Making sense of Bergger Pancro 400

[pierods]

I just finished shooting my first roll of Bergger Pancro 400. I am trying to decide on a developer, but I cannot really make sense of the film looking on flickr, most of the photos are heavily edited.
I usually look at:

- base contrast (so for example hp5 tends to have more contrast than panf for example)
- resolution (ortho 25 > delta 3200 for example)
- grain (obvious)
- behaviour in high contrast situations
- behaviour in low contraxt situation
- results with d76
- results with Rodinal

Anybody can shed light?

 

[Paul Howell]

It is an odd film, I tired it in 35mm and found that I could no tame the grain, best results were shot at 200 and developed in MCM 100, 12m at 70 degrees F. D76 was not good at just too gainy. Did not try Rodinal, based on 76 results I would not like the gain in Rodinal. I was going to buy a box in 4X5 then it left the market. There is a Bergger developer for Pancro, maybe should have tired that as well.

 

[MsLing]

Bergger Pancro 400 H+D Curve with Replenished XTOL for 12:30 at 24C in a JOBO

For reference, and if anybody wants to discuss. I've made these exposures as carefully as I could and eliminated as many variables as I realistically could. While it is not scientific, and certainly not up to ISO or probably manufacturer standards, it is as accurate as I can make it with what I...

www.photrio.com

Here's a H-D curve. Pancro 400 is a grainful film, especially 35mm. Therefore, it's not a hi-res film, may equate to TMZ according to my experience. Due to its extremely wide latitude, Pancro can work well with different contrast statuses. I only use Xtol-R so I can't answer D-76 or Rodinal.

The first example shot with Canon 500mm prime and Pancro 400. Enlarged on a 12*10 paper, #5 filter. Image is 10inch wide. Another example is Foma 200, #1.5 filter,same size.

 

[Sanug]

I stay away after having not so good experience.

Heavy grain. Very annoying base fog. Sensitivity is more like ISO 200. It looks like a long time expired film. Low contrast in XT-3, 1+1, 18 Min. Good sharpness and anti halation.

If you look for such heavy grain, you may like Lomography Berlin Kino. Almost the same material, based on Orwo N74 or N75, but no base fog. Berlin Kino looks like the same as Pancro, but fresh.

 

[mtnbkr]

I finally finished up the last of 15 35mm rolls I bought from a member here for a great price a couple years ago. I never exposed it at 200, but it does seem to like more light. I was attracted to it by the Bergger example shots on their webpage, but I could never recreate that. By the end I was exposing it at about 320 and even then giving it a bit more light in many scenes. I only have HC-110 for the developer and found with that I had to be very careful not to overdevelop via too much agitation or too much time. The best results I could get were still moderately grainy and somewhat low contrast. I even tried prewashing as suggested by Bergger.

Now that I'm finished with what I bought, I'll not be buying it again. I get better results with just about every other film I've tried.

Chris

 

[pierods]

It is an odd film, I tired it in 35mm and found that I could no tame the grain, best results were shot at 200 and developed in MCM 100, 12m at 70 degrees F. D76 was not good at just too gainy. Did not try Rodinal, based on 76 results I would not like the gain in Rodinal. I was going to buy a box in 4X5 then it left the market. There is a Bergger developer for Pancro, maybe should have tired that as well.

Bergger Pancro 400 H+D Curve with Replenished XTOL for 12:30 at 24C in a JOBO

For reference, and if anybody wants to discuss. I've made these exposures as carefully as I could and eliminated as many variables as I realistically could. While it is not scientific, and certainly not up to ISO or probably manufacturer standards, it is as accurate as I can make it with what I...

www.photrio.com

Here's a H-D curve. Pancro 400 is a grainful film, especially 35mm. Therefore, it's not a hi-res film, may equate to TMZ according to my experience. Due to its extremely wide latitude, Pancro can work well with different contrast statuses. I only use Xtol-R so I can't answer D-76 or Rodinal.

The first example shot with Canon 500mm prime and Pancro 400. Enlarged on a 12*10 paper, #5 filter. Image is 10inch wide. Another example is Foma 200, #1.5 filter,same size.

I stay away after having not so good experience.

Heavy grain. Very annoying base fog. Sensitivity is more like ISO 200. It looks like a long time expired film. Low contrast in XT-3, 1+1, 18 Min. Good sharpness and anti halation.

If you look for such heavy grain, you may like Lomography Berlin Kino. Almost the same material, based on Orwo N74 or N75, but no base fog. Berlin Kino looks like the same as Pancro, but fresh.

