Tmax 100 (aka TMX or 100 Tmax) and Neopan 100 Acros compared
Is this article useful to you? If you think so,
please consider a voluntary donation.
Contribute via Paypal
Ninety-nine percent of all the large format film I expose is what I call Tmax-100 (now renamed by Kodak to be 100 Tmax, I guess). Part of the reason is that it's a film that suits me just fine. After years of using it (I started in 1994), I've gotten to know it. In fact, I've gotten so used to it that when Kodak announced that Tmax-100 would not be available in the single sheet Readyload format, I panicked. I like Readyloads, and I certainly didn't want to go through the process of switching to what was the only other B&W film in packets at the time - Fuji Neopan 100 Commercial.
The last time I went down into the Big City (aka Seattle) to buy film, however, I discovered a surprise lurking in the film room - boxes of something labeled "Fuji Neopan 100 Acros", in Quickloads! I didn't really want to try a new film, but somehow my curiosity got the better of me and when I went to the checkout line, there was a box of 20 sheets in my basket along with all the Tmax-100. When I got home, I realized that I'd made a mistake - what the heck was I to do with a mere 20 sheets - barely enough to get calibrated?
So the box sat in my fridge for several months, as I moved from the old house to the new one. In the new house, instead of having municipal water, I'm on a private well. The water tastes better now, but all my development times have changed. It was time to recalibrate, and I figured I can calibrate two films just as easily as one, so out came the box of Acros.
The Process
I exposed sheets of TMX and Acros in several different test conditions, in order to determine film speed and development time/temp for each film. All films were developed in Tmax-RS developer diluted 1+9 with water at 75F/24C. My water supply is a domestic well. All films were developed in a Jobo 3010 drum, on a Jobo CPP-2 with the rotation speed set to '4'. All films received a five minute pre-wet, development, a one minute stop bath (stop bath is 1.25% acetic acid), a five minute fix (in Kodak Rapid Fixer), a two minute hypo clear (in Heico Permawash), and then a ten minute running water wash.
Development times
Fuji Acros develops far more quickly than TMX. The development times I got for Acros were surprisingly short, which makes me suspect that cooler temperatures would be more appropriate (developing at 68F will extend development times by about 40% for Acros).
The times I got were:
100 Tmax Fuji Acros n-2 5:15 3:15 n-1 6:15 3:45 n 7:30 4:25 n+1 9:30 5:15 n+2 12:00 6:45 n+3 21:00 9:30 n+4 16:00 One of the complaints leveled at the Tmax films is that they are very sensitive to variations in time and development. Acros appears to be even more sensitive, both to changes in time and temperature.
One thing that was apparent to me was that Acros was capable of achieving extremely high maximum densities with relatively short development times. If it were available in larger sheet sizes, this might make it appealing to alt process printers, who often want higher negative contrast.
Film Speed
I found Acros to be exactly the same speed as TMX across all development times. For normal development, I expose TMX at EI 64.
Color Rendition
To examine how each film renders colors, I photographed a color test target (a Gretag Macbeth Color Checker) with each film. The films were given normal development, then scanned.
For reference, the Macbeth Color Checker looks like this:
The results for 100 Tmax and Fuji Neopan 100 Acros are
Kodak 100 Tmax Fuji Neopan 100 Acros Given the limitations of web display, it will be very difficult to assess any differences from the above images. Generally speaking, though, TMX renders blues and reds very slightly darker than Acros, and renders greens very slightly lighter. The differences are very, very subtle - much more subtle than the effect of even a very weak filter.
Sharpness/Acutance/Grain
Naturally, we're interested in the 'sharpness', grain, acutance, ability to render detail, etc. Unfortunately, I didn't include a resolution test target in my standard photo, but we can use the sharp edges of the roof to see how sharp transitions are handled.
Very small sections of the overall image were scanned at the highest possible resolution on my scanner (an Epson 1640su Photo). The images are from two negatives exposed one right after the other. Exposure settings were identical. Both negatives were given N development. No sharpening of either negative was done.
TMX Acros My general impression (based on examining the negatives under a 10x loupe) is that TMX has a slight edge on acutance and a slight edge on grain. The differences are very slight; both films resolve the rivets holding the end of the gutter together (small lighter dots). Both films have excellent resolving power and excellent grain structure. To give you a frame of reference, the area of the negative shown in the two images above is about .1625" x .2425 (4mm x 6mm).
Characteristic Curves
What I'd really like is for 100TMAX and Acros to have fairly different tonalities, so that I could carry them both, and choose one film or the other based on the tonal arrangement I want for each scene. Alas, at least when developed in Tmax-RS, the films appear to have essentially the same characteristic curve.
This chart was produced by contact printing a Stouffer 4x5 step tablet onto each film. The exposed film was then given normal development, and then the density of each step was measured by putting the processed film in my enlarger and measuring the density of each step using the 'densitometer' mode of my R. H. Designs Zonemaster II. I suspect some of the 'wandering' of the curves is due to using the Zonemaster as the densitometer, and my enlarger as the light source. It takes quite a while to read all the values and I suspect the light output of the enlarger is not as constant as you'd like for this sort of thing.
Still to come - curves for each film with different (e.g. N-2 and N+2) development, and film curves based on measurements done on Chuck Down's densitometer.
Reciprocity
Many of the people who work with TMX do so because its reciprocity departure is relatively small. 'Conventional' films like Tri-X require adjustments for reciprocity departure for times which are longer than 1 second - a nettlesome state of affairs for large format workers, who often make exposures longer than 1 second. TMX requires no correction for times up to 4 seconds.
Fuji Acros is claimed to have even more favorable reciprocity departure characteristics, requiring no adjustment whatsoever for times up to 120 seconds, and only 1/2 stop correction beyond 120 seconds.
Packaging availability
One of the reasons why I like Tmax-100 is that it is available in Readyloads as well as in loose sheets. Use of packet loaded film (e.g. Kodak Readyloads/Fuji Quickloads) means no reloading of film holders on long trips, and makes it easy to keep notes for an exposure (for example, planned development) with the film.
The availability of 100 TMAX in loose sheets means that you can standardize on one film but don't have to pay the substantial price premium for pre-loaded packets in those situations where there's no advantage to packets (e.g. studio work, or testing, or work done close to the car).
Fuji Acros is widely distributed in Quickload form. Boxes of 4x5 and 8x10 sheets are available from the View Camera Store (www.viewcamerastore.com)
Minor differences (aka nitpicking)
I found the film base for Acros to be slightly more flexible and more prone to taking a curve than the base for TMX.
The emulsion side of Acros seems to have a little more 'tooth' than the very smooth emulsion of TMX, which might make it less prone to the dreaded Newton's rings when using a glass negative carrier (or scanning directly on the glass of a scanner). I haven't really had a chance to check this out completely yet, so you should take this with a degree of skepticism still.
Acros has a small (e.g. .5mm) hole punched into the corner where the film code notches are. This might be useful for hanging the film to dry - you just have a little wire hook that goes through the hole, instead of using film clips. I have been using plastic film clips for years without problems, so this might be a solution in search of a problem.
As of November, 2003, the price for a box of 20 sheets of Fuji Neopan 100 Acros Quickloads is $49.95. The price for a box of 20 sheets of 100 Tmax Readyloads is $41.95. This works out to a difference of 40 cents per sheet.
