Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,481   Posts: 1,644,460   Online: 836
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    587

    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.

  2. #2
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,111
    Images
    38
    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

  3. #3
    Mark Antony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    East Anglia,UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    38
    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

  4. #4
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,769
    Images
    148
    You can add Ilford Delta into the equation it's another excellent film. Closer to Tmax100 and Acros than FP4.

    Ian

  5. #5
    aparat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    428
    Images
    39
    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!

  6. #6
    Andrew Moxom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Keeping the British end up in Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,885
    Images
    333
    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 website www.amoxomphotography.com and APUG Portfolio .....

  7. #7
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,111
    Images
    38
    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

  8. #8
    André E.C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,520
    Images
    12
    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

  9. #9
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,769
    Images
    148
    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
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 09-18-2008 at 10:28 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #10
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,766
    Images
    296
    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
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin