Bergger Pancro 400 Vs Tri-X 320?

braxus · Dec 29, 2019

Im looking at 5x7 film currently. I have never used either of these films, but I have used Tri-X in 400. I have seen some pics of both and I really like what Im seeing with the Bergger film. How would you compare these 2 films for general photography? Especially portraits and landscapes? But its hard to tell the difference between the two of them based on the few pics I've seen of both.

markbau · Dec 29, 2019

I used TXP in 120 years ago and did not like it for anything outdoors, it was a nice studio film though. I’ve just started using Bergger 400 and at the moment all I can say is it did not do well rated at 400, I have a roll in the camera now that I’m rating at 200 and will be doing a zone I speed test. That said I liked what I got at 400, just not the shadows.

Tom Kershaw · Dec 29, 2019

I've not used Tri-X 320, however I would agree that Bergger Pancro 400 is probably not really the best at '400', it also is grainier than HP5+.

etn · Dec 29, 2019

Disclaimer: I only used the films you mention in 35mm and 120, not 5x7. Here are my impressions, based entirely on subjective, non-scientific feelings, on top of personal tastes - so please take them for what they are worth i.e. not much.

My "go-to" film for many years has been TriX 400. I use it for various purposes, travel, landscapes, portraits, etc. and have it processed at a great local lab here in Munich. They do all their B&W processing in ID11.

I too was intrigued by the Bergger Pancro 400 and ordered rolls in both 135 and 120. At first I had them developed at the lab (ID11) and I was not too impressed by the results: negatives where somewhat soft, had not much contrast, and grainy. (I like more contrasty negs.) More recently, as I still had a bunch of Pancro rolls in my fridge, I tried BER49 developer with film shot at around 250-320 ISO following advice seen on this forum. I really love the results. The negs are very contrasty while keeping nice mid ranges. Compared to TriX/ID11, the Pancro/BER49 is somewhat more contrasty. Grain is comparable with both.

My conclusion is that although the difference is visible, it is not that big - both films are really comparable. (You will see a bigger difference with films such as Tmax, Delta or Acros) I expect both will serve you equally well for your purposes.
Looking forward I will probably stick to TriX, mainly to be able to give it to the lab and save on processing time given my non-photo related time constraints.

I have examples of both Pancro and TriX shot under similar conditions - please let me know if you want me to send them to you in pm. They are pics of my kid and I am somewhat reluctant to post them publicly.

Here is an example of Pancro400 in 6x6 format, shot at around 300 (i.e. + 1/2 stop from the meter reading), developed in BER49, no processing/curve adjustment etc applied after scanning:

removedacct1 · Dec 29, 2019

I like Bergger Pancro400, but it is NOT a true 400 ASA film: expose at 160-200 and you’ll like it better. It can display rather coarse grain that appears clumpy in certain developers (I’d avoid Rodinal when using formats smaller than 4x5). It delivers the best tonality in BER49 (same as Atomal 49) and Pyro.
It’s a great film as long as you expose it properly, and that means rating it a lot slower than 400.

138S · Dec 29, 2019

braxus said:
Im looking at 5x7 film currently. I have never used either of these films, but I have used Tri-X in 400. I have seen some pics of both and I really like what Im seeing with the Bergger film. How would you compare these 2 films for general photography? Especially portraits and landscapes? But its hard to tell the difference between the two of them based on the few pics I've seen of both.

TXP vs TX, TXP has a mid toe while TX is long toe, Panchro 400 has a shorter toe, so I'd advice you to first test with Panchro 35mm rolls with bracketings to feel how shadow detail is depicted with your processing and metering style. Sadly you have no TXP rolls for testing, but you may depart from TX experience knowing TXP has a bit shorter toe.

TXP may have some bump in the upper mids in some processings, that are loved for some portraiture gurus. A classic TXP portraiture recipe is EI 80 (80!) and 5 min in HC-110 1:31 (dil B), IIRC.

Pat Erson · Dec 29, 2019

etn said:
I too was intrigued by the Bergger Pancro 400 and ordered rolls in both 135 and 120. At first I had them developed at the lab (ID11) and I was not too impressed by the results : negatives where somewhat soft, had not much contrast (I like more contrasty negs.)

Are you sure the negs were properly processed? Pancro 400 requires a lot more dev time than Tri-x. Like 17 minutes in Id-11/d-76 at 1+1 vs 11 minutes for tri-x.
If your lab processed them among a batch of tri-x negs, under-processing is inevitable.

