Bergger Pancro 400 in sheets

[Tim V]

Hi all,

I'm about to buy some 8x10" BW film and thinking of trying some Bergger Pancro 400. Price is good and examples I've seen look promising, although I've come across mixed reviews here and online.

I'm wondering if anyone out there can give some advise on what ISO they shoot it at (is 200 better than 400?) and how they process it?

I guess my dilema is that I usually shoot Tri-X, but Kodak prices for sheet film are now at a level that I feel has priced them out of the market. I used to shoot quite a bit of HP5+ in roll film formats processed in ID11 / D76 and liked that, so I could always go with the tried and tested. I just thought that if the product is good, it might be nice to support the little guy...

Any advise and / or examples appreciated.

Thanks!

T

[paulbarden]

Tim,
I started using Pancro400 in 8x10 size last summer and used it quite a lot. Do I like it? Yes, but with a caveat. While Berger states that it has good exposure latitude, I don’t completely agree. I found that if I missed the exposure (underexposed) by more than a tiny amount, the shadow areas were badly underexposed. I think Bergger is overly optimistic in stating that its nominal speed is 400, because I found I had to expose at 200 (or 160) to get consistently reliable results. I suspect you might get better results at 400ASA if you used Bergger’s own developer, but I’ve not had a chance to try it.
For developer I used either Xtol or Rodinal (RO9 to be exact) and found shadow information was better with Rodinal 1:50 for the suggested 22 minutes. As much as I avoid the oft-mythical Rodinal “stand” process, I used it with Pancro400 a few times and found that it delivered exceptionally beautiful tones, but with even more speed compromise: closer to 120ASA. But for me, under certain conditions, it would be worth the compromise.
If you like Tri-X then you might like Pancro400: it’s far less “neutral” than HP5 (which I find safe/bland) but its going to require more effort on your part to tune your technique to get the best it has to offer. That said, I keep at least three boxes of it on hand at all times and consider it my go-to 400 speed sheet film.
Example here:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4334/36431633823_b6b6bd1b98_b.jpg

[Mrportr8]

My results are similar to Paul Barden. I find my film speed to be around EI 200 in HC110 dil B. I do find I need to give a little more development time than with either HP5 or TXP. Years ago I used Bergger 200 quite a bit and really liked that emulsion. I wish they'd bring it back.

[Tim V]

Thanks for your replies.

I wrote a note last night with some questions, but for some reason they didn't post... Anyway, I'll try again...

Has anyone tried D76 / ID11 with pancro 400? I haven't seen any examples with that on the net to speak of, only X-Tol, Rodinol and the Bergger developers. I'm not married to D76, but have a lot of it on hand that I'd like to use if possible.

Like Paul, I too find HP5 a bit bland. I shoot Tri-X in roll film and like the more gritty, and for want of a better word, classic look of it, but in sheets the Kodak prices are a bit silly in my opinion.

When people are shooting the Pancro 400 at 200 ISO, are they processing per Bergger's recommendations for 400 ISO, or have people worked out their own formulas / recipies after their own testing?

Thanks again!

Tim

[paulbarden]

Thanks for your replies.

I wrote a note last night with some questions, but for some reason they didn't post... Anyway, I'll try again...

Has anyone tried D76 / ID11 with pancro 400? I haven't seen any examples with that on the net to speak of, only X-Tol, Rodinol and the Bergger developers. I'm not married to D76, but have a lot of it on hand that I'd like to use if possible.

Like Paul, I too find HP5 a bit bland. I shoot Tri-X in roll film and like the more gritty, and for want of a better word, classic look of it, but in sheets the Kodak prices are a bit silly in my opinion.

When people are shooting the Pancro 400 at 200 ISO, are they processing per Bergger's recommendations for 400 ISO, or have people worked out their own formulas / recipies after their own testing?

Thanks again!

Tim

Hi Tim.
I quite agree about the absurd price of Tri-X sheets; no way will I pay up to ten dollars a sheet for ANY film. Ridiculous.
I regard HP5 as a very fine film for certain applications, but I have often described it to other people as “noncommittal” in demeanor. It’s a perfectly fine film, but it’s so neutral as to be on the bland side. It has its place in my arsenal, but I find I use it less and less, favoring FP4 (gorgeous film) and Pancro400, though Pancro400 requires more precision in exposure/development to get it exactly right. I wish Bergger published reciprocity information about the film (last I checked, they did not) but I’ve gotten close enough using reciprocity info for HP5.

It seems to me I did do some Pancro400 in D76 last summer, and if I recall correctly I found the results a bit flat, but I can’t say for sure. Ultimately, the choice of developer you decide to use is more about the look you want, not so much about “optimal outcome” (which is subjective anyway). I use Rodinal and Xtol mainly because it’s what I always have available (not to mention the convenience factor Rodinal offers) and because I landed on those two developers after much testing in search of results I liked. I urge you to perform your own tests to find what works for you. There’s no reason to think you can’t get good results using D76 if you experiment with exposure-and-development.

Rating at 200: yes, I rate Pancro400 at 200 and develop at Bergger’s recommended times for “box speed”. That said, I know if I need to push or pull to control shadow/highlight issues, that I can do that with Bergger’s recommended times as a starting point.

I don’t want to lead you towards thinking that just because you like Tri-X that you’re going to like Pancro400, because they aren’t that much alike. But Pancro400 definitely has much more character than HP5. You will have to find out for yourself!

Paul

[Drew Wiley]

HP5 has PLENTY character. These various films are just like my cats. Each has its own personality and wants to be fed and petted in a particular way.

[paulbarden]

HP5 has PLENTY character. These various films are just like my cats. Each has its own personality and wants to be fed and petted in a particular way.

I won't disagree with you on that, but personally I find HP5 to be the most "neutral" looking film I've worked with. Perhaps the fault lies in my technique, and all I need to do is push it around a bit to see what's what.

[Mick Fagan]

D76 1:1 in a Jobo CPE2 at low speed for 17'30" at 20ºC, four sheets maximum to the reel. This was in 2015.

Currently I now develop my sheet film in the SP-445 tank, same time, I do three inversions every 30 seconds.

I rate the film at 320 ASA, which works for me and my system.

Beautiful negatives.

Mick.

[Mick Fagan]

Not sure how this will look as the reduction for web is huge and it is a reasonably busy image.

That said, this was taken looking into the very strong light on a really hot spring day in September. Cloudless sky.

This is 4x5" Bergger film with a 65mm lens and centre filter, I needed to shade the lens from the direct sun, unfortunately I got my fingers into the image right at the top, so a very slight amount of cropping occurred.

I also shot this with Ilford FP4+, which is my standard film. The shadow detail the Bergger film held, compared to the Ilford film is very obvious when the negatives are side by side on a light box. So much so, I didn't even consider doing anything with the Ilford negative.

Stock race and dead tree at sixteen mile bore, