Pancro 400 and JCH 400 anyone?

[rayonline_nz]

I see the Pancro is backordered until 31 December for the 135 format, the 120 is available. Would the Pancro and JCH films be more suitable for 135 format do you think? Or maybe compact medium format.

Generally speaking for you guys, do you just stick to the large brand like Kodak and Ilford? I know that 100F bulk rolls with Ilford are quite a bit more economical. Have any of you tried Kosmo films, Arista, Kentmere etc .. are they your less used films?

 

[removedacct1]

I like Pancro 400 in 120 roll and sheet film sizes, but I dislike it a lot in 35mm. Why? Because I find the grain too coarse and clumpy in 35mm, which is far less conspicuous in the larger formats. Bergger Pancro 400 (roll film sizes) looks awful processed in Rodinal: you'll struggle to get good shadow detail and the grain becomes far too harsh (for my tastes).

I don't buy JCH because its unreasonably expensive without providing significant advantages over any other 400 speed film.

In 35mm. I have settled on Ilford films: FP4+, Delta 400 and Delta 100. The delta films especially are wonderful to work with. I buy Delta 400 in 100 foot rolls and spool my own cassettes.

In recent times, I have tried CatLabs X 80 and found it difficult to expose well: you have to rate it at 20 ASA if you expect to get usable shadow information. Also, I had half a box of 4x5 sheets of it go bad 15 months BEFORE its stale date: mottling and specks and all kinds of junk appeared on the film when processed. Never again. Stick with tried and true film stocks.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Kosmo films, Arista,

They are the same and are rebranded Foma

On topic: yes, I stick with the big brands, I mostly shoot Fuji and Ilford.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Pancro 400 is nice in 120 and sheet, but too grainy in 135. Arista and kosmo are foma, along with Holga 400, and lomo lady grey and earl grey. JCH isn’t bad if if you take into account it’s strong S-Curve and expose accordingly so your mid tones are in the middle of the curve, though, all that said, it’s not cheap.

all that said, I really like Foma 100 if doing portraiture. It renders skin tones in the most lovely of ways. Foma 200 is my favorite all round general purpose slower speed emulsion, followed closely by HP5, then Delta 3200.

 

[relistan]

PANCRO 400 is nice in 120. Quite grainy and good tones. I think it's fine in 135 but not my favorite.

Pentax 6x7, SMC Takumar 75mm. PANCRO 400 in HC-110 B

 

[Tom Kershaw]

ILFORD, Kodak, and Fujifilm for me. I've also experimented with Adox HR-50 based on Henning Serger's recommendation and can see this film has potential. Adox appears to be committed to quality control and so I'd not hesitate to use more of their products in the future.

 

[Steve@f8]

I like Pancro 400 in 120 roll and sheet film sizes, but I dislike it a lot in 35mm. Why? Because I find the grain too coarse and clumpy in 35mm, which is far less conspicuous in the larger formats. Bergger Pancro 400 (roll film sizes) looks awful processed in Rodinal: you'll struggle to get good shadow detail and the grain becomes far too harsh (for my tastes).

I don't buy JCH because its unreasonably expensive without providing significant advantages over any other 400 speed film.

In 35mm. I have settled on Ilford films: FP4+, Delta 400 and Delta 100. The delta films especially are wonderful to work with. I buy Delta 400 in 100 foot rolls and spool my own cassettes.

In recent times, I have tried CatLabs X 80 and found it difficult to expose well: you have to rate it at 20 ASA if you expect to get usable shadow information. Also, I had half a box of 4x5 sheets of it go bad 15 months BEFORE its stale date: mottling and specks and all kinds of junk appeared on the film when processed. Never again. Stick with tried and true film stocks.

I became really excited when I read “because I find the grain too course and lumpy...”.
Then I read a review saying Bergger Pancro 400 is fine grain. WTF!

 

[grat]

PANCRO 400 is nice in 120. Quite grainy and good tones. I think it's fine in 135 but not my favorite.

Pentax 6x7, SMC Takumar 75mm. PANCRO 400 in HC-110 B

I've shot one roll of Pancro 400 on 120, but I had some mottling in the shadow areas-- not much, and only on a couple of frames, but I was wondering if anyone else had had this problem?

 

[removedacct1]

I became really excited when I read “because I find the grain too course and lumpy...”.
Then I read a review saying Bergger Pancro 400 is fine grain. WTF!

Well, I think its reasonable for Bergger to say its a "fine grain film" in context of its emulsion type (traditional grain) and its speed. If you intend on comparing it to Tmax or Delta emulsions, it won't compare favorably, grain-wise. Compared to Tri-X, its similar. I'm sure Kodak describes Tri-X as a fine grained film (for its speed class) also.

But I don't use Tri-X in 35mm for the same reason I don't use Pancro 400 in that format: its too coarse and gritty for my tastes.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Normally stick with Ilford. Been sometime since I used Kodak (apart from my diminishing stock of Plus-X). Recently used cheaper films like Arista, Catlab and Ultrafine. Ultrafine Xtreme 100/400 are wonderful but are out of stock now. Catlab is pretty nice so may order again . Arista is, well, a cheap film in all that expression intails. Not particularly a bad film but base feels cheaper and more prone to scratches thatn Ilford. Pretty useful to test cameras though.

Marcelo.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Then I read a review saying Bergger Pancro 400 is fine grain. WTF!

Bergger Pancro 400 has more grain and less speed than ILFORD HP5+. Pancro is also probably best exposed @ 200. You need a "speed boost" developer like Microphen or DD-X to sensibly use the Bergger film at anything approaching 400 ISO. I've not used Pancro 400 in sheet film, but suspect it makes more sense in the context of large format photography.