Bergger Pancro 400 with Pyrocat-HD

[KenS]

Dear all,

I've posted this question to another forum but as yet no-one has yet been able to share any direct experience.

I'm wondering if anyone out there is processing Bergger Pancro 400 with Pyrocat-HD? I want to try it in 8x10" sheets and process with a Jobo CPP-3 in an expert tank and would love it if someone could share a time / temp / dilution combo that is working for them.

I've emailed Bergger directly about this several times but they haven't replied. Up until now I've been using only PMK and processing in trays (with HP5 and FP4,) but I've added the Jobo to the darkroom in the last few weeks and want to switch over to using only that. I want to try Bergger as I like the look of the results I've seen online–plus I love their papers and want to support the 'little guy'. I know Bergger recommend and sell PMK, but now also know that PMK is not reliable in rotary machines because of oxidisation issues. I want to continue using a staining developer, so HD seems the best game in town.

Anyway, anyone out there using this combo?

Thanks,

Tim

Tim...

I gave up on PMK a few years ago... after 'discovering' Pyrocat HD.. now the ONLY developer in my darkroom (after is made up 'scratch' the required chemicals). I found 'finer.. and 'sharper/tighter grain with less 'obvious' stain.
But then... I process all my 4x5 and 8x10s in BTZS tubes and will "NEVER go back to 'hangers in tank' or 'tray processing'

I did not really find the 'stain' provided by PMK to be 'worth while'

Ken

 

[grimp0teuthis]

I just found the same banding issue on Pancro 400 in 120, batch no. 1611030890 (the next one after yours). Will write to Bergger about it. Shame, I really like the film in general.

 

[Tim V]

Oh no! Yes, get in contact with them. They replaced my box. And I agree, it’s a lovely film. I’m guessing they know about the fault now and it won’t happen again...

 

[GLS]

So I got around to trying this combination (developed it in 1:1:100 at 24 C for 16 minutes with the minimal agitation regime of Sandy King), and have to generally agree with the comments in post #7. The base fog is clearly higher than with other films, and the shadow detail is poor (even though I rated the film at EI 250). The highlights also seem dull, and the grain is pretty coarse. The best thing I can say is that the midtones are quite nice. Overall I'm not very impressed with this film.

 

[Tim V]

Bergger recommend a longer time at 24 degrees C for HD. Something like 19mins, from memory. A long time!

I’ve tried 21 degrees C mixed 2:2:100 for 14mins in a Jobo expert drum (40RPM) and have got great shadows (rated film at EI200) and much better contrast, but still quite a bit more ‘middy’ than HP5+. Grain is very good, too.

Are you wet printing?

 

[GLS]

Bergger don't publish times for Pyrocat-HD. They have an entry for PMK at 1:2:100 for 18 mins, but that's at 20 C and when the film is rated at 400. There is however an MDC entry for 1:1:100 at 24 C for 17 mins for an EI of 200, which is what I used as a guide.

For reference I develop T-Max 400 (at 400) at 22 C in 1:1:100 for 14 mins, and get a great range of tones.

I digitise my film rather than wet print.

 

[Tim V]

Bergger sent me the times via email. I think I posted earlier in this thread... I’ll check.

 

[Tim V]

From above:

Based on our experience, the DMin in non staining developer should be around 0,28.

We carried out some experiments with Pyrocat HD
Dilution 1+1+100
Température 24°C
Speed 200 : 17 minutes (contrast 0,65)
Speed 400 : 20 minutes (contrast 0,71)

 

[GLS]

From above:

Based on our experience, the DMin in non staining developer should be around 0,28.

We carried out some experiments with Pyrocat HD
Dilution 1+1+100
Température 24°C
Speed 200 : 17 minutes (contrast 0,65)
Speed 400 : 20 minutes (contrast 0,71)

OK thanks for that. It looks like those are the same entries in the MDC.

So, 17 mins at EI 200 vs 16 mins at EI 250. I wouldn't have thought the results from these would be too different, unless their time is for rotary processing? In any case my results are certainly not what I would call good. At least I didn't see any banding as you reported.

If I shoot any more I would probably try Rodinal next.

