If it were possible to find the Acros II in bulk it would probably be my favourite. But Fuji no longer supplies its film in 17- or 30-meter rolls. But Ilford does, and his Delta ends up costing perhaps less than half a roll of 36 Acros. The differences in quality are not such as to justify this price difference
Love a film comparison every once in a while. A few thoughts on everything. The history of T-Max hints at why it is a bit flatter. And that’s because Kodak made a film for the working professional photographer doing mostly portraiture and weddings. A flatter negative allowed them to add as much contrast as they wanted in post while also having an ultra fine grain afforded by the tabular grain structure for smooth gradients in skin. Secondly, while Ilford handles shadows better than Acros, I still shoot Acros over Kodak and, a lot of the time Ilford, for one very big reason. And that’s the reciprocity failure. Or lack thereof, I should say. Acros boasts a full two minute reciprocity failure, which is just unheard of. So for someone like me that likes to shoot waterfalls, Acros is a very attractive film. One final thought. I think it’s important to remember that film is intended to be used to print onto photographic paper. While one film may look good in a scan, it may perform very differently in a darkroom. This is something I discovered myself when I started darkroom printing. I came to appreciate the flatter negatives I got from Ilford Delta 100. Adding contrast is easy. Taking it away is difficult. Flatter negatives allowed me to choose how contrast I wanted in my final print.
Thank you for sharing. I've been watching your videos for a long time and learnt a lot from your experience 😊as wel as from your workflow. The most important has been the calm and slow approach. Today I watched your comparision work aiming for learning something about Ilford Delta 100 as have just purchased a few rolls and never tried before. Much appreciated.
Excellent comparison. I think your control standards were about as good as anyone can get. I agree with your conclusion that Delta 100 is probably the best of the three for landscape B&W photography.
Hi Chris. Thanks for your videos. I've enjoyed seeing your journey into large format. It's interesting to me that you picked Delta 100 in the end. I did a test recently with Pan F 50, Delta 100 and Tmax 100. with 3 identical exsposures, on the same camera and lens... all within a few minutes of each other... all with very high powered continuous lighting in completely controlled, blacked out room . I developed and scanned all 3 on the same day with the same, slow developer, following only the packet instructions for each film stock. Developer was new and freshly made. Developed at stock solution (1:0). It was bloody time consuming. My findings were: 1) Delta 100: grainier than Pan F, but noticeably sharper. Unbelievable micro contrast and dynamic range. Dynamic range is similar to what I'm seeing on my Sony A7RIV at ISO 100, but grainier. 2) Pan F 50: least grain of all 3, least sharp, least contrast. 3) Tmax 100: split the difference between Delta 100 and Pan F 50.
Thanks Johan, this is great! I’ve slowly been working my way towards giving Pan F a try myself just to see how it looks so I really appreciate the heads up!
I do not regularly use any of these films, so this comparison is particularly interesting for me. Perhaps this explains the aversion to T-Max 100 I "developed" not long after it was first introduced years ago. I suspect that if you go into the "lab" and fine tune the development of each film, you could increase Acros' overall development just a bit, making it almost indistinguishable from Delta 100. Whether doing this would be a desirable goal is a separate question. Thanks to Chis for this effort.
Thanks Randall, although this video was meant to cover my experience using a lab and normal developing I agree it leaves out a lot of fine tuning in development that could totally change the results. I’m probably going to work on a video covering that side of it soon, we’ll see how it goes!
Well, that was fun. Thanks for the time and effort in doing the test. Next up you could try Ilford's Ortho and PanF ( fav). I've a Twitter friend who gets great results on 4x5 using Fomapan 400. I've been thinking of trying that in 200. I recently put a roll of Lomo Earl Gray 100 through the Yashica and liked it. I've also really like the Bergger Pancro 400 in 120 (comes in sheets too). And let's not forget the handy FP4 at ISO 125. I have some Rollei Retro 400 and Ortho 25 I was given I've yet to try. I've always been a Tri-X guy, but, man, there's no shortage of 120 options for sure. I also recently switched from Epson software to SilverFast 9 with my V600 and am seeing better results. The best news? Fall is coming!!
Thanks Frank! There's so many B&W films.. haha! It definitely keeps things interesting though and this whole foray has taught me there's so much more to B&W than I ever considered. I think I'll be exploring the rest of the Ilford offerings in the near future for sure, haven't ever tried any of the Lomo products yet but they're definitely on my radar. I have a stripped down copy of SilverFast 8 that came with my scanner and I may have to give it another try - possibly with a license upgrade and see how it goes. EpsonScan seems to be a bit buggy as of late..
@@ChrisDarnell I upgraded from a free SF8 to SF9 for about $30, so not a bad deal. Once I upgraded my computer the Epson software wouldn't work. I think the SF9 gives better results, once you figure out how to use it. Fall color is getting closer!
