, Ilford. I develop mine in Prescysol (a pyro based compensating developer). This tames it a little.

 

[40oz]

IMHO, those are fantastic shots. I see little to complain about.

In the first, you have a very nice gradient from pure white down, yet still have some detail in the black shirt. There is a clear difference between his cheek and the wall. It looks like the wall was in fairly direct light from a window, while the part of the shirt facing the camera was in relative shade. Any less exposure and the shirt would have been completely lost into the side of his face.

In the second, you have detail in the sand in the shadow of the board, yet the bottom of the board still shows plenty of detail. I'm not sure you could ever ask more of a film.

In the third, you've lost shadow detail in the shirt and the hair, but the brilliant reflection off the base of the stool has not burned out anything around it, and you still have the lovely detail on the inside wall, as well as capturing the variation in the shading on the slatting both in full sunlight and in the shade. You lost some highlight detail in his right shoe and the top of the stool next to him, but the texture of the ground, his shorts, and his face came through perfectly.

Whether it is characteristic of Acros 100 I cannot say, but I would be proud of those shots. You did a remarkable job with exposure. I'm not sure what you expected back, but stopping down or using a faster shutter seems like it would have rendered them with too much featureless black. I think you did admirably as it is. From the second shot, it looks like a cloudless day on the beach. Short of shooting on a cloudless day on a glacier, I don't know that you could have found more contrasty lighting, and yet you managed to get both shadows and highlights. I suppose if you had pulled the film, shooting at 50 EI and developing as such, you might have done slightly better, but I find nothing to complain about in those shots.

A slower film might have been in order that day, but whatever. It looks like it was a gorgeous day, and you have an excellent portrait and a couple great shots of the scene. I think your friends at the lab did a fine job, as did you with the camera.

 

[nixarma]

Unless you start developing yourself you will never be able to get a good handle on what is going on with your negatives. There are too many variables and it'snot just about the developer (for example the agitation during development affects contrast).

I find Acros and Neopan to be quite contrasty films compared to, say, Ilford. I develop mine in Prescysol (a pyro based compensating developer). This tames it a little.

That is true, Mark. *sigh* One of the key considerations when I start looking for a new apartment will be the ability to have a dedicated lab space. Until then, I will have to get my film developed elsewhere.

I've been looking through the photographs from this roll and I think that I probably used Acros 100 in conditions not really suited for it - mostly in bright sunlight (high contrast) and, in a few cases, indoors in not-so-bright light. More about this in the next post...

Thanks for your help!
Nikhil

 

[nixarma]

IMHO, those are fantastic shots. I see little to complain about.

In the first, you have a very nice gradient from pure white down, yet still have some detail in the black shirt. There is a clear difference between his cheek and the wall. It looks like the wall was in fairly direct light from a window, while the part of the shirt facing the camera was in relative shade. Any less exposure and the shirt would have been completely lost into the side of his face.

Thank you for your compliments and for your very detailed analysis, 40! These are among the better shots and the ones with acceptable contrast (but more about this further down.)

I like that photograph of my friend as well... he was listening with little interest to two other friends talking and even though he tried not to show it, he was stressed that day on account of a couple of things.

A little less than an inch under his left eye, the highlights are totally blown. I wonder if I could have done better. That was what concerned me about that photograph.

In the second, you have detail in the sand in the shadow of the board, yet the bottom of the board still shows plenty of detail. I'm not sure you could ever ask more of a film.

This is probably the best shot from that roll in terms of exposure. I tweaked this slightly in Photoshop, using the Shadow/Highlight filter (Shadow = 3%, Highlight = 2%) so that one can see slightly more detail of the sand in the shadow of the board.

In the third, you've lost shadow detail in the shirt and the hair, but the brilliant reflection off the base of the stool has not burned out anything around it, and you still have the lovely detail on the inside wall, as well as capturing the variation in the shading on the slatting both in full sunlight and in the shade. You lost some highlight detail in his right shoe and the top of the stool next to him, but the texture of the ground, his shorts, and his face came through perfectly.

The saturation of the highlights in his shoes and on that table nearby were what bothered me. Perhaps they reinforce the perception of the heat and the bright light and the kid cooling off with ice-cream? 😱

Whether it is characteristic of Acros 100 I cannot say, but I would be proud of those shots. You did a remarkable job with exposure. I'm not sure what you expected back, but stopping down or using a faster shutter seems like it would have rendered them with too much featureless black. I think you did admirably as it is. From the second shot, it looks like a cloudless day on the beach. Short of shooting on a cloudless day on a glacier, I don't know that you could have found more contrasty lighting, and yet you managed to get both shadows and highlights. I suppose if you had pulled the film, shooting at 50 EI and developing as such, you might have done slightly better, but I find nothing to complain about in those shots.

A slower film might have been in order that day, but whatever. It looks like it was a gorgeous day, and you have an excellent portrait and a couple great shots of the scene. I think your friends at the lab did a fine job, as did you with the camera.

Thank you again for your kind words. I wonder if I shot this roll in conditions not really suited for low-speed film. It's summer now and all our days are super-bright and sunny.

The outdoor shots were taken at various times, on different days, between 11 AM and 4 PM. Very bright and rather high-contrast situations.

The indoor shots (haven't posted these, but they have much greater contrast) were taken in a bookstore. I still had around 20 exposures left on the roll so I didn't want to waste the film and switch to my 400 speed film. The exposures in the book store were made at very low speeds (1/3 to 1/10s) and the highlights in the skin and in the books are really blown!