 

[Tim V]

Certainly not a big difference. Can you post a pic of negative and scan? PM me if you want and I can share some too.

OK thanks for that. It looks like those are the same entries in the MDC.

So, 17 mins at EI 200 vs 16 mins at EI 250. I wouldn't have thought the results from these would be too different, unless their time is for rotary processing? In any case my results are certainly not what I would call good. At least I didn't see any banding as you reported.

If I shoot any more I would probably try Rodinal next.

 

[GLS]

Can you post a pic of negative and scan?

Sure. Here are a couple of resized frames from that roll; certainly not masterpieces by any means, as it was simply intended as a test run. All I have done to these is to set the black and white points and add a touch of sharpening (as they were digitised using RAW). The shot of the bench in particular really shows the poor shadow detail. The fine detail on all the shots of the roll is also what I would call quite mushy for a 400 speed traditional grained film.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Not Pyrocat-HD, but my experience of processing Pancro 400 in ID-68 1+1, is that a '400' speed looks almost to be a "push" and more reliable results / shadow detail and grain may be achieved using an exposure index of 200.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sure. Here are a couple of resized frames from that roll; certainly not masterpieces by any means, as it was simply intended as a test run. All I have done to these is to set the black and white points and add a touch of sharpening (as they were digitised using RAW). The shot of the bench in particular really shows the poor shadow detail. The fine detail on all the shots of the roll is also what I would call quite mushy for a 400 speed traditional grained film.

View attachment 226128

View attachment 226129

Once you have digitally sharpened them, how could we possibly evaluate for shadow detail or mush?

 

[GLS]

Once you have digitally sharpened them, how could we possibly evaluate for shadow detail or mush?

To be clear I wasn't asking for anyone's evaluation; I was simply stating my own.

I only mentioned the mushy fine detail as a matter of completeness, and barring my uploading 100% crops of the frames you will have to take my word on that. The main issue as I saw it was the tonality of this film/developer combination, in particular the lack of shadow detail/density. Post-digitisation sharpening will not have any bearing on that, especially when done very subtly (as I do). Viewing resized versions, as above, renders that point even further moot. I uploaded those files simply for others to see the murky shadows, and to a lesser extent the dull highlights, and for that purpose they should be easily large enough.

 

[Tim V]

Pancro 400 does have quite a pronounced toe then the curve rises sharply, suggesting that after a certain point shadow detail separation is quite good but over exposure is necessary to get detail right down into them.

I"d be interested to know how you go if you try a 2:2:100 dilution, 21 degrees for 14mins (rotary) or add a bit of time for standard inversion if you shoot the film at EI200.

Grain for me is very good, although I'm shooting 8x10". I once shot some 120 Pancro and developed with D76 stock and it was awful, even scanned with my Imacon. People really rate it with Atomal 49 / Ber 49, PMK and the new Ber Superfine developers, but I really want Pyrocat HD to work because it's a lot better with Jobo rotary processing. I may however try PMK with Bergger's Roto additive to see how that goes with my next box.

I think it's a really nice film, but maybe a bit more tricky to fine tune to tastes. I like to support the little guy, and especially love Bergger's Semi-Gloss fibre paper. I couldn't do without it. Anyway, that's why I'm trying Pancro out but think it'll take a few boxes to form a definitive opinion on what i think of it and understand it's quirks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

To be clear I wasn't asking for anyone's evaluation; I was simply stating my own.

I only mentioned the mushy fine detail as a matter of completeness, and barring my uploading 100% crops of the frames you will have to take my word on that. The main issue as I saw it was the tonality of this film/developer combination, in particular the lack of shadow detail/density. Post-digitisation sharpening will not have any bearing on that, especially when done very subtly (as I do). Viewing resized versions, as above, renders that point even further moot. I uploaded those files simply for others to see the murky shadows, and to a lesser extent the dull highlights, and for that purpose they should be easily large enough.

A suggestion: for details in the shadows take a spot meter reading of the darkest details that you want to print and put them, not in Zone 2 or 3, but in Zone 4. That will yield a denser negative with longer print times, but you will still have the shadow details to work with. This works for other films, but I do not know if it will work for Berrger Pancro 400 in Pyrocat HD.

