Pancros 400 and Harvey 777, and why the long development time?

Richard Man · Jan 15, 2018

Since I need some less expensive film to get acquainted with my (new to me) 8x10, and I have been wanting to test out the new Pancros 400, so I bought a pack of 8x10 and a couple rolls of 120.

First I have to find the time for 777. Just for kicks, looking at my spreadsheet of timing, it seems that 777 @ 25 degrees is usually, but not always, needs about 15% more time than D76 (1+1). Main exception is Tri-X where it is totally out of whack. I know this is not a reliable method obtaining developing timing, but at least it's a starting point.

Here's an oddity, Pancros 400 needs very long development time, whether it's D71, or Xtol, or other developers. Any particular reasons why? Is it because it has two layers of "stuff"?

So I started with 20 minutes (on the Jobo), which is about 15% more than the D76 time, and the negs look pretty good. I don't have a densitometer, but clearly it is in the right range, may be a little underdeveloped (I can't say exactly how I can tell in this particular section of the forum). So I souped the other half of the test roll for 22 minutes, and that seem to nail it perfectly.

Take a look. I do like the richness of the film. The first image is @ 20 mins, and the second one is @22 mins.

Lachlan Young · Jan 15, 2018

Richard Man said:
Since I need some less expensive film to get acquainted with my (new to me) 8x10, and I have been wanting to test out the new Pancros 400, so I bought a pack of 8x10 and a couple rolls of 120.

First I have to find the time for 777. Just for kicks, looking at my spreadsheet of timing, it seems that 777 @ 25 degrees is usually, but not always, needs about 15% more time than D76 (1+1). Main exception is Tri-X where it is totally out of whack. I know this is not a reliable method obtaining developing timing, but at least it's a starting point.

Here's an oddity, Pancros 400 needs very long development time, whether it's D71, or Xtol, or other developers. Any particular reasons why? Is it because it has two layers of "stuff"?

So I started with 20 minutes (on the Jobo), which is about 15% more than the D76 time, and the negs look pretty good. I don't have a densitometer, but clearly it is in the right range, may be a little underdeveloped (I can't say exactly how I can tell in this particular section of the forum). So I souped the other half of the test roll for 22 minutes, and that seem to nail it perfectly.

Take a look. I do like the richness of the film. The first image is @ 20 mins, and the second one is @22 mins.

I don't think it's the multilayer coating that causes the long development times - all current 400 speed films are (as far as I know) multilayer coatings of several emulsions. Looking at the datasheet does however reveal that the gamma the manufacturer's time is geared to is 0.7 - very much on the high side! 70% of those times might be closer to a more useful contrast index in D-76 etc. Obviously that'll slightly alter your EI, but that's not a big problem to solve. From what I understand of 777's oddities, it doesn't enjoy underexposure at all. Good luck!

trendland · Jan 15, 2018

IF you are looking to tables of developing times of ALL bw films - I just remember a real good list from a web side (D76).
There (in my list) are many many different films with mostly 3 different E.i.
And years ago I realy wonder about some ISO 400 films with much longer developing (I wouldn't supposed before).
So we may say : this mystique the OP described is also seen with other developers.
And I have to add - I allways make my own experience. Because a list with recomandations to me - is just a recomandation. Sometimes I don't trust such long times - AND there are failures from recomandation.
Sometimes they are true - and I should have better believed before....
But where is the problem here ?
THE OP obviously found the correct time and noticed : IT IS INDEED MUCH LONGER !

with regards

PS : Better to wonder about much longer development but have correct results - than having mainstream times with developers and wonder about Bad
results..

....

trendland · Jan 15, 2018

Richard Man said:
Since I need some less expensive film to get acquainted with my (new to me) 8x10, and I have been wanting to test out the new Pancros 400, so I bought a pack of 8x10 and a couple rolls of 120.

First I have to find the time for 777. Just for kicks, looking at my spreadsheet of timing, it seems that 777 @ 25 degrees is usually, but not always, needs about 15% more time than D76 (1+1). Main exception is Tri-X where it is totally out of whack. I know this is not a reliable method obtaining developing timing, but at least it's a starting point.

Here's an oddity, Pancros 400 needs very long development time, whether it's D71, or Xtol, or other developers. Any particular reasons why? Is it because it has two layers of "stuff"?

So I started with 20 minutes (on the Jobo), which is about 15% more than the D76 time, and the negs look pretty good. I don't have a densitometer, but clearly it is in the right range, may be a little underdeveloped (I can't say exactly how I can tell in this particular section of the forum). So I souped the other half of the test roll for 22 minutes, and that seem to nail it perfectly.

Take a look. I do like the richness of the film. The first image is @ 20 mins, and the second one is @22 mins.

But in addition I have to state : your workfow looks nice to me.
You did it in the same way as me.
In case of doubts - looking to other souces and calculate (think about it yourself).

with regards

PS : IT has to do with the emulsion.
Look to issues where it goes to push a film.
Not every emulsion is optimized to expansive pushing.
Some developers are unable to fullfill such task.
Have you ever had a try with Ilford Perceptol ? (worst push developer I know....

)
So it belonges (just for me ) to the individual characteristic of some emulsions (from the design) that some films
need a bit longer developement times
(mostly with all developers).
Case should be solved

with regards

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 15, 2018

This is where personal taste comes in. If you like the results, then there you go. Personally, I'd give more exposure and less development. The lows are black and the highs too light...again, if it were me!

trendland · Jan 15, 2018

Andrew O'Neill said:
This is where personal taste comes in. If you like the results, then there you go. Personally, I'd give more exposure and less development. The lows are black and the highs too light...again, if it were me!

Andrew you are right. May be it was a little missunderstandable from "workflow is nice " I mentioned.
It was just in regard to find times for correct developement.
This is also my workflow - to have try and error. ........blame!
But the tonals (regarding again) are not optimized - but this could possible done by small corrections via printing.....
To give more exposure and less developement is the best hint ever.
But who gave this statement first - Do you have an idea of ?
I am not sure but it wasn't the guy who has shot this here :

(The Tetons and the Snake river 1942)

It has to be first stated before ?

with regards

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 15, 2018

I don't know, but it predates AA.

trendland · Jan 15, 2018

Andrew O'Neill said:
I don't know, but it predates AA.

Yeah - he also spoke about - but this golden roule should be more older.
It came from the period of photographic
beginning (before 1900).
with greetings

trendland · Jan 15, 2018

Sorry : "golden rule " of cause....

Richard Man · Jan 15, 2018

Thanks for the comments. Yes, I think I will rate it @250 or so, and stick with 20 mins for the next trial. Although I mainly do... "unspeakable things" with my images, so the "taste" can be accommodate that way as well.

Pancros 400 and Harvey 777, and why the long development time?

Richard Man

Attachments

Lachlan Young

trendland

trendland

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

trendland

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

trendland

trendland

Richard Man

Pancros 400 and Harvey 777, and why the long development time?

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency