Replacement for Acros 100?

[BobYIL]

I could not find Acros 100 in 100ft rolls; not at Freestyle, B&H or Adorama. Before ordering in 36-exp rolls I would like to inquire if anybody can help me with a proper replacement. Could Delta 100 or Tmax 100 be close? Thanks.

(For self-developing only, no C-41 process.)

 

[user237428934]

When I read the headline of this thread my heart missed a beat because Acros is the only film I use at the moment. But if 36-exp rolls are still available, I can relax again.

 

[filmfan]

To be honest, I have found ACROS, Tmax 100, and Delta 100 to look just about exactly the same for 11x14 wet prints. I would put money on nobody being able to pick out which film is which. This is especially true when scanning with a photoshop post-processing routine, where you can get just about any film to look like any other (within reason of course).

edit: I am looking just about as hard as any other photographer would when viewing prints... I am not taking a loupe to them haha

 

[Lauffray]

Ilford FP4 ?
the name comes to mind, but I rarely shoot below 400 so I don't know if it will give you the same results/look

 

[axiom]

Rollei Retro 80s

 

[sepiareverb]

Ilford Delta 100 is in the same vein, with no concerns that it will be discontinued.

 

[---f]

To be honest, I have found ACROS, Tmax 100, and Delta 100 to look just about exactly the same for 11x14 wet prints. I would put money on nobody being able to pick out which film is which. This is especially true when scanning with a photoshop post-processing routine, where you can get just about any film to look like any other (within reason of course).

edit: I am looking just about as hard as any other photographer would when viewing prints... I am not taking a loupe to them haha

one key difference to all these films is that Acros 100 has a very low reciprocity failure value. You can expose up to 120 seconds without having to compensate for reciprocity failure. Acros 100 and Tmax are great in rodinal, but Delta prefers Ilfotec-DD for best results. YRMV.

 

[semilog]

I'm going over to Delta 100 when my ACROS stock is depleted. Ilford deserves our business.

 

[filmfan]

I'm going over to Delta 100 when my ACROS stock is depleted. Ilford deserves our business.

I agree with you 100%
I also think Delta 100 is the least boring and digital-looking of the three films mentioned (probably the three most boring films available). I know I will never shoot these films again, for I might as well just shoot DSLR if I want that look. If you can get ACROS (for example) to look like film, please tell me how you do it! I want to be dissuaded!

 

[filmfan]

Ilford FP4 ?
the name comes to mind, but I rarely shoot below 400 so I don't know if it will give you the same results/look

No.

(The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.)

 

[Steve M.]

I'm with filmfan. The first time I got prints back from my first roll of 120 Acros, I thought I'd totally blown the exposures. It was just too different from my usual Tri-X. Every thing was gray (even more than T-max, which I also don't much like).

I think w/ the right subject and the right lighting it might be good for large prints perhaps?

 

[---f]

All Acros 120. Souped in rodinal.

 

[f16sunshine]

I agree with you 100%
I also think Delta 100 is the least boring and digital-looking of the three films mentioned (probably the three most boring films available). I know I will never shoot these films again, for I might as well just shoot DSLR if I want that look. If you can get ACROS (for example) to look like film, please tell me how you do it! I want to be dissuaded!

Well mostly I agree with you about 100 speeds films mentioned earlier.
Across looks great in 120. It is very clean but sometimes that is desired.
My complaint with it and the reason I prefer Delta or even Tmax100 for 120 is that it's a b!tch to keep flat in Epson film holders.
Now I say that and someone else may say the same about Delta.
I guess everyone has their own preference eventually.

For 35mm I almost never shoot 100 speed film preferring to hold back HP5 to 100 (I like the look of a fat negative).

 

[semilog]

I'm with filmfan. The first time I got prints back from my first roll of 120 Acros, I thought I'd totally blown the exposures. It was just too different from my usual Tri-X. Every thing was gray (even more than T-max, which I also don't much like).

and from the top you can see monterey by Semilog, on Flickr

ACROS in Rodinal (top) or XTOL 1+1 (bottom two). For 135 format I strongly prefer XTOL. For larger formats, Rodinal looks great.

All three images shot with ZM Biogon-C 35/2.8.

 

[Nigel Meaby]

I like Acros with Rodinal Special (Studional).

 

[Lauffray]

No.

No what ?

(extra characters)

 

[znapper]

I find that there is a great difference between Acros and the films mentioned.

Personally, I've never liked the Deltas at all, I find them to be rather "dead" and lacking punch (may be my processing) and much higher grain in 35mm IMO.
.
Acros in Rodinal 1:50 is simply awesome, low grain and great tonality, glad I've bought a whole heap in 35 and 120.
I've also found Acros to work very well in HC-110 and Tetenal Ultrafin.

 

[Austerby]

Acros is great - in 35mm with the Zeiss 35/2.8 and Rodinal it's close to MF in quality at times:


Venice: street corner equivalent by Vidwatts, on Flickr

 

[Manuphoto]

Kodak T-Max 100 would be closer to it than Ilford Delta 100. I've tried all three, and I do think the Ilford, while a very good film, have a "more different" tonal response than T-Max 100 would.

I also find T-Max 100 to be a surprising film. It has a lot of details, ad very nice transitions, especially for portraits.

Here's a example:

 

[Keith]

I can't get my head around Acros and I'm not sure whether it's the film or me. It seems too clinical! I have 100ft of it a bulk loader and I'm yet to shoot a roll that has pleased me!