Bergger Pancro 400 4x5 testing

[kreeger]

I am currently evaluating this film as a lower cost option to TXP-320 4x5 at $2 per sheet. I have used their 120 films before with decent results, the quality control seems very consistent. I reviewed a good list of images made with it on Flickr and liked what I saw others are doing with it.

Developers - Bergger's recommended HC-110 dilution B, 9Min @ 68F/20C.

Data Sheet: click

I would like to know if anybody here has a recommended developer they liked better.

On the HC-110 Dil B topic, I made some initial development time tests, and find the 9 min Bergger recommended development time is bulletproof/too long, 7 minutes is still off by a full stop. So, 5 1/2 minutes looks to be my next test point for normal development time.

Thanks for sharing,

 

[jacaquarie]

I have let the Bergger become my go to 4X5 film. For the most part I use the Bergger developer.
http://bergger.com/pmk-liquide-250-ml-a-500-ml-b.html
Recently have tried the Gordon Hutchings PMK from Photographers Formulary, have not use this enough to have the opinion;yet!
Why not try the Berrger film with Bergger's developer?
The few times that were disappointing the problem was me not the film or chemistry.

Hope this helps.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I shot a batch of their 5x7 and while overall the results were satisfactory, I am very disappointed with the QC on the film - a number of my sheets had bad defects in the emulsion at the edge of the sheet. It never was so bad as to intrude into the image area, it was quite distressing to see ragged coatings at the edges of my film.

 

[MartinP]

Might this stuff be a suitable replacement? It was made for the long scale portrait sort of purpose, as was the old 320 TriX variant, if I recall correctly.

 

[kreeger]

I shot a batch of their 5x7 and while overall the results were satisfactory, I am very disappointed with the QC on the film - a number of my sheets had bad defects in the emulsion at the edge of the sheet. It never was so bad as to intrude into the image area, it was quite distressing to see ragged coatings at the edges of my film.

Good to know. Did you address the ragged edge coating problem with Bergger? If so what was the outcome?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Good to know. Did you address the ragged edge coating problem with Bergger? If so what was the outcome?

I have not addressed it with Bergger. When I do, I'll let you know the outcome.

 

[rubbernglue]

I like the results in r09! I have only tried D76 and r09 so far though.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If film edges are frilling, have you eliminated the usual suspects first, like too warm water, even in the wash, or sudden temp changes, or too strong
a stop bath?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If film edges are frilling, have you eliminated the usual suspects first, like too warm water, even in the wash, or sudden temp changes, or too strong
a stop bath?

I used the exact same development regime I use with all my other b/w film - Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 @ 75f, water stop bath, Formulary TF-4 fixer. All film processed in a Jobo Expert drum on a Jobo CPP2 processor. I make sure my pre-wet, water stop, and wash are all at 75F as well - that's the coolest I can get out of my tap in the summertime, so that's what I've standardized on.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bingo! Not all films, even excellent ones, can handle 75F without frilling, especially given the extra agitation of fast rotary dev. You'll probably get either enraged or jealous by what I'm about to state, but I've currently got my office heater on. My darkroom is almost perfect 20C all year long,
just by itself and good insulation in the walls. You should import some of our coastal fog! Can't you at least put some blue ice paks into your tempering bath to get it down?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I always run my B/W at the absolute minimum speed of the Jobo - below the F setting, just before the click to "off". Of course I'm jealous, Drew, that you're in SF - it's one of my favorite cities, and had a job/apartment situation not bombed back in 2000, I would still be there. Conversely, I can remember thinking "Pussies!" when I was there and we had a three day heat wave in excess of 90 degrees, and there were rolling brown-outs throughout the city and we even got two days paid off work. 90 in DC is just a mildly warm summer day. I think I just took a drive down to Half Moon Bay that day and enjoyed the weather. I could put blue ice packs in the tempering bath, or some regular ice in ziploc bags. Or I could just not use Bergger and stick to Ilford FP4+ or Fomapan 200 and do just fine at 75.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, all this is useful to know, cause I might want to test that film myself someday. I've had quality controls issues (pinholes, machinery scratches)
with Foma 200. Bergger 200 was wonderful. FP4 is a reliable standby, but often too slow for the combination of our windy conditions and the small
f-stops that come with 8x10 usage. TMY400 is wonderful but getting annoyingly expensive.

 

[BERGGER]

Good morning everybody, and thank you for the interest you exhibit in our Pancro 400 film.

To answer the question regarding some problems on the edges , i will report you what we experienced.

It seems that not all the films are compatible with Pyrocat developer. We made some trials with the excellent Finol developer from Moersch which contains a mix of Pyrocatechin and Pyrogallol, and what happened was a bit surprising because we observed that problem on the edges. But this does not occur at all with PMK (pyrogallol only).

Of course it does not occur with any other developer than pyrocatechin containing developers.

By the way, I am glad to let you now that this film will be soon available in 135 and 120 , in addition to large format sizes

 

[John Wiegerink]

Good morning everybody, and thank you for the interest you exhibit in our Pancro 400 film.

To answer the question regarding some problems on the edges , i will report you what we experienced.

It seems that not all the films are compatible with Pyrocat developer. We made some trials with the excellent Finol developer from Moersch which contains a mix of Pyrocatechin and Pyrogallol, and what happened was a bit surprising because we observed that problem on the edges. But this does not occur at all with PMK (pyrogallol only).

