8X10 film question?

[John Wiegerink]

I just completely refurbed and refinished my 8X10 view camera and am curious as to what film other folks here would use for contact printing and enlarging. So far I have only did some old contact prints and scanned and printed digital wise. I plan on scanning and contact printing first and then building an 8X10 VC enlarger on a Beseler 45 chassis I have. My main interest at the moment is finding a real good film for contact printing to get the best results the easiest possible way. I have Tmax 100, TMY2 and TRI-X, but have thought that maybe Bergger Pancro 400 might just be the "cats meow" for contact printing. What do you think??

 

[AnselMortensen]

As long as you have your processing regimen optimized for the films you already have, there shouldn't be much of a difference in results between them.
If you feel like experimenting with and dialing in an unfamiliar film, go for it!

 

[retina_restoration]

I found Pancro 400 to be very difficult to get consistently good results from. It's "fussy" about your choice of developer, and it has to be exposed way below its rated speed to retain shadow information. I would recommend FP4 over most anything else.
Besides, Pancro 400 has been absent from the market for nearly five years now. If you can find inventory of it in 8x10, it WILL be old/outdated stock, for which you will still pay nearly $200 USD. I don't think it offers any advantages, really. And why start working with a film that hasn't been manufactured in half a decade?

 

[Alan9940]

The films you already have are capable of producing beautiful contact prints (analog) and with careful scanning should produce quite nice enlargements are any size. For the past 40 years, I've used mostly Tri-X, TMax 400, Acros 100, and Fomapan 100. Shot quite a bit of Super-XX back in the day, too. All these films work well in the darkroom or via the desktop.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Fompan 100 has the strong advantage of being one of the least expensive camera-specific films; in 8x10 it barely costs more than TMX in 4x5. It builds contrast well enough it ought to work well for alt-process printing, and it passes UV better than TMX (meaning it will actually work for cyanotype, kallitype, etc.). Film that costs less means it'll hurt less when you make mistakes. I can see myself shooting 8x10 on Fomapan 100, if I had (access to) an 8x10 rig -- but no way could I make myself buy Kodak or Fuji in 8x10. Shanghai GP3 is the only other stock that's price-comparable to Foma in that size, and I'd trust Foma's QC a bit further than I would Shanghai's.

 

[Milpool]

I just completely refurbed and refinished my 8X10 view camera and am curious as to what film other folks here would use for contact printing and enlarging. So far I have only did some old contact prints and scanned and printed digital wise. I plan on scanning and contact printing first and then building an 8X10 VC enlarger on a Beseler 45 chassis I have. My main interest at the moment is finding a real good film for contact printing to get the best results the easiest possible way. I have Tmax 100, TMY2 and TRI-X, but have thought that maybe Bergger Pancro 400 might just be the "cats meow" for contact printing. What do you think??

All three Kodaks would be awesome (and expensive) but high speed is easier for 8x10 so either TMY2 or TXP. Those two have different curve shapes (TMY-2 linear, TXP longer toe/upswept curve). The big bonus with TXP is the retouching surface on the base side which has enough tooth to resist Newton ring formation.

 

[Alan9940]

Shanghai GP3 is the only other stock that's price-comparable to Foma in that size, and I'd trust Foma's QC a bit further than I would Shanghai's.

I haven't priced Shanghai in quite awhile, but I think Catlabs X 80 film is priced around the "Shanghai neighborhood." I shoot mostly Fomapan 100 in 8x10 nowadays because I have a good stock of it in the freezer. Before the crazy tariff situation we have now, I always ordered from fotoimpex because it was half the price of what was charged state-side. Even with the shipping from Germany, it was still a substantial savings. I just had to plan ahead because it took 4 - 6 weeks to get it here.

 

[DREW WILEY]

TMY really is the pinnacle of quality and versatility, in terms of its longer scale. But Milpool just pointed out how TXP still carries a retouch tooth, which is certainly an amenity. I use anti-Newton glass in my contact printing frame to alleviate that issue.

TMX100 is somewhat resistant to UV printing, if you plan to go that route.

Yeah, Kodak films are expensive; but 8x10 really isn't a machine-gunner format anyway. And with tariffs potentially right around the corner, EU films will be less of a bargain than now. People on the cheap trend toward XRay film anyway.