I finally finished up the last of 15 35mm rolls I bought from a member here for a great price a couple years ago. I never exposed it at 200, but it does seem to like more light. I was attracted to it by the Bergger example shots on their webpage, but I could never recreate that. By the end I was exposing it at about 320 and even then giving it a bit more light in many scenes. I only have HC-110 for the developer and found with that I had to be very careful not to overdevelop via too much agitation or too much time. The best results I could get were still moderately grainy and somewhat low contrast. I even tried prewashing as suggested by Bergger.

Now that I'm finished with what I bought, I'll not be buying it again. I get better results with just about every other film I've tried.

Chris

Thanks for the info.

 

[albireo]

I just finished shooting my first roll of Bergger Pancro 400. I am trying to decide on a developer, but I cannot really make sense of the film looking on flickr, most of the photos are heavily edited.
I usually look at:

- base contrast (so for example hp5 tends to have more contrast than panf for example)
- resolution (ortho 25 > delta 3200 for example)
- grain (obvious)
- behaviour in high contrast situations
- behaviour in low contraxt situation
- results with d76
- results with Rodinal

Anybody can shed light?

I cannot shed light because I've never tried it, but I will soon. I just found it for sale again at Nordfoto and purchased 10 rolls of it.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'most of the photos are heavily edited' on Flickr? Most of the photos we see are edited in some way or form, included, and especially, wet printed ones.

I've seen plenty of great examples on Flickr to start getting a broad idea on how this film behaves. Might they be edited? Maybe so, but the point of flickr is to get a broad idea not on how that film behaves, but on how that film might look in the hands of the average practitioner. It shows you what you might get, not what you will get.

Also, there used to be a forum member here, who used it extensively, and got some beautiful results with it. Paul Barden is his name, I think he's still around but uses another nickname. Ask him, he knows what he's talking about.

Anyhow, this is the info I found in the box

I will start from the manufacturer's recommended developers' list and will use BER49 with it.

I am exposing my first roll in high contrast scenes, and I will do 9' stock BER49 at 24 C. EI will be 250.

 

[pierods]

Just developed my first roll. Followed all recommendations (prewash, long fix). It's garbage.

 

[retina_restoration]

Just developed my first roll. Followed all recommendations (prewash, long fix). It's garbage.

In what sense?? You never revealed whether you were using Pancro 400 in 35mm, or 120 or sheet film sizes. That said, I found 35mm Pancro 400 to be quite awful: coarse grain, and the heavy fog base made it difficult to get a decent image from.
The 120 version of Pancro 400 is more usable, simply because of the larger negative size - the coarse grain isn't so much of an issue when dealing with a 6x9cm neg.
The best results I got from 120 format Pancro 400 was when exposing it at 160 ASA and developing it in Pyrocat HD: for example. Sheet film sizes offer much more, of course - but it's been years since Bergger produced any of that.

In the end, I decided it was a fussy film to work with on many levels. The long pre-wash, loooong development times, the horrible base fog and the fact that it's functional speed is actually closer to 160ASA all make it a pain to use. I'll choose Tri-X in 120 format over Pancro 400 any day.

 

[qqphot]

This was the only film I ever tried that I found too grainy even in 4x5. Honestly I did not find many redeeming features, though to be fair I did not continue experimenting with it for long.

 

[albireo]

Just developed my first roll. Followed all recommendations (prewash, long fix). It's garbage.

Now you got me really excited!

This is exactly the same visceral reaction that people had when reporting online on Foma Retropan 320, a tragically misunderstood film which I then used for years, one of the most beautiful films of all time for me. Sadly it doesn't exist anymore AFAIK.

I finished my first roll of Panchro today, can't wait to develop it and optimise my process to make it shine over the following 10-20 rolls.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Now you got me really excited!

This is exactly the same visceral reaction that people had when reporting online on Foma Retropan 320, a tragically misunderstood film which I then used for years, one of the most beautiful films of all time for me. Sadly it doesn't exist anymore AFAIK.

I finished my first roll of Panchro today, can't wait to develop it and optimise my process to make it shine over the following 10-20 rolls.

Now you got me really excited!

This is exactly the same visceral reaction that people had when reporting online on Foma Retropan 320, a tragically misunderstood film which I then used for years, one of the most beautiful films of all time for me. Sadly it doesn't exist anymore AFAIK.

I finished my first roll of Panchro today, can't wait to develop it and optimise my process to make it shine over the following 10-20 rolls.

We can still get some Foma Retropan 320 here, only 4X5 and 5X7 sheet film, but stock is running low.