Of course it does not occur with any other developer than pyrocatechin containing developers.

By the way, I am glad to let you now that this film will be soon available in 135 and 120 , in addition to large format sizes

That's very informative and nice to know. I'd certainly be willing to give the 120 size a go since I'm still a little leery of Kodak and its prices. I like HP5+, but not for everything and If I had to would choose Delta 400 over it, but Bergger 400 might fill the bill for all my 400 ISO needs. I just hope it works with 510-pyro?

 

[kreeger]

Good morning everybody, and thank you for the interest you exhibit in our Pancro 400 film.

To answer the question regarding some problems on the edges , i will report you what we experienced.

It seems that not all the films are compatible with Pyrocat developer. We made some trials with the excellent Finol developer from Moersch which contains a mix of Pyrocatechin and Pyrogallol, and what happened was a bit surprising because we observed that problem on the edges. But this does not occur at all with PMK (pyrogallol only).

Of course it does not occur with any other developer than pyrocatechin containing developers.

By the way, I am glad to let you now that this film will be soon available in 135 and 120 , in addition to large format sizes

Thank you for this information. New roll sizes is great news, I am encouraged by what I have seen so far with Pancro 400 in 4x5.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Might this stuff be a suitable replacement? It was made for the long scale portrait sort of purpose, as was the old 320 TriX variant, if I recall correctly.

Very nice stuff, the Foma Retro (in your link). I've used the 4x5 version. Surprising good gradation. I'd say, just develop it a little bit toward the N+ side and your tonal range will absolutely blossom!

 

[kreeger]

Follow up: I did controlled side-by-side Tri-X Pan 4x5 vs Pancro 400 4x5 testing this week.

Result
Contact sheet shows both films are so close to each other, hard to tell which is which. Funny, the Pancro400 negative looks weaker on the light box, but it's the ligther greenish cast of the exposed areas of the film, TXP is more a neutral color. Bergger Pancro 400 prints the same smooth tonality very well. For one pair, I used yellow filter for one pair of photos to compare how they handled filtration.

My procedure:
Load 2 film holders, each holder has 1 sheet each TXP and Pancro 400.
Setup tripod, mounted camera, metered for ISO 200 with my spot meter on known value - Zone VIII.
Set camera accordingly, exposed 1 sheet, flipped the holder over and exposed the other sheet of the exact same scene with same settings.
I developed all 4 sheets together in my normal time for TXP which is HC-110 Dilution E, 68F, 5:30 seconds.

I will scan the contact sheet to show the results as soon as I can get some scanner time.

 

[rpavich]

Good morning everybody, and thank you for the interest you exhibit in our Pancro 400 film.

By the way, I am glad to let you now that this film will be soon available in 135 and 120 , in addition to large format sizes

Looking forward to both!

 

[SMBooth]

This might be of interest to Bergger user too.
Dead Link Removed

 

[Doc W]

I just developed my first sheet of Pancro 400. I exposed a sheet with a Stouffer test tablet and developed it in a Jobo in my home-brew Perceptol (diluted 1:1) for 12' at 20C. The first thing I noticed was the really high fbf (0.22). Also, I think it was very underexposed or, more likely, underdeveloped. I notice that Bergger gives some really long development times (e.g., 17' in D76 1:1) so I am going to either increase development by about 50% or go with stock solution (no dilution).

Has anyone developed this film in Perceptol or in HC-110?

 

[kreeger]

Doc, I agree that the times shown for developing Pancro 400 4x5 are wayy to long for my tastes. B+F is higher than TXP320, but it prints very well.

I rate the film at 200, and have used HC-110 to develop Pancro 400.

Dilution E, 68F, 5.5 minutes. I pre-soak the film for 1 minute prior to development, and I do gentle agitation and 4-6 sheets of film at a time.

My test data goes back to November 2016. The film seems to have been in non-existant supply in the US since late Winter/early Fall. I plan to buy more when it becomes available.

Hope that helps!

 

[Doc W]

Thanks, Kreeger, this is a big help. I used to use HC-110 in my Jobo but could never do minus development because the developing times were too short - down to 4' which I think is just too short for rotary processing. If you are developing Pancro for only 5.5 minute in dilution E, then it probably won't work in my Jobo. I switched to Perceptol because it gave me longer times but man, this film seems to be a really slooooow developer. As I said, I think I am going to try Perceptol stock.

 

[Doc W]

I finally got through my tests. Sorry to take so long.

I gave up on Perceptol for now and went for the tried and true D76 (again, home brew). I used Ralph Lambrecht's spreadsheet and got a normal development time of 10' 30" and an EI of 125.

N+1 is 13' 45" with an adjusted EI of 160.
N-1 is 8' 15" with an adjusted EI of 100

This is in a Jobo at 50 RPM at 20C with a 2' pre-soak.

I am going to try to get out tomorrow and do some real shooting to see what it looks like.

 

[Doc W]

Here is my first image (taken after a long and arduous journey to the back yard on a very sunny day). Developed for 10' 30" in D76 (home-brew) in a Jobo. A few highlights that appear blown out but there wasn't much there in reality, the sun was so intense. This is a neg scan.

Sorry - I couldn't figure out how to do thumbnail/full size.

 

[chassis]

Looks nice Doc W!