 

[albireo]

I just completely refurbed and refinished my 8X10 view camera and am curious as to what film other folks here would use for contact printing and enlarging. So far I have only did some old contact prints and scanned and printed digital wise. I plan on scanning and contact printing first and then building an 8X10 VC enlarger on a Beseler 45 chassis I have. My main interest at the moment is finding a real good film for contact printing to get the best results the easiest possible way. I have Tmax 100, TMY2 and TRI-X, but have thought that maybe Bergger Pancro 400 might just be the "cats meow" for contact printing. What do you think??

John, I've been curious about contact printing from 8x10 for a while so I'll be interested in your findings.

I've recently tested Bergger Pancro in 35mm as I was fascinated by some examples I've seen online, and because there are a lot of urban myths circulating online about this film. I'm currently going through a few fresh rolls of the stuff and I'm finding it a fantastic film, very close to the advertised speed in the developer I've developed it in, very interesting grain and perfect QC. I made a thread about my impressions of it recently. I think it would look truly incredible in 8X10 and contact printed. I will absolutely jump on it when I find it in 120, even.

However - I've checked the online shop where I've bought my rolls and I couldn't find it in sheet format.

Why don't you go for Foma? I have seen in person some pretty incredible contact prints from 8X10 Foma 200. It works really well with Adox XT-3 which I know you use, and based on what I am told it's much less prone to defects in sheet format compared to its 120 counterpart.

 

[retina_restoration]

John, I've been curious about contact printing from 8x10 for a while so I'll be interested in your findings.

I've recently tested Bergger Pancro in 35mm as I was fascinated by some examples I've seen online, and because there are a lot of urban myths circulating online about this film. I'm currently going through a few fresh rolls of the stuff and I'm finding it a fantastic film, very close to the advertised speed in the developer I've developed it in, very interesting grain and perfect QC. I made a thread about my impressions of it recently. I think it would look truly incredible in 8X10 and contact printed. I will absolutely jump on it when I find it in 120, even.

However - I've checked the online shop where I've bought my rolls and I couldn't find it in sheet format.

Why don't you go for Foma? I have seen in person some pretty incredible contact prints from 8X10 Foma 200. It works really well with Adox XT-3 which I know you use, and based on what I am told it's much less prone to defects in sheet format compared to its 120 counterpart.

As I said earlier: "Pancro 400 has been absent from the market for nearly five years now. If you can find inventory of it in 8x10, it WILL be old/outdated stock, for which you will still pay nearly $200 USD. I don't think it offers any advantages, really. And why start working with a film that hasn't been manufactured in half a decade?"

 

[John Wiegerink]

As I said earlier: "Pancro 400 has been absent from the market for nearly five years now. If you can find inventory of it in 8x10, it WILL be old/outdated stock, for which you will still pay nearly $200 USD. I don't think it offers any advantages, really. And why start working with a film that hasn't been manufactured in half a decade?"

retina_restoration (Paul) I think that is good advice. I can find stocks of Bergger Pancro 400 in 8X10, but like you say, why start liking something just to have it taken away. I just thought that if a film like Bergger Pancro 400 had nice, long, smooth tonal scale that it might be the "cat's meow" for contact printing.

albireo I think I'll just run with what I got on hand in 8X10. I just finished a roll of Foma 200 in a straight feed roll film camera and while the negatives look great, there is still that dang flaking/small scratch problem. So my remaining four 120 rolls will be used it testing cameras or lenses. What a shame since it really is a nice film.

Donald Q I'm with you and when my Kodak stock is gone I will be going to Foma or Shanghai for my 8X10 film.

Thanks to all that replied to my question and I appreciate your advice. I have to admit that I was hoping one or two someone's would give a hearty “thumbs up” for Bergger Pancro 400 since I wanted to give it a go in sheet film size. But if it is limited supply to no supply, I think I'll pass altogether on that one.

 

[isaac7]

Huh, not a single Ilford recommendation? I would think that any of them would do well for contact printing in general.

 

[Rick A]

I use Foma/EDU Ultra 100 for most of my work. You can use it for contact printing on silver gel paper and alt processes just by adjusting development.

 

[Maris]

I've shot hundreds of 8x10s on TXP, TMX, TMY2, Efke IR820, and Fomapan 100, 200, 400 and they all deliver gorgeous contact prints.

