acros 100

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Fëdor Pavlovic', Aug 30, 2003.

  1. In italy at last I have found new fuji acros 100, now, I want test it for
    understand if is better then APX 100 for landscapes photos.
    I use a 6x6 camera.
    Wich developer is better (condenser enlarger) ? I have hc110 and xtol.

    regards :)

    Lorenzo
     
    Fëdor Pavlovic', Aug 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Fëdor Pavlovic'

    fred Guest

    I use a condenser enlarger, and I like Acros in both mf and lf in HC-110.
     
    fred, Aug 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Fëdor Pavlovic'

    Jytzel Guest

    If you use HC-110 make sure you over expose it by 2/3- 1 f stop; EI of
    100 is far too optimistic. Even with Xtol I recommend that you
    overexpose it- but I never tried that combo. Nice highlight
    separation- maybe better for landscape than APX.
     
    Jytzel, Aug 31, 2003
    #3
  4. What do you mean by saying that Xtol is "weak"? The obvious
    interpretation would be that it provides low contrast negatives, but
    since you'd then be developing the film incorrectly, which we'll
    assume that you aren't, then the obvious interpretation can't be the
    correct one. What did you mean?
     
    Peter De Smidt, Aug 31, 2003
    #4
  5. He may mean "unreliable," or he may be referring to curve shape - Xtol
    reportedly gives less highlight density for the same amount of midtone
    density as other developers.

    Many of us like it that way.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Aug 31, 2003
    #5


  6. Precisely.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Sep 1, 2003
    #6
  7. Well, whoop-di-doo. Personally, I've found the original Kodak Xtol
    times to be very accurate with TMX, TMY, TMZ, at least they were when
    I got a calibrated thermometer. In any case it's quite usual to have
    to change one's development times from the manufacturer's
    recommendations.
     
    Peter De Smidt, Sep 1, 2003
    #7
  8. Fëdor Pavlovic'

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : >>
    : >> I would interpret this statement as implying that it was not capable of
    : >> developing the selected films to the contrast index specified by Kodak using
    : >> their specified times and temperature recommendations.
    : >
    : On 31 Aug 2003 16:28:46 -0700, (Michael
    : Scarpitti) wrote:

    : >Precisely.

    : Well, whoop-di-doo. Personally, I've found the original Kodak Xtol
    : times to be very accurate with TMX, TMY, TMZ, at least they were when
    : I got a calibrated thermometer. In any case it's quite usual to have
    : to change one's development times from the manufacturer's
    : recommendations.

    It's important to run development test prior to using a new film/developer
    combination or make ANY changes in you development process. It's also a good idea
    to rerun the test every now and again as film and chemistry manufacturers tend to
    "tweak" their formulations with mentioning it. The published times are recommended
    starting points.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Sep 1, 2003
    #8
  9. Fëdor Pavlovic'

    Frank Pittel Guest

    The EI of the film is effected by processing. Correct?
    I've become a resident professional student at the photography department of a local
    college and it's not unusual for students using the same film and the same developer to
    end up with different film speeds. I always thought it had something to do with
    temperature control and agitation.


    : That's interesting, I got 100 asa for the VC article I wrote.


    : In article <>,
    : (Jytzel) wrote:

    : > > : > > > In italy at last I have found new fuji acros 100, now, I want test it for
    : > > > understand if is better then APX 100 for landscapes photos.
    : > > > I use a 6x6 camera.
    : > > > Wich developer is better (condenser enlarger) ? I have hc110 and xtol.
    : > > >
    : > > > regards :)
    : > > >
    : > > > Lorenzo
    : > >
    : > > I use a condenser enlarger, and I like Acros in both mf and lf in HC-110.
    : >
    : > If you use HC-110 make sure you over expose it by 2/3- 1 f stop; EI of
    : > 100 is far too optimistic. Even with Xtol I recommend that you
    : > overexpose it- but I never tried that combo. Nice highlight
    : > separation- maybe better for landscape than APX.

    : --
    : "ANFAWFOS"
    : Check out my website @
    : http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank



    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Sep 1, 2003
    #9
  10. Fëdor Pavlovic'

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:34:01 -0500, Frank Pittel <>
    : wrote:

    : >The EI of the film is effected by processing. Correct?
    : >I've become a resident professional student at the photography department of a local
    : >college and it's not unusual for students using the same film and the same developer to
    : >end up with different film speeds. I always thought it had something to do with
    : >temperature control and agitation.

    I thought about the errors associated with shutters and meters just after I hit the
    send button. The bottom line is that the EI for a given film and developer is a "personal"
    number and is determined through testing.

    : Possibly more to do with the variation in cameras, meters and technique.
    : Foot speed doesn't change very much at all. One can change the contrast of the
    : image and give the impression of higher speed but in fact shadow detail is lost.
    : I believe that W.E.Smith pushed nearly all of his B-&-W films and this was
    : probably how he developed those snappy images for Life and others.

    : Regards

    : John S. Douglas, Photographer
    : http://www.darkroompro.com

    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Sep 1, 2003
    #10
  11. Fëdor Pavlovic'

    Willie wjb Guest

    I tested this film and found it to be good for macro work.
    very sharp indeed, but the gray scale is less than apx 100 my favourite
    film.

    just develop it in rodinal 1+100,
    cheap and very good results.

    i don't use xtol, to wollow edges in stead of sharp edges like i get with
    rodinal.
     
    Willie wjb, Sep 1, 2003
    #11

  12. My experience with only 3ml Rodinal is that this isn't enough developer
    for a 120 or 135/36 film. Agfa states 10ml per film... there is a
    safety margin in this, but not 330%...

    Martin
     
    Martin Jangowski, Sep 2, 2003
    #12
  13. Fëdor Pavlovic'

    John Guest

     
    John, Sep 2, 2003
    #13
  14. Fëdor Pavlovic'

    John Guest

    3 will work. I've used the same quantity on T-Max films (4:1200) to
    develop 2 sheets of TMX-100. The contrast was low but the density was fine after
    3 hours of development. Image color was warmer than usual of course.


    Regards,

    John - Photographer & Webmaster - http://www.darkroompro.com
     
    John, Sep 2, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.