NEW FILM : BERGGER Pancro 400

[jacaquarie]

Here it is, my efforts with Bergger 400.

 

[TheToadMen]

Here it is, my efforts with Bergger 400.

What's your opinion about this film, now that you've used it?

 

[payral]

Here it is, my efforts with Bergger 400.

What I see on my screen is shadow underexposed is that right ?

 

[jacaquarie]

For what it is worth the scan does not do the print justice.
I will admit that I am not into digital, another long story, or scanning either.
My first exposures were not what I wanted, underexposed, after the first batch of prints I adjusted my exposure, set my light meter at 320 not 400. That seems to be working for me. I did use the Bergger developer, available from the French Bergger web site. I am happy with my negatives. I am happy with the results in my prints. I use Adox MCC 110 paper.
I am comfortable suggesting you try this film. I have a batch in 35mm that I will be developing for a friend to learn if this works for her too.
At the least a new film is something to celebrate.
Then again every time I decide on a film something happens and the film is out of production, Ie Efke was my favorite in the past. I hope Bergger continues making this film.

Good luck, your results may differ.

 

[pentaxuser]

For what it is worth the scan does not do the print justice.
. I use Adox MCC 110 paper.
I am comfortable suggesting you try this film. I have a batch in 35mm that I will be developing for a friend to learn if this works for her too.

So is this a poor scan of the neg or a poor scan of the print on MCC110? I take it that on the print the shadowless areas have detail? If so a pity that you can't configure the scanner to replicate the neg or print.

I have now for first time read this thread from start to finish and have still to discover how this film differs from the likes of D400, HP5+ TMax 400 etc

It looks as if users in the U.K. will have to beat a path to the only stockist I can find which is Linhof, suggesting that it is a niche product and not expected to be a big seller.

At least in 35mm it just about matches Ilford's stuff on price but on a quick check with a couple of retailers it doesn't quite match 35mm TMax 400 in price.

Unless it has some distinct properties from the other 400 films mentioned then it's only edge will be on price.

At £4.80 it has to be way better than the new Foma Retro 320 which is about half the price albeit that is for 17m of bulk roll and not individual cassettes

pentaxuser

 

[miha]

Bergger Panchro 400 is only available in sheets.

 

[Ian Grant]

So is this a poor scan of the neg or a poor scan of the print on MCC110? I take it that on the print the shadowless areas have detail? If so a pity that you can't configure the scanner to replicate the neg or print.

I have now for first time read this thread from start to finish and have still to discover how this film differs from the likes of D400, HP5+ TMax 400 etc

It looks as if users in the U.K. will have to beat a path to the only stockist I can find which is Linhof, suggesting that it is a niche product and not expected to be a big seller.

At least in 35mm it just about matches Ilford's stuff on price but on a quick check with a couple of retailers it doesn't quite match 35mm TMax 400 in price.

Unless it has some distinct properties from the other 400 films mentioned then it's only edge will be on price.

At £4.80 it has to be way better than the new Foma Retro 320 which is about half the price albeit that is for 17m of bulk roll and not individual cassettes

pentaxuser

Yes one of the highest priced retailers in the UK, best avoided unless they!ve changed their policies.

I remember their pricing of Polywarmtomne and Fo trepan. 200 rebadged as Begger, outrageous, I spent 1000 euros with Fotoimpex and saved a fortune. Order came in under 24hrs fromGermany to my UK address.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Here it is, my efforts with Bergger 400.

Unfortunately posting a digital image like this gives an extremely poor impression of the film and does far more harm than good. Sorry for being blunt.

Ian

 

[miha]

BRF 400 PLUS which is an entirely differnet product sells for about the same regardless of the market, on par with TRI-X and HP5

 

[pentaxuser]

Bergger Panchro 400 is only available in sheets.