So it seems to me that it is perhaps my fault in choosing the wrong conditions in which I used the film? Would you agree with that?

Nikhil

 

[photophorous]

It is true that some films are more contrasty than others, but there is a lot more to it than that. I would not say you picked the wrong film for those conditions or the wrong developer.

Forgive me if I state the obvious. Development (time, temp & agitation) effects the highlights and exposure effects the shadows. In a high contrast situation it would probably be better to over expose slightly, to get the shadow detail, and then under develop to preserve highlight detail. I have not used Acros, but I have used a lot of Tmax 100, which I think probably behaves in a similar way. These new technology films are more sensitive to development variations than the old school films like Tri-X. You could probably reduce development time by only 10% and get a significantly less contrasty image (which will make it easier to scan). If you take another roll to those guys who are not familiar with Acros, I would tell them to cut the development time a little (probably the same as they would for Tmax). I would try that first, before I gave up on TMAX developer. It's best to change one thing at a time so you can see the effect it has.
There is always going to be trial and error with this kind of thing, so don't expect perfection at first, and don't give up.

Paul

 

[iml]

My experience of Acros processed in Xtol is that it is not at all contrasty, quite the opposite, it has a beautiful tonal range. But a lot depends on light and processing, as has been said.

Ian

 

[nixarma]

Thanks for your comments, Paul. Your suggestion makes a lot of sense and I'll ask them to shorten the development time for the next roll. Thanks for the tip regarding slight overexposure as well!

Nikhil

 

[nixarma]

Thanks, Ian! I'll try a few more rolls and change the variables, one at a time...

Nikhil

 

[Ariya]

It is true that some films are more contrasty than others, but there is a lot more to it than that. I would not say you picked the wrong film for those conditions or the wrong developer.

Forgive me if I state the obvious. Development (time, temp & agitation) effects the highlights and exposure effects the shadows. In a high contrast situation it would probably be better to over expose slightly, to get the shadow detail, and then under develop to preserve highlight detail. I have not used Acros, but I have used a lot of Tmax 100, which I think probably behaves in a similar way. These new technology films are more sensitive to development variations than the old school films like Tri-X. You could probably reduce development time by only 10% and get a significantly less contrasty image (which will make it easier to scan). If you take another roll to those guys who are not familiar with Acros, I would tell them to cut the development time a little (probably the same as they would for Tmax). I would try that first, before I gave up on TMAX developer. It's best to change one thing at a time so you can see the effect it has.
There is always going to be trial and error with this kind of thing, so don't expect perfection at first, and don't give up.

Paul

What he said.

Also - Acros is my favorite film and it has wonderful properties for low light shooting (you can shoot without regard to reciprocity failure). Keep with it!

 

[Todd.Hanz]

These are great images as seen on my office monitor (CRT), I know on my laptop the highlights would be blown to hell.

I shoot Acros alot, I really like it...alot. I typically use the times posted here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html. When shooting in bright contrasty light, I dial Acros in at 50 and develop in Xtol 1:1, in flatter light I shoot at 100.

I typically shoot it with a 35/2 asph. which is a pretty contrasty lens so YMMV.

Keep shooting, your images look great!

a couple of mine in Acros + Xtol :

http://apeture.my-expressions.com/archives/7477_1730056827/182179

http://apeture.my-expressions.com/archives/7477_1730056827/181749

http://apeture.my-expressions.com/archives/6717_1727252692/207505

Todd

 

[PetarDima]

Across is fantastic: good contrast, rich with blacks 😉

 

[nixarma]

What he said.

Also - Acros is my favorite film and it has wonderful properties for low light shooting (you can shoot without regard to reciprocity failure). Keep with it!

Thanks, Ariya! I'm definitely going to experiment more with this film.

Nikhil

 

[nixarma]

These are great images as seen on my office monitor (CRT), I know on my laptop the highlights would be blown to hell.

I shoot Acros alot, I really like it...alot. I typically use the times posted here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html. When shooting in bright contrasty light, I dial Acros in at 50 and develop in Xtol 1:1, in flatter light I shoot at 100.

I typically shoot it with a 35/2 asph. which is a pretty contrasty lens so YMMV.

Keep shooting, your images look great!

a couple of mine in Acros + Xtol :

http://apeture.my-expressions.com/archives/7477_1730056827/182179

http://apeture.my-expressions.com/archives/7477_1730056827/181749

http://apeture.my-expressions.com/archives/6717_1727252692/207505

Todd

Thanks, Todd but talk about some great photographs! Very nice work. I remember seeing them when I was scouring RFF looking for Acros reviews. Thanks also for the tip on variable rating.

Here's a question: The Contax G2 allows me to set ISO per shot. Using one roll of Acros 100, would it be feasible to make exposures in bright, contrasty light setting the ISO at 50 and in flatter light at ISO 100 and then develop the film such that all the negatives turn out well?

I'm sure this is a noob question but I am! I've been shooting for a year with a DSLR but I am really, really enjoying tshooting film far more! My work is just getting started 🙂

Nikhil

 

[nixarma]

Across is fantastic: good contrast, rich with blacks 😉

And that's a lovely example of what it can do! I'm certainly going to shoot some more with it and hopefully get the exposure/development relationship dialed in.

What's the story behind the above image, if I may ask?

Nikhil