Differences among, Fuji Neopan Acros 100, Kodak TMax 100 and Ilford Delta 100

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What is your experience with the difference among these films and what they each are best used for?

Thank you and all the best,

Adam

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Leicanerd]

In my opinion, for wet prints Ilford Delta 100 is the most appropriate.

Kodak TMax 100 produces boring wet prints. However, when scanning, you can adjust its characteristic curve and then you will benefit from its slightly higher fineness.

Fuji Neopan Acros 100 is best for high contrast prints that reflect only part of the reality, not the whole scene starting from shadows up to white clouds on the blue sky. Therefore, it is not an universal film. If you want to reduce its contrast for wet prints, you are confronted with a small dynamic range, causing flat lights.

 

Regards, Ludwig

[Cuthbert]

I think I already posted on another place some samples of these films (besides Trimax) in their 400ASA version.

[A miller]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Ludwig. I can look all day long at images from these films on the internet. But what I am seeking is an assessment of the differences that I should expect to get from each, relative to one another. Your insights are helpful. Best, adam

[NJH]

How grainy is Delta compared to Acros?. I find Acros amazingly fine grained but I have never really been that enamoured with its tonality much preferring neopan 400 or tri-x. 

[A miller]

Which of these films is best for portraits with natural light, and which deals with highlights best?

[KM-25]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kodak TMax 100 produces boring wet prints. 

 

In my experience, only if it is a boring picture to begin with. I have got stunning wet prints from Tmax 100 in 120 and 4x5. 

 

As for the original question, I don't use any of those films in 35mm because I have standardized that format with Kodak Tmax 400.

 

I like Acros in 120 for it's ability to deal evenly with most light and especially it's industry leading reciprocity curve. I like Tmax 100 in 4x5 for more contrasty situations and for just about the most detail you could ask for in a film. I like Delta 100 in 120 and 4x5 to add a bit of punch to flatter light.

 

And all of those film's curves can be greatly adjusted with choices of exposure, lighting choice, developers, dilution and times. 

 

All this being said I tend to favor Acros 100 for 120 and Tmax 100 for 4x5.

[adan]

I've always found Ilford's Delta films to fall in between the TMaxes and the "old-tech" Kodak/Ilford/Agfa films of the same speeds, regarding tonal rendition, "persnicketyness" and grain. I've used Acros only a few times due to lack of consistent availability, but would evaluate it as very similar to TMax 100.

 

Put another way, TMax 100 and Acros will take a fair amount of work and trials to dial in a working ISO, development etc. to avoid blank shadows or plugged highlights, and precision in technique thereafter. The reward being fine grain and resolution that can only be beat by the ultra-low ISO re-packaged microfilms, and heroic development techniques.

 

Delta 100 will be just a hair more grainy and less sharp, but slightly more forgiving.

 

Personally, I use TMax100 for lens tests, and TMax400 for my documentary work (all 120). I could use the Deltas - no problem with their imaging - but they, on average, have given me fits with film curl (again, 120 stock) that is very hard to wrangle into the scanner. I have to weight the tips of the strips with coins to prevent them curling like Dali's mustache. YMMV.

[250swb]

Which of these films is best for portraits with natural light, and which deals with highlights best?

 

A formal 'sit down portrait' or a street shot?

 

Acros is probably the finest grain and it has a nice range of tones that can be worked on, but without some work with contrast (in the darkroom or post processing) by default it comes out a bit flat and lifeless processed in selection of developers. It would be my choice for a sit down portrait. T-Max and Delta 100 are about the same in terms of grain, but again I find the T-Max a bit lifeless and again even the T-Max developer doesn't help much. So for a controlled 'street portrait' I would use Delta 100 and develop it in Ilford DD-X at 1+4. You get fine grain and a livelier set of tones more reminiscent of FP4.

 

However,.........I wouldn't recommend any them to people for contre-jour street work, where you are trying to control massive shadow and highlight values without going to the next stage and using a proper compensating developer. An old school film such as FP4 is much more forgiving with contre-jour scenes when working with 'regular' developers. My experience with film curl is the opposite to Andy's, although film curl is a mystery as a wide variety of experiences need collating to work out why one person gets it and one doesn't using the same film. But I find 120 and 35mm Acros insanely curly, and Delta 100 dries flat.

 

Steve

[A miller]

Sincere thanks, KM, Andy and Steve.  I really appreciate your insights. Not to disgress too much, but is it wrong to flatten out curled negatives by placing them under a stack of very heavy books and allowing them to be squashed for a few days (of course, while the ngs are in their clear sleeves)?