Quite right, my apologies. I had seen Bergger's comment which I think was dated Feb this year which seemed to indicate that a 35mm version would become available and as I had only just opened the Linhof site 4 months later I had wrongly assumed that the Bergger 35mm film listed as BRF was the same stuff as Pancro 400.

I wonder what distinguishes Bergger BRF from the other 400 films and I am still completely unclear what distinguishes Pancro 400 from other sheet films such as D400 etc.

Anyway best of luck to those who wish to buy it.

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

.
. I have a batch in 35mm that I will be developing for a friend to learn if this works for her too.
Good luck, your results may differ.

Where did you get the batch in 35mm? miha says that it is only made in sheets?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Dr Croubie]

I cannot show any results as I print all of my negatives using an enlarger, I don’t own a scanner. If anyone in Melbourne is able to scan 4x5 negatives and they wish to scan to have a look, then contact me, then either these or different Bergger negatives could be shown.

Just a thought Mick, are you in the Aussie Print Exchange this round? If you want to post a neg through, I can get it from Hoffy, scan it, and get it back to him to post back with all the rest of the pics (or just send a print that doesn't need returning).

 

[munz6869]

I just accidentally bought a box too, Dr. Croubie, so hopefully I get shoot and scan something with it shortly - I might even make a print for the exchange!!

Marc!

 

[jacaquarie]

Yes Ian, you are correct, the poor digital image does not do the film any good. Thank you for being blunt and your observations.
My motivation is someone need to use the film, and perhaps more correctly show some images from a new film.
This is the poor scan of a print, I do not own a scanner and had to borrow time on a scanner.
My own experiences are that any scanner that is usable by normal persons is the comprise of quality and unless you have the calibrated monitor then what anyone sees on their screen may not be accurate.
For me I will continue to use this film I like the look of my final print. And will suggest that this film is worth a try for anyone so inclined.
I find it incredibly awesomeness that any new film is being manufactured in this day and time so thought I would try and support this product with my purchase and use.
Hope this works for everyone.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Food for thought Mick - I'll probably get some when the HP5+ stash you made me buy runs out...

Marc!

Just couldn't resist, neither could I.

Pleased to see you have a box to fiddle with.

I'm not sure if these will work, as the file size may just be a bit on the big size. Someone else scanned these for me.

The book at the back with the grey card page on the left, has a shadow from the slightly lifted of grey card page. Note that the 200 ASA image has a greyer shadow compared to the 400ASA one which has a darker shadow. In other words, the 400 ASA exposure does not have as great a shadow holding compared to the 200 ASA. Which all things being equal, is pretty much fully expected.

Both sheets were exposed under winter sunlight coming through as a cloudy bright light type of day. Time was 1430hr to allow the sun to shine on the back verandah.

Both used a 150 mm lens with an orange filter. I almost always use an orange filter, so I tested this film with my orange filter. Both were using f/22 with one exposure at 1/60 the other at 1/30.

So far so good. I would suggest you copy these images onto your computer and oscillate between both of them quickly to see the shadow differences, which are there in quite a few places.

The cardboard box under the bench top on the right, has a small section of that box missing which shows a graphic ceramic tile, I see a real difference there. I also see a reasonable difference on the Kodak colour chart.

Any way, thoughts would be appreciated, but do remember that these test sheets are for my camera and lens and developing regime. My developing technique for these two sheets, are noted in an earlier post of mine.

Over to you.

Mick.

 

[jacaquarie]

Thank you Mick for being the technical guru, one day I too will use the grey scale and color chart.
For now I am just having fun.
For my eye I am liking the 400 ASA exposure, will try my own work with the orange filter, thanks for the ideas.

Aj

 

[pentaxuser]

Flicking between these two there is no contest for me. The 400 ASA has by far the better look. It's brighter sharper with the right contrast.

Isn't this the film that really isn't 400 according to most users? Your pics, Mick, suggest otherwise to me

pentaxuser

 

[Mick Fagan]

Flicking between these two there is no contest for me. The 400 ASA has by far the better look. It's brighter sharper with the right contrast.

