Bergger Pancro 400 with Pyrocat-HD

[Tim V]

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

 

[Disconnekt]

The only developing info I was able to find was this, but I'm sure its for a tank for sheet film, not sure if it will apply to the JOBO CPP-3:

Berger Pancro 400 + Pyro-HD
@400
1+1+100
68°
14:30m
30sec agitation

 

[grimp0teuthis]

I've tried Pancro 400 in Pyrocat MC, with OK but less than perfect results: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/pancro-400-in-pyrocat.156829/

 

[Michael Teresko]

I've tried it once and the negs are pretty flat but usable. I exposed at 200 and developed in 1:1:100 for 13m at 20C with agitation for the first 30 sec and 5sec per minute after. I would up the time at least 20% next time. Here's a shot from the roll
Cotton Street by Michael Teresko, on Flickr
This needed a lot of contrast boosting in PP. It's a scanned 120 neg. I haven't wet printed in decades, but my hunch is it would be tough to print negatives this flat.

 

[Michael Teresko]

Here's another
sculpture garden by Michael Teresko, on Flickr

Shot with an Agfa Super Isolette.

 

[Tim V]

Thanks for your reply. I shot some rolls of 120 a while back and processed in stock d76 with much the same results, but never wet printed. I should try... this time around I’m keen to try it with pyro. I have both Pmk and Pyrocat on hand so might buy a test roll tomorrow, shoot and cut into shorter lengths for processing in each soup and report back.

 

[Tim V]

Quick follow up:

I shot two 8x10" sheets of Bergger today and doubled up with Ilford HP5+. I shot the Bergger at EI200 and the Ilford at EI320, although a small fluctuation in light (I was outdoors) might have equalised things somewhat, although no more than a third of a stop.

I developed in trays with Pyrocat-HD, 1:1:100. Single sheets at a time in 2L of soup. 14mins @20 degrees C. for HP5+ and 18mins @20 degrees C for Bergger. This is the recommended time for HP5+ for Pyrocat, which is also the recommended time for PMK that I have standardised on. Because of that, I used the recommended PMK time for the Bergger. Not scientific, but should be a good start...

First impressions just looking at wet negatives...

It's clear that the HP5+ has more punch; shadow detail and density in the highlights. The Bergger looks to have a high amount of base fog, which I've heard other people mention before and also noticed on the few 120 rolls I shot in the past. I've never compared directly to other film bases, but doing this today really surprised me. It's really pronounced!

The Bergger looks ok, but clearly less detail in the darks and I bet it will print with less contrast... Not sure how I feel about this, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding, i.e. when I make some contact prints tomorrow. I'll report back...

I've got two more sheets left, so will do another side by side comparison and this time develop in PMK.

One note, while the Bergger is well within expiry date it has not been stored refrigerated since I bought it almost 14 months ago. I've used other film stored unrefrigerated a lot longer than this before with perfect results, but I guess it's possible this fact might skew the test a little...

 

[Tim V]

A quick pic of the Pancro and HP5 negs to illustrate base fog / density...

 

[GLS]

A useful thread. I've just picked up 5 rolls of Pancro 400 in 120, but have yet to shoot any. Pyrocat-HD is my standard developer, but looks like I may have to look elsewhere with this film....

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A quick pic of the Pancro and HP5 negs to illustrate base fog / density...

I was also surprised by the amount of base fog in a roll of 120 I shot last Autumn. Still printed quite nicely, though. I stuck it in the gallery.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I had horrible problems with frilling at the edges of the Bergger Pancro 400 5x7 I ran through Pyrocat HD. At the time, I was told that this was a known issue, and when I spoke to Bergger about it, their response was basically, "Sucks to be you". So I haven't used their film again. I'd be sympathetic if they said somewhere that Pyrocat HD was not recommended, but they don't.

 

[Tim V]

Brief update:

After printing the negatives I can’t say I’m keen to try another box... VERY flat and difficult to printer to base density / fog. Again, could be my slightly old box but I don’t think so.

I did process another 2 sheets with 2:2:100 dilution and they might be better overall although base fog was worse, but the HP5 negs were perfect so might not bother printing them.

On a side note, this is my first foray into Pyrocat after being a diehard PMK fan for quite some time. I must say they do print very differently with VC papers. I didn’t realise how much I was utilising and relying on the highlight compression of PNK. The HP5 in Pyrocat had harder highlights which made it more difficult to print as I’m used to. I guess I’m back to school...

Note: I’ve just edited this post as Bergger have replied to my email stating:

The Pancro400 has a slightly higher Dmin than other films on the market, because of its anti-halation layer which is very specific and powerful.

Depending on where you got your box of Pancro from, it is possible it has been X-rayed. That would explain a too high DMin.

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]

Do you have any more sheets of the Pancro 400 left? You could always shoot another and develop it in a non-staining developer you are well familiar with, then see if the base fog is still high. That would tell you if Pyrocat-HD is the culprit or not. I myself have developed various films with it and never had this problem...

 

[Tim V]

No more sheets unfortunately. I’ve checked some old ones I processed in D76 and PMK-they were test sheets for trying to adjust the focus plane of my ground glass that I never printed-and they have a noticeably more dense base than HP5. The green stain pf PMK makes in more obvious, but it doesn’t seem as dense as the brown stain of Pyrocat.

With a clear head today I evaluated the fibre prints made from both the HP5 and Pancro negs, and to my surprise they were very similar with more detail on the extreme ends with Pancro. I worked harder to print the Pancro negs, but didn’t agonise over it, just used intuition. For HP5 it was a straight grade 2 print (I can’t recall time but have it written down), for Pancro about 20 secs grade 2.5 followed by a hit of about 5 seconds grade 5. Pancro was softer details with more subtle mid tones, and as I said slightly more detail on either end of the scale. The overall brightness was pretty matched, but the HP5 negs retrained more of the sharp look of the light, which was harsh mid-morning sun. Overall it might be a wash at contact print sizes, but grain is certainly larger with Pancro. Pancro certainly seems to have a more ‘vintage’ look.

 

[Tim V]

I finally got around to scanning my Pancro test negatives today, one developed in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 at 20 degrees C. for 18mins (an initial guess time which proved to be quite a bit too short, this film needs lots of time in the soup! Bergger later emailed me with correct times and temps, as listed above,) and another at 2:2:100 20 degrees C. for 11.5mins (a lot better density and contrast,) and on both have noticed the exact same banding fault as mentioned in this thread at Large Format Photography Forum:

https://www.largeformatphotography....R-Pancro-400&p=1414835&viewfull=1#post1414835

The banding is faint but easily seen, with parallel lines running down short edge of all of my 8x10” test sheets. All four of them, all developed independently in trays. I'm 100% certain it's not a developing fault as I also developed 20 sheets of HP5+ with the same Pyrocat batch over three days, none of which have any fault whatsoever. I then wondered if it was a scanner problem, but only the Bergger shows the problem within a run where I scanned 20+ negatives. I haven't had time to examine the negatives closely yet, but assume under magnification the banding will be seen; I've never seen this fault in any of the thousands of scans I've done with my V800. Highly textured, detailed areas don't show the fault up, which is perhaps why I haven't noticed it until now.

Could this simply be a coating fault? Doesn’t seem like x-ray damage as looks too consistent and straight, with more abrupt edges to the bands.

This film does claim to have a special base anti-hilation layer that gives a higher than usual (compared to competition) base density. Could it be a problem with this special layer, with coating problem emphasised by pyro stain?

Anyone else seen this on Pancro or any other film?

Scan thumbs attached: One diptych image (both Pancro and both exhibiting the same problem, with a crop from the sky on left frame (contrast increased to make it more immediately noticeable.)

Any ideas?

 

[GLS]

Anyone else seen this on Pancro or any other film?

I've never seen this banding issue with any film I've developed with Pyrocat-HD, or any other developer for that matter.

When I get around to shooting some Pancro 400 in 120 I can try souping one in Pyrocat-HD and see what happens.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That banding is NOT from the developer.

 

[removedacct1]

I've never seen anything of this sort when processing Pancro400 in Pyro PMK, or any other developer. This looks like an artifact introduced by the scanner, honestly.

 

[Tim V]

It's certainly not a processing fault, of that I'm certain. I also thought it might be a scanner fault, but these negatives were scanned in a larger run with a whole lot of other 8x10" sheets (HP5 with PMK and Pyrocat-HD) and nothing else has any hint of these faults. Only the four sheets of Pancro–all the Pancro I shot–has it.

Attached here is another example test, made only to see how the different films render. Top diptych is HP5+ in Pyrocat-HD, 1:1:100 @20 degrees C. for 14 mins. Bottom diptych is Pancro in Pyrocat-HD @20 degrees C. for 18 mins. It's underdeveloped unfortunately as I guessed the Pyrocat-HD time off the PMK times compared to HP5+ (Bergger later supplied correct times.) Regardless, it still displays the fault quite clearly.

Crops have much heightened contrast to emphasise the fault (HP5+ sheets are perfect, save for some of the usual surge marks from tray processing.) Pancro again has the banding.

I've never seen anything of this sort when processing Pancro400 in Pyro PMK, or any other developer. This looks like an artifact introduced by the scanner, honestly.

 

[Tim V]

Update: have checked the negatives under magnification on lightbox and it’s definitely on the film, so NOT a scanning fault.

Batch number of my box is: 1611030889/2/22 exp: 12.2021

 

[GLS]

That sucks. Time to seek compensation from Bergger then, I reckon.

 

[Tim V]

Yeah, big time. I’ve emailed them and they asked for batch number which I’ve now sent them, so I’ll see how they handle it. If they handle it well then I hope to be a continuing happy customer-product must be guaranteed to be up to professional use though-but if not I’ll not buy again.

Their CB Warmtone semi-gloss paper is awesome. No problems there, touch wood... Pancro looks great when it works though, I guess I’ve been very unlucky with a bad box. It’s a bit scary that it seems I’m not the only one though, as per the linked LF Forum thread.

That sucks. Time to seek compensation from Bergger then, I reckon.

 

[Disconnekt]

Yeah, if it was a sigle batch it would be one thing (that hopefully Bergger will fix), but if its an ongoing thing than thats a loss on Bergger. They would come out and say "Our film doesnt work well with XYZ film developer(s)", in this case Pyro, but I'd doubt theyll do that

 

[Tim V]

I have had a series of very good communications with Bergger and am very happy of the outcome. This is the response of a good company and going forward I hope to be a loyal buyer of their film as well as paper.

As I've said before, I couldn't do without their warmtone semi-gloss CB paper. Talking to others who have used Pancro and experimented to find their own methods of using it, they absolutely love it and the results speak for themselves.

Thanks to Bergger!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Typo in thread title fixed.