Interesting comparisons, Chris! I shot a box of Tmax 100 and I found that it didn't suit me. I had my lab develop in TMax dev, and I found it delivered good shadow details, but the highlights got compressed. Ever since trying Acros II, I've preferred it for my medium format camera, but it responds very differently in different developers. Acros in D76 has a very sharp shadow cutoff, but in Xtol it gets a little less severe in the shadows. I prefer Acros in Xtol, even if it softens it a little. I bought a bunch of it, so I'll be shooting it for a while!
Delta 3200 vs Ilford FP4 would be a great comparison. Is there really a difference between tabular and traditional grain and if so is that difference good bad or meh depending on your point of view. I like the dynamic rage of delta but FP4 just has `something' about it. The time and effort you put into this video is outstanding. Well done Chris
Another really really useful comparison vid, thanks very much Chris. Would be great to see T-Max shot as 64/80 and compared against the Delta. It’s a bit like the frustration of your E6 comparison with the E100 maybe impacted by that roll back it was in. So much is subjective, thanks for making this as objective as possible (but speaking of objective, another variable not mentioned is the chemistry used may favour “home team” film…. Le sigh!!)
Thanks Bernard, I think soon I’ll be playing around with different developers as well. With Tmax in particular I’ve got a few trials I’d like to run, agreed I’d like to compare the lower ISO ratings with extended developing times and see what shakes out
The tell here is the gamma is low for the T-Max. Low gamma is always underdevelopment. The key and cross check is you have the dark chip but your bright chip is compressed. If it was a simple speed issue, you wouldn’t have the dark chip. You need to ask your film lab what developer they use for T-Max. Simply rating the film at 80, 64 or 50 won’t give you the proper gamma contrast since gamma shifts don’t happen in the exposure curve they happen in the development curve. Your lab will be able to work with you for the right speed and gamma. I have manually processed sheet and roll film in tanks and always have had proper development speed, gamma, and density. I have used XTOL, Rodinal, T-Max, and HC. They all produced excellent contrast with TMax 100. I would ask your lab if it is mechanized processing or manual. Because mechanized processing doesn’t account the different development and film combinations. Ever look and wonder why a developer has different timings for different films and gamma? B+W is always best manually processed. The differences in films and chemistry are way different and are not normalized in the same way as C-41 or E-6 chemistry are.
Thank you for your comments here, it really is appreciated and it’s feedback like this that helps me realize what I don’t know, and what to explore next. It’s taken me a bit to reply and I apologize for that, but I wanted to let you know this has sent me down a whole new path with black and white film, ha. 🙏🏻Thanks again!
@@ChrisDarnell Developing B&W yourself is no rocket science. maybe you should give it a try. A good starting point to optimize your film-speed-development time are the videos of John Finch of pictorial planet like this one: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5FVD761pU7o.html
Thanks Tim! It's been an elusive creature but it's been in the wild a time or two before.. haha. I expect it will get a little more time on camera periodically in the future, it's pretty fun to work with!
Really great comparison, Chris. Acros 100 is by far my absolute favorite bw film ever made. Breaks my heart that it was discontinued in large format. I sure hope illford ...err... I mean Fujifilm brings it back 😂 You should really develop your own black and white film - it is super easy. You will have way more control over contrast and exposure. Unlike negative and reversal film, each black and white film requires different processing times and responds slightly different to individual developers. I'm always a bit questionable how labs deal with black and white. Anyway, keep up the fantastic work!
Thanks as always Rene, it’s always nice to see another film become available in sheet sizes so I hope so too 🤞🏻 I really appreciate the advice and nudge towards home developing; behind the scenes I’ve been working on something in that regard so that will be coming up in a future video 😀
I think it's the first time I see a comparison between these 3 films, I never liked Tmax because I always found this film to be flat, not contrasty enough, now I understand that I was always underexposing it, quite an interesting comparison
I love Acros and I should have bought more in 4x5 before Fuji killed it. Switched to TMax after for LF work, and I now rate it at 64 for processing in HC110 with a JOBO. Going to experiment with Delta 100 now that Kodak is hiking their prices to insane levels, so this is a very helpful video to see all three!
Thanks Shawn for the info as well! HC-110 is another I've been considering experimenting with so much appreciated. Have to admit it's been pretty hard to beat Delta 100 lately though, it's been a ton of fun to experiment with at home!
I don't like any of the "modern" films. In a way they look kinda digital. My preference and standard film stock for black and white is Ilford FP4+ developed in ID-11 (D-76) 1:1 for 11 minutes. It just gives me the quality I'm looking for with gobs of the traditional black and white feel. But there is no wrong here, just preferences. Great comparison! Thanks! 👍
Thanks Edward, I haven't tried FP4+ just yet but I think it's certainly coming soon. I've recently been digging into developers as well so I'll put that in my notes to try!