Isn't this the film that really isn't 400 according to most users? Your pics, Mick, suggest otherwise to me

pentaxuser

Don't read too much into supposed sharpness. Both of these sheets of film were scanned with a scanner that uses an auto focus system, which is now gone kaput, in fact it went kaput after doing both of these sheets of film, so there is the possibility of there being an issue with the second auto focus sheet of film which was the 200 ASA sheet.

This is the first time I have ever seen film scanned, interesting and frustrating to say the least, glad to be back in the darkroom to be honest.

I have just come from the darkroom where I checked both sheets of film under a loupe on the light box. Trust me when I say they are both razor sharp and both are of extremely good contrast.

There are differences and those differences are certainly noticeable.

The major difference is in extra shadow detail in the sheet exposed at 200 ASA, which is to be expected. Contrast looks ever so slightly less with the sheet exposed at 200 ASA, which is also expected. I would suggest you concentrate on the shadow detail differences, as well as the slight differences in the colour chart. Doing that is what these images are supposed to be about, the apparent correct focus and better sharpness and/or contrast of one sheet compared to the other, is not in a fair comparison here as the methods used to get these images to you, do not reflect those two parameters as they really are.

This is an unfortunate situation brought about by my eagerness to show something of interest but lacking the ability myself, to bring them to you in a very neutral manner. Very rarely will I suggest it is the equipment that has failed me, generally I have failed the equipment. However, in this instance, the equipment has failed me. It also failed the scanner owner as the scanner now doesn't work.

If you expose film and are able to get shadow detail and retain as much high light detail as possible, then when you are printing you generally can make a very usable if not very nice print which you should be able to make as snappy or as flat looking as you would like it to be. I would be able to do this better with the 200 ASA exposed sheet than I would with the 400 ASA exposed sheet that I have sitting on my light box in the darkroom.

My conclusions are that either exposed sheet will do what I wish to do, but I will probably use an Exposure Index (EI) of 320 ASA for much of my work with the occasional sheet exposed at 250 ASA.

Since doing these test sheets, I have exposed another 4 sheets of this film and developed them. To say I am happy with the results would be a gross understatement, this is a very nice film. Today, shortly after sending this on its way, I am off to expose some more of this film, with development tonight and possibly prints of all, including contacts and enlargements of these two sheets, tomorrow.

I am not an expert, but I have been developing film and making prints for quite some time. Generally I just use techniques requiring no equipment other than a light meter and tight processing parameters. There are a handful of people (probably a lot more) on this forum who have excellent technique and can do tests in a more scientifically controlled manner. Please understand this and don't take my way, as the way.

Mick.

 

[BERGGER]

The famous photographer Jock Sturges made some tests with our Pancro . You can read them here (even if you have no account)

http://www.facebook.com/bergger

Cheers

 

[Peter Schrager]

when is the sheet film coming over the pond ??
best,peter

 

[Uncle Bill]

Well, as you know Forte closed its doors in 2006.

Our wish was to elaborate a modern film, with classic grain.
So Pancro 400 is a two layer emulsion: one fast emulsion layer and one slow emulsion layer.
IN addition to that Pancro 400 has one of the best anti halation layer, and a protective layer. That is 4 layers.
View attachment 103805

Special sheet sizes will be available in the future.

135 and 120 will follow too

Can't wait for the 35 and 120 formats.

 

[removedacct3]

135 and 120 will follow too

Any news about 135 and 120 formats?

 

[removedacct3]

Any news about 135 and 120 formats?

To answer my own question .... they announced that Bergger Pancro 400 will soon be available in 120 and 135. Yes .... something to look forward to.

Dead Link Removed

 

[nicolasllasera]

They are also working to come out with ULF orders soon. I did an interview at Photokina and will share it as soon as I can talking with Bergger.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The main difference that I can see is that this film has extended red sensitivity into the very near IR.