[250swb]

It isn't wrong to put negatives under some heavy books, and as you know it is the standard advice, but it has never ever worked for any of my curly negs. I don't have a heated drying cabinet which I think helps considerably in getting flat negatives, possibly because the heat re-sets the memory in the plastic, but there are any number of alternative solutions (like reversing the curl by winding the film onto a reel emulsion out) and mine solution is a fortunate coincidence, all my favourite films don't curl (much).

 

Steve

[sblitz]

try sdox cha 100 ii   great film, it is orthopanchromatic so it will darken reds a little. great clear hight res film

[sblitz]

here is a shot i took on sunday with the film late afternoon steps of mona --

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Doc Henry]

Hi Adam and Steve , Hi All

 

"Each new film is a new sensor"  as said one famous photographer who loves film

 

You can see here some pictures in comparison. It's in french but I think you don't need

to translate. You also have examples with different developers !

 

http://www.pirate-photo.fr/pages/viewpage.php?t=41

 

Conclusion (translation) :

"This test has no other claim than to supplement those already made on these pages. They were of a different nature as it was to observe the result of differences for the same film developed with different developers, or for different films developed in the same developer.

It is not really possible to explore all directions, and our tests are subject to criticism both from the point of view of the exploration of the films is not exhaustive, as the method, empirical. They are presented as giving some answers to some questions.

Thus, to be complete, it should also, for example, test the impact of different dilutions. This will be done in the future.

These tests are still made with care, trying to control the permanence of the stage lighting, and to developments in a rigorous manner. All chemistries used are new, all films are recent and in good condition (properly stored, unexpired).

The set has been scanned with a scanner Nikon Coolscan V-ED, the only intervention when entering and preparing files being accurate registration histograms right (values ​​close to 255) and left (close to 0 ).

By working thoroughly all the files, it is likely that it is possible to give them almost the same rendering. What appears here is the result of these combinations films / developers : tabular films in their dedicated developers give a finer grain and provided more shades in dark areas.

Fomapan The film gives a very specific outcome, related to its sensitivity to very different colors. Its grain is certainly the result of development in a higher dilution than that which was used for PF4 in the ID-11 and PX-125 in the D76, developed solution "stock".

It remains to finely assess the impact of dilution on the results!"

 

another link :

 

http://www.pirate-photo.fr/pages/viewpage.php?p=54

 

Conclusion (shorter)

"It seems that one can remember the first review, the clearly superior fineness of  Fuji Acros, and richest grayscale Ilford, providing in particular more shades in dark areas".

 

scanner Nikon Coolscan VED

The work is done by Laurent Coignet "Administrator" of forum "le Pirate"

Thanks Laurent. Great work

 

Best

Henry

 

If you need , you can translate through "Google translation" (copy the link and paste)

[A miller]

Thank you very much, Henry. I will study this with great interest. Best, Adam

[fotohuis]

Acros 100 is in fact an Orthopan film. So you have to take care when using filters, especially Red. It is in iso 100 the finest grain film and in layer both 35mm and 120 roll film on tri-acetate, in roll film Clear tri-acetate. Further it has a reciproke correction only up from 2 minutes!

It is one of my favorite films.

 

Here some examples of Acros 100 in Rollei Supergrain 1+15 in rotary. 6:30 minutes at 20C.

 

 

 

Used with a Yellow filter and 1F stop compensating.

 

[sblitz]

what happens if you use a red filter with an orthopan film? sort of works against the film, i imagine.

[fotohuis]

Yes, because the bandwith of the film is almost filtered out. Apart from a 2 1/2F stop correction when using a Red filter. Not a good idea on a Fuji Acros 100, Rollei Retro 100 TONAL, Efke 25-50 film, (all Orthopan).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sblitz]

adox is ortho as well, love it though, so clean and clear!!!!! 

[Mijo]

How grainy is Delta compared to Acros?. I find Acros amazingly fine grained but I have never really been that enamoured with its tonality much preferring neopan 400 or tri-x. 

 

That's my experience with Acros and Neopan as well.  With Acros I'll use multiple filters when printing to bring out some of the tonal range but with Neopan I can often get by with only using one filter when printing.  In general I'm not a fan of kodak film but I've started using Tri-X more as Neopan is much harder to find now since fuji discontinued it.  I really hope they don't end up discontinuing Acros.