Bergger Pancro 400 - 120 roll

[John Wiegerink]

The fact that YOU don't know how to get good results does not mean that all scans look like crap.

+2

 

[Arctic amateur]

Then get one.

Eventually, yes. I'll need a new house first. Should I stop enjoying film photography until then?

 

[macfred]

... Should I stop enjoying film photography until then?

Do not rely on false prophets ...
Enyoy film (even with using a sc.....) !

 

[nworth]

First for the film. This film certainly has beautiful midtones, and the highlights are clear and smooth. But it seems to be somewhat lacking in shadow detail. But it is hard to tell from a limited bunch of (good) pictures that you didn't take yourself. This film is certainly not grainless, but the grain is very smooth and regular. I agree that it seems to be an excellent portrait film.

About scans now. Done properly, scans of negatives can be excellent. Very good digital prints can be made if sufficient care is taken at each step along the way. Digital requires the same care and refinement as analog, but the technique is much different and somewhat more complicated. The equipment needed to do a good job is very expensive and fussy. Scans of prints are sometimes needed. In my experience, which is limited, they are always somewhat lacking.

 

[fred]

First for the film. This film certainly has beautiful midtones, and the highlights are clear and smooth. But it seems to be somewhat lacking in shadow detail. But it is hard to tell from a limited bunch of (good) pictures that you didn't take yourself. This film is certainly not grainless, but the grain is very smooth and regular. I agree that it seems to be an excellent portrait film.

About scans now. Done properly, scans of negatives can be excellent. Very good digital prints can be made if sufficient care is taken at each step along the way. Digital requires the same care and refinement as analog, but the technique is much different and somewhat more complicated. The equipment needed to do a good job is very expensive and fussy. Scans of prints are sometimes needed. In my experience, which is limited, they are always somewhat lacking.

In the higlights you can see, the grain is not that beautiful. That's why for portrait of white caucasian people, often the skin is overexposed. IMHO

 

[MattKing]

Perfect! Is it a 'pure' scan...without post processing? Scanner? When will you give an on-line workshop then...

You cannot do a scan and not do some post-processing. Adjustment of brightness and contrast are always necessary.
My rule of thumb is if it only needs the same adjustments as doing a "straight" print in the darkroom, it is fine for APUG.
Sometimes scans of black and white will come out with a tint or colour cast. I'll adjust that as well.
For colour, I will also make normal adjustments to colour balance - again, same as with a darkroom print.
Not sure whether I used my old Minolta Scan-Multi scanner or the old Canon 9000F scanner - probably the Canon, because the Minolta scanner has been problematic since Windows 7, and now has additional problems.
You don't want me giving a workshop. My poor scans are at least as common as my good ones!
FWIW, while this scan is a reasonable facsimile of a print from the same negative, it definitely has a different flavour to it. The print tends to subtly emphasize depths of tone and subtle textures in the mid-tones and shadows, whereas the appearance of the scan on a screen looks more like a transparency that subtly emphasizes the luminescence of the highlights.
A presentation that depends on reflected light will always appear different than a back-lit screen.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Will this do?

View attachment 181367
6x6 negative. Kodak TMY-2. Mamiya C330
IIRC, my 135mm Sekor C (blue dot) lens, although it might be the 65mm.

That's beautiful, Matt! I just got out of the darkroom making some prints from 35mm TMY and I think it looks fantastic printed and scanned alike.

 

[trendland]

No, I didn't ask Sean. I was just wondering if anybody else has had this happen? I didn't use any foul language or anything of that nature. I'm capable, but didn't!

It is a phenomenom of incorect transmission from your site to over 90%
and perhaps less than 10% from APUG server - I would say.
You may can see your post (or reply)
on your sceen but the transision via internet failed.
When you go back to your reply you
may can read it again but it comes out of
the space of your PC or smartphones
never reached APUG.
The next day you can't find your reply again.
But I can imagine also server problems at APUG (in an extrem smal case of failures).

with regards

 

[Doc W]

I am really disappointed that this thread got so hijacked. I just bought a couple of boxes of Panchro in 4x5 and would like to hear more about how it responds to different developers.