One critical point for me is to calibrate my Exposure Index and Development protocols to deliver normal contrast and normal density negatives.
The second step is to print on variable contrast paper; not Azo, not POP, or anything that comes in one contrast only.
The power of variable contrast lies in the ability to go up or down a grade which corresponds to N+1 or N-1 negative development changes in the old (obsolete?) Zone System.
A contrast tweaked negative prints well only in one way. If you guess the tweak wrong the sheet is wasted. Disappointment gets expensive in 8x10.

Of course nine tenths of the challenge is to find visually attractive and evocative subject matter in good light. And the subject matter should be something that doesn't die, deteriorate, or run away inside ten minutes.
Here's a looker:

Twin Snow Gums, Grace

Gelatin-silver photograph on Arista Edu Ultra FB VC photographic paper, image area 19.7cm X 24.5cm, exposed in contact with a Fomapan 200 negative.
Camera was a Tachihara triple extension 8x10 field view camera with a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6 lens.

The trees had grown in each others company for about 300 years but now one has died, one still flourishes; grace in life and death.

 

[gbroadbridge]

The power of variable contrast lies in the ability to go up or down a grade which corresponds to N+1 or N-1 negative development changes in the old (obsolete?) Zone System.

Whoa! Them's fightin words ... lol

 

[DREW WILEY]

Foma/Arista 200 is the only current product with as long a straight line as old Super XX and Bergger 200. That would seem to make it an ideal candidate. But there are several issues with this film. I tried two different batches of 8x10, and both of them had a lot of blemished sheets. Then there is the utterly wretched long exposure characteristics of this film, which doesn't get along well with the small f-stops and long exposures characteristic of most 8x10 workflow. The speed is nowhere even close to the advertised 200 speed - more like 100. And it doesn't "plus" develop well beyond N+1. But it is an interesting option if you're willing to gamble with the dicey quality control. Oh, and it develops really fast.

Most of the flaws I encountered were thin long cracks in the emulsion, as well as tiny zit-like craters. These were hell to retouch in the enlargements, but might be too small to constitute an annoyance in contact prints, if that is any consolation.

 

[Maris]

Whoa! Them's fightin words ... lol

You are right!

A photograph on paper with the contrast grade shifted up or down one step from "normal" looks very close to photograph made from a Zone adjusted N+1 or N-1 negative.
BUT the tiny differences are there if you know what to look for. Two paper steps up or down diverges somewhat from N+2 and N-2 development change. In practice a two grade paper change
is usually a futile attempt to rescue a bad negative ... best abandoned.

I wasted my first 20 years chasing the traditional Zone System with occasional success. But old age, sordid pragmatism, and the wish for lazier productivity turned me to the dark side ... multi-grade paper.
My consolation was that the people who viewed and purchased my photographs in the Sydney gallery didn't know about and didn't see my ersatz Zone System.

 

[F4U]

I have a question about using any of these 8x10 film brands discussed in this thread, asking from the point of view of myself as a complete cheapskate. All these films are panchromatic. Being cheap ,I use green x ray film to escape the outrageous film costs. Developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 6-7 minutes at 72 degrees F, I end up with perfectly good landscape shots. With a yellow-green filter at ASA 40 or 50, I can't really tell any difference between it and pan film with the same filter. Of course I can't use orange or red filters for cloud effects. But I DO get nice pictures. The limitations, if they are really limitations, don't bother me. Considering nearly $300 for 50 sheets of 8x10 or $80 for 100 sheets of Fuji HRT or HRU, my question is what advantage is there in using any of these 8x10 pan films? I just looked up Foma ASA 100 8x10 for price. $280 for 50 sheets? I guess my question is, what would be my advantage? Thank you.

 

[isaac7]

I've shot hundreds of 8x10s on TXP, TMX, TMY2, Efke IR820, and Fomapan 100, 200, 400 and they all deliver gorgeous contact prints.

One critical point for me is to calibrate my Exposure Index and Development protocols to deliver normal contrast and normal density negatives.
The second step is to print on variable contrast paper; not Azo, not POP, or anything that comes in one contrast only.
The power of variable contrast lies in the ability to go up or down a grade which corresponds to N+1 or N-1 negative development changes in the old (obsolete?) Zone System.
A contrast tweaked negative prints well only in one way. If you guess the tweak wrong the sheet is wasted. Disappointment gets expensive in 8x10.

Of course nine tenths of the challenge is to find visually attractive and evocative subject matter in good light. And the subject matter should be something that doesn't die, deteriorate, or run away inside ten minutes.
Here's a looker:

Twin Snow Gums, Grace

Gelatin-silver photograph on Arista Edu Ultra FB VC photographic paper, image area 19.7cm X 24.5cm, exposed in contact with a Fomapan 200 negative.
Camera was a Tachihara triple extension 8x10 field view camera with a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6 lens.