 

[GLS]

Pancro 400 does have quite a pronounced toe then the curve rises sharply, suggesting that after a certain point shadow detail separation is quite good but over exposure is necessary to get detail right down into them.

I"d be interested to know how you go if you try a 2:2:100 dilution, 21 degrees for 14mins (rotary) or add a bit of time for standard inversion if you shoot the film at EI200.

OK I'll bear that in mind. I have another 4 rolls in the fridge, but given these results I doubt I'll be rushing out to try more soon. I don't see that this film offers much beyond what HP5+ or Tri-X can achieve, aside from the fairly distinctive midtones.

A suggestion: for details in the shadows take a spot meter reading of the darkest details that you want to print and put them, not in Zone 2 or 3, but in Zone 4. That will yield a denser negative with longer print times, but you will still have the shadow details to work with

Seems a bit extreme. I get detail on Zone 2 with every other film I've tried Pyrocat-HD with, aside from oddballs like Retro 80S, and IIRC the deep shadows in that bench shot fell on Zone 2 when rating the film at EI 250. Having to shoot an ISO400 film at 50-80 strikes me as overly limiting, and largely defeats the purpose of choosing such a film in the first place...

 

[Tim V]

I processed 5 sheets of Pancro today, all rated at EI250. Shadow detail looks very good on wet negatives, with good strong highlights.

It’s possible that this film reacts differently to highly diluted or quite dilute developers of certain kinds. The is a striking time difference between ID11/D76 stock vs 1:1 for example.

As I said, at least try Pyrocat mixed at 2:2:100 and see how that works. When I tried 1:1:100 I had similar results as you.

One thing I am doing in the Jobo to overcome oxidisation is to split the developer into two batches, changed over half way through. I’ve noticed the second batch comes out a lot lighter in colour than the first...

 

[GLS]

As I said, at least try Pyrocat mixed at 2:2:100 and see how that works. When I tried 1:1:100 I had similar results as you.

OK thanks for the info. Next roll I shoot I'll probably try this, as I like to standardise on Pyrocat-HD as much as possible. Any advice on the % of development time to cut by, or would you keep that the same? If you're doing 14 mins at 21 C for 2:2:100, then using non-rotary + minimal agitation at 24 C for 16 mins is probably not far off correct. I've only ever used 1:1:100 dilution.

I doubt oxidation is much of a factor for me as I don't use rotary processing.

 

[Tim V]

I've never done stand or semi-stand development but, going by some of the Pyrocat documentation, as a rule it would seem you need to add around 50% development time to standard.

If I'm getting 14min with rotary, then I'm assuming that 16mins for normal agitation in inversion tanks would be about right. So 16min + 50% = 24mins. Again, this is coming from someone who has never tried it!

 

[KenS]

Pyrocat HD is now the ONLY film in use in my basement darkroom (currently in need of a bit of a 'tidying' up) but I no longer develop in tanks or trays. after being 'introduce to 'rotary' development when a 'working Biological photographer' it has since become my ONLY developer for my LF film using Pyrocat HD in BTZS tubes.. I will NEVER go back to tray or hangers in tank for developing

Ken

 

[Sirius Glass]

Pyrocat HD is now the ONLY film in use in my basement darkroom (currently in need of a bit of a 'tidying' up) but I no longer develop in tanks or trays. after being 'introduce to 'rotary' development when a 'working Biological photographer' it has since become my ONLY developer for my LF film using Pyrocat HD in BTZS tubes.. I will NEVER go back to tray or hangers in tank for developing

Ken

I too use only rotary processing for color and black & white. I have used XTOL and replenished XTOL for over a decade. I am now figuring out the development times for Pyrocat HD in Glycol.

 

[Tim V]

My recent results with Pancro and Pyrocat have been beautiful. Haven’t shot a broad range of conditions though but love what I am seeing, more so than HP5+ With Pyrocat.

Not sure about headroom in highlights yet, so need to test. I’m used to PMK on VC fibre paper and think in this regard PMK might be better, but not keen to use it in rotary. I could however use PMK with the Roto Additive that Bergger sell. Pancro’s dev times are so long however I’d still be a bit paranoid and split development into two baths.