Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,205   Posts: 1,531,746   Online: 892
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Fuji Acros 120

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    795
    Images
    7

    Fuji Acros 120

    Hello,
    I shot the film at 400asa instead of 100asa. Any thoughts on what to do when developing this film. I would really love to save this roll.
    Thanks
    Arthur

  2. #2
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,706
    Images
    23
    Tell the lab what has happened and they will push process it which is just changing the amount of time it is developed. If you are doing it yourself, I can't really be of any help.
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  3. #3
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,208
    Images
    296
    Shoot another test roll with the same mix-up under similar lighting conditions, cut the roll in half, develop for 50% more time. See if you developed too much or too little. Adjust, try again. Then when you're in the ball park develop your important roll.
    "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

  4. #4
    Mark Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,627
    Images
    151
    Thomas gives good advice. It would also be helpful to know what developer you are using. I would expect that something like xtol or ddx might be a good idea. I tend to use Rodinal with Acros and it would have a hard time with a 2 stop push. I use xtol with tri-x and I can get a 2 stop push (with no detail in shadows of course).

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    669
    Take a look at
    http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00ClmV
    and
    http://figitalrevolution.com/2008/04...eloper-part-2/

    I have used it in Diafine and like it. In my test roll exposed at EI 500, 250, 125, 64 and 32 with a subject in full sun the EI 500 shots had little shadow detail in the deep shade. But overall the image was nice. If I had done what you did I would use Diafine. Try Adorama if you can't get it in your area.
    Last edited by brianmquinn; 04-07-2009 at 09:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #6
    dwdmguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Freehold, NJ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    819
    Here you go, easy pezzy...
    http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php

  7. #7
    Poohblah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    433
    I would like to advise against pushing Acros in HC110 as it seems to result in lost shadows.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    795
    Images
    7
    Thanks all. I develolpe my own film and i use D76 1:1 I will probably add 50% to the time and hope for the best. I was also thinking of stand development with Rodinal 1:100.
    Arthur

  9. #9
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,208
    Images
    296
    Good luck. You won't know if you got it right until afterward...

    All the info on digitaltruth and other places are individual. People meter differently, their lighting conditions are different, heck even the pH of their water is different (which affects development). The only way you can find out for sure it to test for yourself. And Diafine - inflexible. You can't adjust your results by developing longer. So a roll of two stop (or more, depending on what EI you normally shoot it at, I used it at EI 80, so for me it would be 2-1/3 stop) underexposure not even Diafine can save. And if it was flat lighting - good luck printing those negs. They'll probably scan nicely, though.

    - 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

  10. #10
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Lots of good advice here. Not to disagree with the sage advice, but... on the other hand, it's only two stops, right! It's not a disaster. My guess is that the negs will still print quite well if overdeveloped a tad. You could simply do a clip test (if your first or last frame wasn't important) and determine that you need a wee bit more development.

    The thing about mistakes is that you can learn a lot from them! Once, I shot some IR film but... forgot to put on the IR filter!!! So the frames were all exposed by 8+ stops! The film developed to what look like pure black :roll: But, holding them up to bright light, I thought I saw a bit of detail. So I slapped them on a scanner and... surprise surprise, plenty of detail there. And the grain kinda worked with the scene.

    If you do scan underexposed/underdeveloped b&w negs, you'll probably be amazed at what you can get, but it will be grainy and any dust or scratches will be prominent. Bathing the neg in selenium can help a little (not much, just a little, but enough to see in the result from the scanner).
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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