This is very interesting and agrees with my exprience of these films. TMax is closer to iso 64 in my experience. Delta and Acros ( the original not version II ) are more like box speed in Xtol. It is worth remembring that Acros is an Orthpanchromatic emulsion.
I'm a big fan of Acros, been shooting a lot of it lately. I particularly like the extra bit of contrast and how the white highlights pop a bit. I sometimes push it 2 stops for the extra speed in handhold/ low light situations which adds even more contrast and lowers the film's "latitude" but allows for a bit more flexibility for different lighting situations.
Thanks John, that's something I'll have to experiment with. So far I haven't attempted push/pull processing but I think that's coming in the near future!
@@ChrisDarnell I've heard some people say they expose Acros @ 200 and develop @ 400 (increases ISO but pulls a bit more shadows out) though I haven't tried that. As mentioned before I was shooting a portrait inside with limited ambient mix of daylight and florescent lights. I was shooting with my Hasselblad Zeiss Planar 80/2.8 wide open but I needed a bit more S/S, (1/60th) so I rated it @ 400 and developed @ 400. The results were quite contrasty blacks/whites but still usable. This could work in a pinch outside as well in a low light situation...
Most people I know that shoot lots of B/W usually shoot the TMax films at 80 for the 100 and 320 for the 400. I do know that the developer you use can make a difference along with the development times too. I haven’t done much darkroom work in years but am slowing getting back into B/W developing again. So far I must say that the Ilford films are my favorites
Thanks Sophie, that agrees with what I've seen from others as well. I never really understood people would shoot TMax at 80 until running these test rolls, now I get it, ha. There's been quite a few mentioning the developer makes a big difference so I may have to investigate that in the near future..
Is Delta and Acros both panchromatic films? If I could get Acros in 400 that would be my go to film. And when it does pop in sheet film I try to buy it. But my go to film is Tmax 100 sheet/120 and 400 in 35.
Delta 100 is panchromatic, but Fuji claims Acros is orthopanchromatic, so I suppose a little less in the red end. I agree I’d buy Acros if they rereleased it in sheets..
I think the Acros looked the best on every shot. Sharper appearance. Better contrast. If you want flatter negs than the delta but the Acros just gets it right in camera much better. You keep talking about loss of information in the shadows but you are using deep deep shadows to make your point. In my opinion those shadows being darker in Acros should be darker. They are deep shadows. The biggest thing left out here is what developer is being used. Different developer could completely change the images. If you want to take control of your photography you really need to start developing your own.
Thanks Thomas, excellent points all around. Turns out the lab I'm using uses Clayton chemistry, and I'm in the process of exploring that whole side of the equation next so I definitely appreciate the input on developing your own!
@@ChrisDarnell Clayton F76plus with Acros II is one of my favorite combinations. If you mix at 1:19 instead of default 1:9, you will get a flatter image. Which is great for digital editing.
Thanks! These were done by the lab I use, which they say they use Clayton chemistry. Developers are probably going to be a topic of their own in the future..
A kodak tmax is a PANCHROMATIC film and the delta and arcros are ORTHOPANCHROMATIC film 1 to 1 comparison doesn't quite work. the film does show the differences and your personal taste
@@Notmy00000 That’s correct. I should have mentioned that in the video, apologies for that. It does of course affect the results, but the results are what I was interested in here, not necessarily about whether they were true 1:1 comparisons. I’ll try to do a better job of communicating that next time
@@ChrisDarnell thanks again for the video. I will definitely buy the 3 films take 3 photos with the color check passport. and see which one I prefer. I'm going to expose the kodak tmax as iso 64. I'm curious (if it's going to be kodak, I'm a kodak fan)
I must be on the right path.. not only are you shooting film but i see guitars hiding in the background ( i have and play several) If i find out you build cars or build engines we have to be friends by law. LoL 🍻
Red = 3 stops. Orange = 2 stops and Yellow = 1 stop. Perhaps your " Lab " under develops your T-Max. You must develop the film yourself to have complete control.
Thanks David, this is definitely something I'm looking into. I didn't come from any darkroom experience so I'm going through that learning phase right now, and I really appreciate the tip!
appreciate the work here, but unfortunately this comparison is not quite bang on, because each stock isnt exactly true to box speed, and chemicals used will have an impact on the negative also. They have different tone curves also. You will get an idea, but any alterations to any of the above would change the result.
@@ChrisDarnell you settled on a film and Dev process now? I stick to delta 100 and id11 as I don’t do home dev .. i exposure with n- or n+ in mind. Everything is done with scanning in mind.
You have to develop your own and quit using labs for black and white. They process in batches so they go for the middle ground with their standard developer. If that happens to be perfect for Delta 100, it will be wrong for T-Max. Unfortunately, your testing methodology isn't valid under those circumstances.
