Discussions: 44,952 | Messages: 605,966 | Members: 29,703 | Online: 401 | Chatroom: 0
User Name:  Password:
 

"That is called grain. It is supposed to be there." -Flotsam


 
APUG search    RSS MOBILE
Customize Sidebar
Gum-Silver Process
Author: Dwane
837 view(s)
aj 12 + various things
Author: jnanian
369 view(s)
Kodak D-19
Author: Tom Hoskinson
791 view(s)
Go Back   APUG > APUG English Forums > Darkroom > B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry > Ilford FP4 or Fuji Acros 100 ?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-18-2008, 09:29 AM   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rhondda, South Wales
Posts: 494
Default Ilford FP4 or Fuji Acros 100 ?

I have not used Fuji film but have used FP4 exclusively for some time. Acros is now available in the UK at competitive cost to Ilford and I am curious if anyone has used both films and have a preference for one over the other. In other words would there be any advantages/ drawbacks to switching to Fuji?

Regards,
John Roberts.
John Roberts is online now   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-18-2008, 09:51 AM   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portland OR USA
Posts: 819
Default

Advantageis that it is much finer grain than Fp4. I not only have used both as main films but have been processing and printing for another photographer who used Fp4 for years in a Hasselblad. When she switched to a 645 hasselblad the grain of the Fp4 became a problem so she switched to ACROS and the grain is no longer a problem and the end result of the print tones is not really distinguishable. They are both beautiful films. I like the Acros for it's lack of Reciprocity failure and the very clean look of it.

I process both films in XTOL using the extended time chart instead of replinisher and both films don't follow Kodak's chart at all. They both get very resistant to developing in aged XTOL and I have to extend the times far more than I should have to.

The ACROS is a great film and you will find a way to make it work. I love it in Beutlers.
Dennis
dpurdy is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-18-2008, 10:20 AM   #3 (permalink)
 
Mark Antony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: East Anglia,UK
Posts: 341
Default

FP4 is a traditional film, and as Dennis states has slightly more grain than Acros which is a tabular grain type film.
I have found that Acros is comparable to TMax 100 in its grain and sharpness and to me has a colder more clinical feel than conventional emulsions.
I have a couple of tests if you want to look:
Fuji Acros
And
Ilford FP4
If you had to push me for my personal choice it's Acros for landscapes and FP4 for Portraits.
Mark
Mark Antony is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-18-2008, 10:24 AM   #4 (permalink)
 
Ian Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Turkey (West Midlands, UK)
Posts: 4,519
Default

You can add Ilford Delta into the equation it's another excellent film. Closer to Tmax100 and Acros than FP4.

Ian
__________________
My APUG portfolio
Ian Grant is online now   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-18-2008, 10:42 AM   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Antony View Post
Acros is comparable to TMax 100 in its grain and sharpness and to me has a colder more clinical feel than conventional emulsions.
Yes, I would also call it "clinical." What an ingenious way to put it!
aparat is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)

Old 09-18-2008, 10:47 AM   #6 (permalink)
 
Andrew Moxom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Keeping the British end up in Minnesota
Posts: 2,999
Default

ACROS in Rodinal 1:50 is just outstanding. Grain is minimal, but then I don't mind the grain. I rate the film at around ISO 80 for contrasty full subject brightness ranges and develop to around 11:00 minutes to contract the range. For normal brightness ranges, I rate the film at box speed and process for 13 minutes. Great reciprocity characteristics.
__________________
Please check out my APUG Portfolio .....

Arguing with an engineer is futile, It's like wrestling with a pig in mud. Eventually, you realize the pig actually enjoys it!
Andrew Moxom is online now   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-18-2008, 10:58 AM   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portland OR USA
Posts: 819
Default

Clinical!! now why do you guys have to lay such a negative concept on it. If exposed and processed properly it has beautiful detailed glowing highlights and a total lack of smudgy chalkiness. It is my primary studio portrait film because it is so flattering to skin.
Dennis
dpurdy is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-18-2008, 11:03 AM   #8 (permalink)
 
André E.C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,233
Default

Both excellent films, but not so related IMHO, I prefer FP4+ developed in DD-X for my work, it's my favourite film together with Delta 400. I'm with Ian on this, Delta 100 might be closer to ACROS than FP4+.


André
__________________
http://www.monoworks.net
André E.C. is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-18-2008, 11:22 AM   #9 (permalink)
 
Ian Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Turkey (West Midlands, UK)
Posts: 4,519
Default

I was using Tmax 100 & 400 but because Kodak B&W films are far harder to find (where I live & travel) I've switched back to Ilford and Delta 100 & 400. I've found that in practical use there's very little between Tmax & Delta, and Acros and in fact FP4 is very close behind.

Compared to 30+ years ago all the films are now far closer in qualities, before Tmax was released FP4 and then Agfa AP100 were probably the best medium speed B&W film on the market, and when Tmax100 & Agfa APX100 apperared they became the films some of us switched too. I've used Acros and it's OK but it's not for me.

The most important thing is to settle on one film and stick with it, only with a good knowledge of it's abilities can yo get consistently good results.

Ian
__________________
My APUG portfolio

Last edited by Ian Grant; 09-18-2008 at 11:28 AM.
Ian Grant is online now   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 09-18-2008, 12:10 PM   #10 (permalink)
 
Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,082
Default

Ilford FP4+ is my favorite film. It's got some great 'bite' and is very sharp. It has fine grain and is easy to work with.
Acros is creamy smooth in my opinion, hardly clinical. It's got some of the finest grain out there, and works wonderfully in Rodinal.

I have used Acros in low light photography recently, and it's got no compensation for reciprocity down to two minutes. That is just phenomenal compared to FP4 which tapers off at one second.

Both are great films, but very different looks. Then again, you can work with these characteristics in the darkroom to achieve the results you want anyway, so either will probably work just spiffy for you.

- Thomas
__________________
------------------------------------------------------
Photographing my soul! = = = = Please visit my APUG Portfolio
Thomas Bertilsson is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum

APUG.ORG Block Ads. (APUG Subscribers have the option of closing this block)
 


  Contact Us - Advertise on APUG - Archive - Top - Site Terms - Forum Rules  
    

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 PM.
  
All Content Copyright © 2002-2008 Photocentric Ltd.   Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO APUG.ORG is a division of Photocentric Ltd.
This site is best viewed with a resolution of 1280x1024 (or higher), we recommend using