The trees had grown in each others company for about 300 years but now one has died, one still flourishes; grace in life and death.

Multi-grade paper also allows you to do split contrast printing that can do things that can’t be done in development at all. I agree that MG is the way to go, Mr. Adams would no doubt agree. The zone system was created because of the limitations of both film and paper at the time. My preferred way of shooting LF is actually with an incident meter. I might goose the development a bit in overcast conditions or pull it back in contrasty ones but the biggest contrast adjustments were done with filtration while printing.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, I agree with poster about x-ray film, if you want the Ortho look... Which I do like at times. But for more versatility, a pan film is best. You can simulate the Ortho look with filters, for example. Cheap pan film I use at times is CatLabs 80. My favourite pan film is HP5. Gorgeous contact printed can be made. Next for me is Delta 100.

 

[albireo]

As I said earlier: "Pancro 400 has been absent from the market for nearly five years now. If you can find inventory of it in 8x10, it WILL be old/outdated stock, for which you will still pay nearly $200 USD. I don't think it offers any advantages, really. And why start working with a film that hasn't been manufactured in half a decade?"

It's very present in the market, as I've just purchased many rolls with 2026 and 2027 expiry from a mainstream online seller here in continental Europe.

What's your evidence that it hasn't been manufactured in a decade?

 

[koraks]

@John Wiegerink 'contact printing' - do you mean on regular silver gelatin papers and/or AZO-type DOP papers? Or alt. process UV printing? What kind of situations do you normally photograph in; does e.g. reciprocity behavior play a major role? What particular requirements do you have, image-wise? Do you do portraits/people shots a lot, or none at all?

Personally, I've settled on Fomapan 200 for 8x10"; this is for alt. process contact printing, mostly carbon transfer. Reciprocity behavior is pretty bad, but it doesn't bother me as I never really venture in that territory, exposure-wise. Subject matter is mostly landscape, no people. I find that this film performs excellently under these circumstances. It's also easy to build/add contrast to negatives through post-processing (intensification) which helps in carbon printing. I usually rate the film around EI100. In the end, it's a compromise between cost and quality, although I don't feel I'm sacrificing a lot, quality-wise, with this film. Previously I used Fomapan 100 mostly (and x-ray; which I found absolutely awful and a total waste of time and money for pictorial work for a long litany of reasons), but now prefer the 200 product. Fomapan 400 can be interesting for portraiture due to its emphasis on (caucasian) skin tones.

In 4x5 I've used other films including TMX (which isn't 'somewhat resistant to UV printing' as alleged above, but blocks UV by around 3 stops or so, so it's totally useless for that kind of work!) and HP5+. TMX is nice because of its linearity and the physical robustness that's so typical of Kodak films. It's also incredibly fine-grained, but that's kind of irrelevant for contact printing 8x10 (with a few niche exceptions). HP5+ is a quality product, evidently, and handles high-SBR subject matter very nicely. I can't justify the cost of any of these more 'premium' films in 8x10 compared to the 'budget' option of Fomapan, especially since the latter performs very well.

I've not tried the Bergger film; I can't comment on it.

 

[abruzzi]

It's very present in the market, as I've just purchased many rolls with 2026 and 2027 expiry from a mainstream online seller here in continental Europe.

What's your evidence that it hasn't been manufactured in a decade?

It’s pretty sparse in the US, though Blue Moon Camera as been the best source of it. They currently have 135 and 8x10, but for a while (last year) they had good stock of 120 as well. It was all relatively fresh when I bought it.

I do get that making it your main/preferred film my not be a good idea due to possible availability issues, but I’ve already been down that path, so I have a good stock of 120, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. That will last me a while.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yeah, Kodak films are expensive; but 8x10 really isn't a machine-gunner format anyway.

For what TMX costs in 8x10, I can learn four or five times as much -- or afford to shoot 8x10 at all, if the cameras didn't start at $1000 and lenses similarly priced. Honestly, for my budget, I'd start with X-ray until I had the techniques in hand, since that's another factor of three or four cheaper than even Fomapan.

 

[retina_restoration]

Huh, not a single Ilford recommendation? I would think that any of them would do well for contact printing in general.

in post #3 I recommended FP4