Tom Kershaw · Dec 29, 2019

Pat Erson said:
Are you sure the negs were properly processed? Pancro 400 requires a lot more dev time than Tri-x. Like 17 minutes in Id-11/d-76 at 1+1 vs 11 minutes for tri-x.
If your lab processed them among a batch of tri-x negs, under-processing is inevitable.

I'm not sure I've seen an explanation yet of the very long times needed for Pancro 400, there must be something in the emulsion or manufacturing of the film.

Lachlan Young · Dec 29, 2019

Despite what some people write, TX 400 is quite obviously a fairly short toe film, TXP 320 and HP5+ are longer toe and Panchro 400 is fairly short toe too - from reading between the lines, Panchro 400 may be the outcome of efforts by Inoviscoat to rebuild the original Agfapan APX 400 to behave somewhat more like TX 400.

braxus · Dec 29, 2019

If Pancro 400 behaves a lot like TX400 in terms of look, I'm all in. So I should set ISO to 200 and get them to develop in ID11 for normal 400 ISO times?

removedacct1 · Dec 29, 2019

Tri-x 320 is approximately $3.60 a sheet, whereas Pancro 400 is about $2.80 a sheet (both prices quoted are for 5x7 size). HP5 plus is $2.40 a sheet.

Pancro 400 is very nice if you use it correctly, but in practice it’s about half the speed if Tri-x 320, and it’s grain is comparatively coarse (which admittedly isn’t going to matter much at 5x7). Considering the cost difference, I see no practical reason to choose Tri-x over Pancro 400, but these days I’ll take HP5 over the other two. HP5 has better grain and renders shadows better, IMO. It’s also the better value for the $$

And that’s a yes: meter/expose at 200 ASA and develop normally as a starting point.

Tom Kershaw · Dec 29, 2019

paulbarden said:
HP5 has better grain and renders shadows better, IMO.

I've suffered lack of shadow detail with Pancro 400, perhaps a film to place shadows on 'Zone 4' and then treating as a '200' speed - might as well use FP4+...

removedacct1 · Dec 29, 2019

Tom Kershaw said:
I've suffered lack of shadow detail with Pancro 400, perhaps a film to place shadows on 'Zone 4' and then treating as a '200' speed - might as well use FP4+...

That was pretty much my conclusion as well. 2-3 years back, Pancro 400 (in 8x10 sheets) was one of the cheapest films out there. Now it’s in the middle/high end of prices, so once I use up my last two boxes, I doubt I’ll buy it again. FP4 is a better choice, as you say.

138S · Dec 29, 2019

braxus said:
If Pancro 400 behaves a lot like TX400 in terms of look, I'm all in. So I should set ISO to 200 and get them to develop in ID11 for normal 400 ISO times?

As an starting point I'd use development times stated in datasheet for nominal 400 speed that should deliver Normal contrast.

Then adjust exposure by bracketing in a 35mm roll, use spot meter and take notes of what underxposure you have in the shadows in each frame of the bracketing. From that you will predict shadow detail for any scene in the future, also do the same for highlights.

Bracketing -> Knowledge -> Perfect Exposures

Tom Kershaw · Dec 29, 2019

I did try Pancro 400 in ID-68 developer at '400' speed which worked but gave the impression of "push" processing. Also high grain from a 6x7cm negative printed onto 9 1/2" x 12" paper.

138S · Dec 29, 2019

Tom Kershaw said:
I did try Pancro 400 in ID-68 developer at '400' speed which worked but gave the impression of "push" processing. Also high grain from a 6x7cm negative printed onto 9 1/2" x 12" paper.

Yes you are right, times in the datasheet are given for γ=0,70 , which is a bit contrasty N+, better shortening development a bit, one or two minutes. IIRC I tested it 9min in Xtol, EI 200.

braxus · Dec 29, 2019

Would you say the Pancro 400 is a lot like their old 200 speed film in terms of speed and grain size?

138S · Dec 29, 2019

braxus said:
Would you say the Pancro 400 is a lot like their old 200 speed film in terms of speed and grain size?

I had not tested the 200, but if they show "ISO" recommendations at "γ=0.70" instead 0.62 this suggests that 400 is fake. A bit like Foma, they want a box with a 400 on it. No problem, shot it 200.

