Re: [Leica] Neopan ACROS 100...

["dante@umich.edu" <dante@umich.edu>]

Mark:

    I don't believe that good-looking negatives always yield good prints.
Or scans.  And that is the rub.  if it's hard to scan, it will be harder to
print well.  TMY negs always look better, but TX are easier to print.

    I took my M3 out with the 2 rolls of Neopan ACROS on a normal, sunny
afternoon.  I shot it with a 50/1.4 Nikkor and a 35/2 screwmount Hexanon.
I used an MR that I knew was good, with good batteries.

    What I got back when I scanned them was sorely disappointing, because
the results did not live up to the TMX benchmark.  The highlights were blown
*and* the shadows were blocked.  This would look a lot like Tri-X, except
that the midtones weren't all that separated.  I was able to get some
passable tonality out of the scans by monkeying around with the levels on
Photoshop.  I have never found this necessary in the past.  The indoor shots
had much better tonality - but they were relatively undemanding shots under
florescent light.  When I get my color shots back, I'll put up a P-A-W
illustrating all of this.

    The negatives *looked* fine (all negatives always look fine).  Maybe
grainy, but fine.  I'm sure that with a lot of work, I can make good prints.
From a diffuser enlarger and grade 00.  It's not hard to see in the negs
that the shadows are largely empty.

    The disappointment comes not from the film but the hype, which is that
this is a wonderful new film, some kind of world beater.  This is going to
be a tough film to work with, and for what promises (not yet delivering)
marginal improvements over TMX.  With TMX, you can

- -- get a straigtline developing in Xtol, Diafine (split D76) or standing
- -- get a traditional N+2 push by upping the developing time 50%
- -- get a straight-line-up push by going 1:50 with Rodinal

and never with problems in grain, tonality, printability or scanning.  TMX
is also incredibly cheap, especially if you roll your own (ca $1 /roll).
This is what ACROS is designed to beat up on.

    Maybe the lenses are too hot constrast-wise.  Maybe it was a bad roll of
film.  Maybe I screwed up the development.  But even if you screw it up in
development (or even exposure), you don't typically get negatives that are
such a bitch to work with.  My experience with TMX is that it is really rare
to have a negative that is difficult.

Dante

> Dan And Dante are agin the ACROS while from all other areas we are barraged
> with
> nothing but raves on the stuff.
> I have 6 rolls of it on my light table waiting for cutting and stuffing which
> i
> ran at the end of the week and the most gorgeous negs I've ever seen. I
> already
> bought another brick of it in 35 and 120 as well.
> I shot 12 rolls of Neopan 1600 and 6 of the 100 on my  4,696 mile road trip to
> San Antonio the first two weeks of this month.
> 
> In Xtol 1:3 the Neopan as always yields GORGEOUS negs. And this new 100 ACROS
> stuff is something else again. If they print like they look at all with my
> Loupes I'll be out of the Delta business...
> As I'm going to try the Neopan 400 and so probably make the switch completely
> away from Ilford Delta and to Fuji Neopan.
> 
> But if the ACROS does not test definitely better than Pan F  I'll be stocking
> and shooting lots of that stuff again.
> 
> It may be that even in Xtol a medium speed film can not relace a slow speed
> film. And Pan F is the only one left.
> I found that the Delta 100 did not replace Pan F when you make 16x20's. I hope
> Ilford does not phase out the pan F.
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> 
> Portland, Oregon
> USA
> 
> http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html