I have to say that many (not all) of the images from Panchro negs that I have seen here seem quite flat to me. No really rich blacks and not a lot of brilliant highlights. I wonder if it is my monitor? I hope to do some testing this week and my developer of choice will be a home-brew Perceptol in a Jobo. These first tests will be pretty dull step wedges to establish ISO and development time, but I hope to have some real images with a week or so.

 

[Doc W]

Hi!

Two Trix400 shots just to compare:
10 -


11 -


Developed with con Perceptol stock.

What do you think?

Cheers!!!!
Antonio

Thanks for this, Antonio. Many of the other examples I have seen in this thread and via some of the links seem a little flat to my eye, but your results look promising.

I REALLY like the Tri-X but I can't afford it in the formats I shoot.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Thanks for this, Antonio. Many of the other examples I have seen in this thread and via some of the links seem a little flat to my eye, but your results look promising.

I REALLY like the Tri-X but I can't afford it in the formats I shoot.

I've done a few rolls in DDX.. have not proofed or scanned the negatives and am looking forward to it...
On the other hand I wonder why I even try other films when I already get amazing results from TMY400...
Something is telling me this is a low contrast film and some of the long developing times people are using seem to back this up
Please post your results for us

 

[John Wiegerink]

First, what is really wrong with a lower contrast film? To me it's just another tool in the box. Grain shouldn't be a problem in 4X5 or even as small as 6X6, but I've not tried this film so can't say for sure. I would be curious to see how it does in a pyro developer. Having said that, I don't want to get into any pyro war talk here! I just said I'm curious! From what I've read it is a two emulsion layer panchro film with two different size grain crystals(which type I don't know?) in two different layers. This might be the nearest thing to one of my all time favorite discontinued films ever. "VERICHROME PAN"!. I have a falling plate 4X5 box camera and it could use a film of this speed and type. What made Verichrome Pan great for those old Kodak and Agfa box cameras was the two layer technology Kodak used back then. I will watch for some more results and probably end up getting some 4X5 and maybe some 120 also. It sure is nice to see this film hit the market and we here should all celebrate whether you use it or not.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

First, what is really wrong with a lower contrast film? To me it's just another tool in the box. Grain shouldn't be a problem in 4X5 or even as small as 6X6, but I've not tried this film so can't say for sure. I would be curious to see how it does in a pyro developer. Having said that, I don't want to get into any pyro war talk here! I just said I'm curious! From what I've read it is a two emulsion layer panchro film with two different size grain crystals(which type I don't know?) in two different layers. This might be the nearest thing to one of my all time favorite discontinued films ever. "VERICHROME PAN"!. I have a falling plate 4X5 box camera and it could use a film of this speed and type. What made Verichrome Pan great for those old Kodak and Agfa box cameras was the two layer technology Kodak used back then. I will watch for some more results and probably end up getting some 4X5 and maybe some 120 also. It sure is nice to see this film hit the market and we here should all celebrate whether you use it or not.

And in contrast to your views, I'd LOVE to see this Bergger film processed in something like PMK Pyro or ADOX FX-39 to see some really glorious grain! I love grain, particularly in portraits. I'm so happy with Ilford HP5+, though, that I don't think I'll ever need to change.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I must be doing something wrong 'cause I could never get Kodak Tech Pan film to match a film like Fuji Acros. I was able to tame it's contrast to a pretty good point, but then it's like you hit a brick wall. All films are NOT alike no matter what you hear. Many are close, but not exactly.

 

[John Wiegerink]

And in contrast to your views, I'd LOVE to see this Bergger film processed in something like PMK Pyro or ADOX FX-39 to see some really glorious grain! I love grain, particularly in portraits. I'm so happy with Ilford HP5+, though, that I don't think I'll ever need to change.

