Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/10/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have to join in the crowd of very pleased customers for Acros. I think the thing that bothers some people is that it's characteristic curve in Xtol 1:3 is very, very long. It also doesn't seem to have much in the way of adjuvancy effects. This means that the highlights don't block up like they do for T-Max if you are not very, very diligent and it also means that the shadows detail is there if you want it. My conclusion is that the film was optimized for scanning rather than printing. The implications of a long curve is that contrast doesn't boost apparent sharpness, with Acros you gets lots and lots of tonality. For an example, see http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=404489 This was shot with a DR at 1/30 wide open. If you analyze the scene, there is 8 stops range captured on this negative: 1/30@2 compared to 1/125 @ 16. There is detail in the middle section of the black chairs and I could print Bokeh king trees in the outside OOF areas. The negatives were developed in Xtol, 1:3, 20 minutes at 21C, agitation continuous first minute then 5 seconds every minute thereafter in a small tank. 100ml stock solution per 36 exposure roll. My take on this film is that it is very desirable for those times when you want to hold detail in a contrasty scene. For situations when I want a contrasty negative I will continue to use 100APX. I also think that Acros would be a very flattering portrait film when you want exquisite tonal scale. Now, why don't I continue to use XP2 which has similar characteristics? I get way to many damaged negatives from the lab, don't want to start C-41 at home, and can get better results for fast film with Neopan 1600. Finally talking about photography again. Don dorysrus@mindspring.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html