Tom Kershaw · Dec 29, 2019

138S said:
I had not tested the 200, but if they show "ISO" recommendations at "γ=0.70" instead 0.62 this suggests that 400 is fake. A bit like Foma, they want a box with a 400 on it. No problem, shot it 200.

I've not used Fomapan 400 but it sounds as though it isn't any slower than Pancro 400, and may even be slightly faster?

JWMster · Dec 29, 2019

FWIW (not much): I've tried a few rounds with Bergger film. I would like the fact that Bergger is available in 5X7 as a normal stock; however, it seems routinely out-of-stock in the more economical quantities,. Like their Berspeed developer much better on a Jobo processor. Now more focused on FP4+ and Delta400, but may have another go at HP5, too. New copy of Developer Cookbook likens current TRI-X more to Plus-X, but I don't think TRI-X 320 is the same animal.

138S · Dec 29, 2019

Tom Kershaw said:
I've not used Fomapan 400 but it sounds as though it isn't any slower than Pancro 400, and may even be slightly faster?

Foma 400 is specified with an speed increasing developer and higher than normal contrast, so a photographer using a full speed developer (D-76) and wanting normal contrast has to use a lower EI, if not wanting underexposing one stop.

Mick Fagan · Dec 29, 2019

I've been using Pancro 400 since it became available locally to me. At first I fiddled, as you do, then I found the correct exposure and developing regime that worked for me. I don't use Kodak films as they are prohibitively expensive in my country, so I cannot help you there, but compared to HP5+, which I know reasonably well, it is quite comparable and better in some areas.

For shadow detail and highlight detail in landscapes, I have found it to be very good and is my go to film for some situations. You really do need to develop this film for the time suggested by the manufacturer, I did various times and surprise, surprise, their suggested time of 17' is about right. I use D76 1:1 at 20ºC I rate the film at 320 ASA for my personal situation, which suggests that the 400 speed rating given by the manufacturer, is correct.

It also does very pleasing portraits, more so when the subject is wearing white or very light coloured clothing.

Bergger Pancro 400
Shen Hao 4x5" camera
Fujinon 65mm with centre filter
1/30 @ f/16½

Facing directly into the sun with shadows on the bottom of the Stock Race, I used FP4+ and Bergger Pancro 400. The Bergger film won hands down and it was this image that set me off using Bergger Pancro 400 for many other things where speed and shadow detail was paramount. Combine those requirements with the films ability to hold highlight detail, and I have my main high speed film.

This is an old stock race in Welford NP Qld.

On another occasion we stopped for an ice cream at a pub, the only other building in the location was this house opposite the pub.

Shen Hao HZX45-IIA,
Fujinon 250 1/30 at f/22,
Bergger 400, orange filter, 6mm rise.

I used the orange filter to bring the smoke coming out of the chimney, not much there, but it made a difference.

etn · Dec 30, 2019

Pat Erson said:
Are you sure the negs were properly processed? Pancro 400 requires a lot more dev time than Tri-x. Like 17 minutes in Id-11/d-76 at 1+1 vs 11 minutes for tri-x.
If your lab processed them among a batch of tri-x negs, under-processing is inevitable.

I'm pretty sure the lab processed the film correctly. They told me at first that they didn't have the dev times for that film, then called again to say they found the required info. I don't believe they processed them with a batch of Tri-X. Besides, the film doesn't look underprocessed.

I too was somewhat surprized by the long dev times, something like 20 minutes in BER49 1+1. I developed per datasheet times for 400 ISO, although I exposed for ~300 ISO (1/2 stop overexposure).

etn · Dec 30, 2019

braxus said:
If Pancro 400 behaves a lot like TX400 in terms of look, I'm all in. So I should set ISO to 200 and get them to develop in ID11 for normal 400 ISO times?

This is exactly what I did - except for the different developer I used. I also only overexposed by 1/2 stop.

Giving second thoughts to all this, in my previous post I said I didn't like much the Pancro in ID11. However all Pancro+ID11 I did was exposed at 400 ISO. I should try it again at 200-250 ISO with ID11 to see the results.

esearing · Dec 31, 2019

Bergger 400 and Pyrocat is not a good combination no matter what EI you shoot at. There are very few users so finding the developer and times that makes B400 predictable will take some trial and error if you stray from Bergger's recommendations. Their papers are fabulous.

Bergger Pancro 400 Vs Tri-X 320?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency