Prints Made from Bergger BPF 200 on the Web?

[Gregory Gomez]

Can anyone point me to examples of prints made from Bergger BPF 200 sheet film on the Web? I would like to see if prints made from Bergger film really look like prints made from the now discontinued Kodak Super-XX. Thanks.

[Kirk Gittings]

I sincerely doubt that you could tell the difference from reproductions at web resolution.

[Gregory Gomez]

Hi Kirk,

I am not too worried about resolution because I will be shooting 8 x 10-inch film and making enlargements no bigger than 16 x 20. Rather, I would like to get a feel for the tonal response of the film under various lighting conditions. I would also like to see how it reacts to pyro developer. Having some familiarity about the behavior of the Bergger film before actually using it would save me a lot of time and energy.

Thanks.

[Oren Grad]

Bergger BPF 200 isn't anything like Super-XX. Read this thread carefully for the story of how that particular myth was invented:

largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/499414.html (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/499414.html)

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I have a couple of images on my site that I made with Bergger that I rate at 100 and are developed in Rodinal at 1+25 for 10 minutes (N+1) in a Jobo. The prints are made on Ilford MG FB Warmtone and toned with Selenium at 1+10 for 3 minutes.

The images are at www.ericbiggerstaff.com and are located in Gallery 2, Room 2 and are titled "Crossed Logs, Mt. Evans" and "Weathered Wood, Mt. Evans" ( I know , the titles are awful!). Not sure if you can tell much about the film but they are what you are looking for, so like the images are not, I hope you can get a little information from them.

Have a great day.

Eric

[Paul_5410]

This example you have requested would have to many variables for a good comparison.

Why? To start with why scan a print for the web? I always scan my negatives or transparencies. Next My 300 mb photoshop files have to be reduced to about 150K +/- for web presentation. Much is lost in reduction and resizing.

Just wanted to point out your research is flawed and you might ask if someone could send you an actual print???

My test box of bergger made me feel it was to grainy for my taste I like HP5 set to 320asa for general b&w these days.
Paul

[Paul_5410]

This is taken with Bergger but you can't tell much because it is for the web. . . Paul

[Mike Chini]

I've always had great success with BPF200 at 100 in D76 straight. Open shadows, nice midtown contrast and soft highlights. I never used any of the older films (Verichrome, Super XX etc.) but I prefer the look of the Bergger films to almost anything else out there, especially under contrasty conditions. Grain doesn't bother me, especially with 4x5 and up. With the 35mm though, you should be careful with your developing techniques and use a solvent developer of some sort.

[Paul_5410]

Mike, thanks for the tip, Since choices are becoming more limited I'll have to give that a try. I use D-76 1:1 most times.

[Gregory Gomez]

Oren,

Thanks for the link. I have printed it out and I plan to read it carefully.

Best regards,

Greg

[Gregory Gomez]

Eric,

Thanks for your web-site link. You have created some very nice images. Thanks for sharing!

After looking at the "Crossed Logs, Mt. Evans" and "Weathered Wood, Mt. Evans" images, I get the impression that Bergger BPF 200 has a soft tonal scale, good highlight details, and good shadow details that make it quite suitable for strong or contrasty lighting situations, conditions that I encounter often in California. The contrast of the film is such that I think it would be very good for brightly lit scenes and harsh lighting. It might also work well in situations requiring N-plus developing too.

Are your Mt. Evans images made from a 4 x 5 camera?

Like Super-XX, I assume the Bergger film will be graining, but in 8 x 10-inch sheet film, the film's inherent grain will not be too objectionable to me.

I would like to hear from anyone using BPF 200 with pyro; that's how I intend to shoot this film.

Thanks again,

Greg

[Gregory Gomez]

Paul,

Thanks for posting your image. I like it. You did a great job. I especially like the lyrical quality of the highlights, and there's plenty of detail in the shadows. The image appears as I might expect Super-XX to be when developed in HC-110. Perhaps Super-XX had slightly more contrast, but the quality of both films seems to be similar enough. What's also very interesting is the difference in light levels between the highlights and shadows. On a slow-speed, fine grain film, I would expect the shadows to drop considerably in value, maybe even one or two stops. Once again, thanks for showing me your work.

Best regards,

Greg

[Gregory Gomez]

Mike,

Your description of Bergger BPF 200 seems to fit my new experience of the images that have been posted here and elsewhere on the web.

I am seriously thinking of using Bergger BPF 200 for still life and landscapes in contrasty light, which there seems to be an abundance of in Central California.

Thanks for your help.

Greg

[Sidney Cammeresi]

I shoot Bergger in my 11x14 and develop in PMK Pyro. Here's a print made with Bergger graded paper, developed in Ilford MG. It looks much better in real life though; this is a scan of a copy slide made from the print. Just imagine it being sharper and having better contrast. :)





It is a very grainy film, yes, if you make enlargements, but if you make contact prints, this isn't an issue.





http://www.cheesecake.org/sac/photo/2004/monticello/images/vines-on-wall-2.jpg

[Mark_3632]

I use it with PyroCat-HD

I have found that it cannot be pushed beyond +1 with this developer. But, under the right lighting the negs can be really nice. I use it with POP which needs a high SBR.