 

[pierods]

In what sense?? You never revealed whether you were using Pancro 400 in 35mm, or 120 or sheet film sizes. That said, I found 35mm Pancro 400 to be quite awful: coarse grain, and the heavy fog base made it difficult to get a decent image from.
The 120 version of Pancro 400 is more usable, simply because of the larger negative size - the coarse grain isn't so much of an issue when dealing with a 6x9cm neg.
The best results I got from 120 format Pancro 400 was when exposing it at 160 ASA and developing it in Pyrocat HD: for example. Sheet film sizes offer much more, of course - but it's been years since Bergger produced any of that.

In the end, I decided it was a fussy film to work with on many levels. The long pre-wash, loooong development times, the horrible base fog and the fact that it's functional speed is actually closer to 160ASA all make it a pain to use. I'll choose Tri-X in 120 format over Pancro 400 any day.

It was 35.
I suppose I could buy another roll, shoot it at 160 iso and use d-76 (I used Rodinal).
But what's the point of selling a fake 400iso film? Also, the grain was not so much the problem, but the fact that the film is really unsharp. All of that while trying to look like a "serious" film. Basically Bergger (if it even exists, I really think it's very expired film stock) is guaranteeing me that I will have unusable results when following their instructions - wtf?
Had it been a lomography called "super retro grain", sold with perceptol or something like that, ok, you know what to expect.

 

[albireo]

the fact that the film is really unsharp.

Bergger Pancro400 / Aleksey Myakishev by BERGGER Official, on Flickr

Bergger Pancro400 by BERGGER Official, on Flickr

Bretagne: small village - church by Chrisdavisphoto, on Flickr

bridges and shadowplay by Andreas, on Flickr

Abandoned Poland on film # 13 by Jonny Kristiansen, on Flickr

Christianus Sextus with Bergger Pancro by Jonny Kristiansen, on Flickr

Looks pretty sharp to me. Are you sure the problem is not your technique?

Also, there's zero evidence I can find anywhere that it is a 160EI film, but there is some densitometric evidence it is, in some workflows (which doesn't mean all), a 320 EI film. For instance see here

Bergger Pancro400 H+D Curve with Replenished XTOL for 12:30 at 24C in a JOBO

For reference, and if anybody wants to discuss. I'm including these times for Pancro400 because Kodak does not list times for Pancro400 in their J-109. I've made these exposures as carefully as I could and eliminated as many variables as I...

www.photrio.com

How many rolls have you exposed and developed to reach your conclusion?

 

[relistan]

I find it not to my liking in 35mm. However in 120 it’s a different story and I have a few shots I quite like. This is HC-110 B

 

[Sanug]

For me, sharpness was no issue (in 135). Grain and base fog is.

In 120 it is quite okay.

Flexaret VI, Bergger Pancro 400
Adox XT-3, 1+0, 12 Min.
Silver Gelatine Print

 

[pierods]

Look at these photos. Given that

- I have at the very least 5 alternatives at a lesser cost, that do not require annoying calculations during shooting, annoying procedures during development and all look better than the above photos
- I use the 35mm format to determine the best choice of developer, times etc for 120, but I can't with this film
- it has never ever occurred to me that a film becomes totally unusable in Rodinal

what am I to do?

 

[pentaxuser]

Look at these photos. Given that

- I have at the very least 5 alternatives at a lesser cost, that do not require annoying calculations during shooting, annoying procedures during development and all look better than the above photos
- I use the 35mm format to determine the best choice of developer, times etc for 120, but I can't with this film
- it has never ever occurred to me that a film becomes totally unusable in Rodinal

what am I to do?

Based on your experience and most of the other replies it seems obvious to me what the answer is, namely don't bother with it

Not trying to be abrupt but the answer lends itself to be a short one

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

Look at these photos. Given that

- I have at the very least 5 alternatives at a lesser cost, that do not require annoying calculations during shooting, annoying procedures during development and all look better than the above photos
- I use the 35mm format to determine the best choice of developer, times etc for 120, but I can't with this film
- it has never ever occurred to me that a film becomes totally unusable in Rodinal

what am I to do?

When I first started using Pancro 400, Rodinal was one of the developers I chose, and it was clearly not the best choice. It gave the worst results in terms of film speed - you have to rate it at about 160 ASA to preserve usable shadow information. It didn't give the nicest tonality either, being inclined to murder the brightest values.

It's a perfectly decent film as long as you're willing to give it plenty of exposure, but only in 120 and sheet film formats - the 35mm version just doesn't deliver with such small negs.