Bergger 200 film in Rodinal

[Shelley-Ann]

Hey

I purchased a roll of this film to try it out. I wasn't sure what developer to use. On another forum someone indicated that Rodinal works well with this film. I checked the massive development chart, which indicated that 1+25 for 11 mins was the best ratio.

Anyway, the negatives came out really soft - not sharp at all. I didn't like the grain texture, either.

Here is a link to the photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelleyannmc/2736839071/

Perhaps it was the lens I used (a Spotmatic F with a Jupiter 9 lens) but I'm wondering if anyone could suggest a better developer, or a different dilution ratio with Rodinal. Thanks.

 

[Ian Grant]

This is the Forte 200 film re-badged, I use it for 10x8 work and process in Pyrocat HD. I noticed that visually the negatives appeared flat but they print OK. I wouldn't use it in smaller sizes as the grain isn't as fine as films from Ilford or Kodak etc.

The lack of sharpness is probably the lens, rather than the film which is capable of excellent results.

Ian

 

[Philippe Grunchec]

Gordon Hutchings used in LF for his PMK tests and liked it a lot!
The film doesn't exist anymore, and I'm using the rest I have (badged 'Classicpan' by Fotoimpex in Berlin). Works well in Moersch's Tanol, rated 100 ISO.

 

[Philippe Grunchec]

Gordon Hutchings used it in LF for his PMK tests and liked it a lot!
The film doesn't exist anymore, and I'm using the rest I have (badged 'Classicpan' by Fotoimpex in Berlin). Works well in Moersch's Tanol, rated 100 ISO.

 

[Fluidphoto]

The Bergger films were based on older emulsion formulations that they haven't made in decades which means that the grain will be a bit more "chunky" than the newer T-grain type emultions of today. The images that you posted seem to look ok but if you want something a bit sharper, try printing to a different contrast. The developer and the ratio will make a difference too, and Rodinal can make grain edges seem sharper and hence grainier. You may want to try a different dilution or another developer, being careful not to over-agitate... HC-110 (dil B) always seems to be a good choice. If you aren't shooting in a large format like 4x5 or 8x10, stay away from the pyro developers as they tend to be more toxic.

Ryan

 

[Ian Grant]

If you aren't shooting in a large format like 4x5 or 8x10, stay away from the pyro developers as they tend to be more toxic.

Ryan

That's a bit of a wild statement. Pyrocat HD is a great developer for 35mm & 120 negatives, as well as LF. I now use it for all my personal work regardless of the format.

Welcome to APUG by the way.

Ian

 

[Anscojohn]

The overall "softness" of your image stems not from the development, IMO. At the distances involved, you have a very short plane of sharp focus. If your Jupie 9 was set wide open, it would, thus, minimize the depth of field.
There may be an additional reason for softness if you were shooting wide open, as that lens does not show its real sharpness until stopped down a stop or two.
Plus you have a doggie that is not sitting absolutely still, I would venture.
If you print the neg, boost the contrast a bit and it will appear sharper. But I do not think you should be opting to blame the film developer--which at that dilution has a reputation for making "sharp appearing" negatives.
I have that lens myself--even use it on a Spotmatic F-- and find it a very good performer--wide open for softness in portraits when desired; and stopped down a few stops to sharpen things up.

 

[Shelley-Ann]

I wasn't shooting wide open.

I'll have to check the lens again.
Thanks for the tips, everyone.