Thomas,
I have nothing against grain unless it takes over the whole scene. In fact I like HP5+ better than FP4+ in 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9. To me the grain ads a degree of apparent sharpness when I make 16X20 prints that I don't get from FP4+. I'm not saying FP4+ is mushy, but maybe a little "tamer" or smoother. That's in either Pyrocat-HDC or Xtol-R and that's all I can speak about since that's about all I'm using now. Hey, Bergger might even be better?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas,
I have nothing against grain unless it takes over the whole scene. In fact I like HP5+ better than FP4+ in 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9. To me the grain ads a degree of apparent sharpness when I make 16X20 prints that I don't get from FP4+. I'm not saying FP4+ is mushy, but maybe a little "tamer" or smoother. That's in either Pyrocat-HDC or Xtol-R and that's all I can speak about since that's about all I'm using now. Hey, Bergger might even be better?

And I like lots of grain! Like this, using HP5.

 

[John Wiegerink]

And I like lots of grain! Like this, using HP5.
View attachment 181556

That looks like what I get when I use HP5+ in my Contax 35mm( I use mostly Delta 100 now). I never get that much in medium format using either xtol or Pyrocat. Of course if I crop heavy I can get it. I get just enough grain in 6x6 to make those HP5+ negatives stand out. Grain is nice!

 

[removedacct1]

Bergger Pancro 400 shot at 200ASA with my Hasselblad w/standard 80mm lens. Film processed in Rodinal 1:25 for 8 min (as recommended).

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Just for completeness sake, I'm looking at Pancro 400 and shot some 135 recently. Souped it in replenished XTOL at 24C with on a JOBO Duolab for 13:00. This was taken on a little Fuji point and shoot, so it's not a work of art, just trying to get exposures in so I can get a feel for the film.

This was scanned in at ~4200dpi and converted to a positive with 0.62 contrast as a 32 bit floating point Adobe DNG file. In Adobe Lightroom's Develop Module, the only post processing steps where to adjust the exposure +0.66 and do a basic spotting for dust. This was then exported to a scaled down jpg with the long side at 2000px and uploaded here.

Looking at the the full resolution scan, for a 400 speed film, that is some hella grain. Bergger says there is more than 1 grain size. In larger formats this might be a good thing, but in 135, (at least in replenished XTOL) it just comes across as clumpy when looking at it up close. Scaled down like what I've uploaded here tames it a fair amount, but it's still pretty present.

Looking at the other shots I did on the same roll, there's a handful where I have an initial "man that looks good" moment, and then upon closer inspection, a "man that grain! why?!?!?!" moment. This should be tempered with the fact that I've pretty much been totally ruined with Kodak TMAX 400 in replenished XTOL. That combo is hard to beat in my humble opinion.

I think next I'll put a roll into my Canon EOS-1n with a Sigma 35mm ART Prime and throw down some real resolution onto it to look at how well it resolves fine detail and maybe do some exposure latitude tests. Given what I've seen so far, I'm not having high expectations for resolution, again totally ruined by TMY2. I expect it'll have good latitude.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Adrian, can you tell us if the negative you have shown is correctly exposed, under exposed or over exposed?

Mick.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Adrian, can you tell us if the negative you have shown is correctly exposed, under exposed or over exposed?

Mick.

Well it was taken with a crappy point and shoot and it read the cartridge DX code and metered for box speed. That camera generally gets the exposure plus or minus 2/3 of what I’d get if I metered with incident readings.

My scanning setup is calibrated and I adjust the film base plus fog to the same baseline density in the scanner exposure controls before scanning with all films, so adjusting the exposure up by 2/3rds of a stop in LR to get correct exposure there means the camera under exposed this frame by 1/2 to 2/3 stop. I did similar adjustments in exposure up and down on the other frames.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Thank you Adrian.

Mick.

 

[canuhead]

I actually like the grain in that photograph.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I actually like the grain in that photograph.

Which photo, mine, or one of the others?

If mine, you’re looking at a radically scaled down version of it. The original native scan resolution is ~24MP, this version is ~2.6MP. Scaling down hides *a lot* and smoothies grain out quite a bit.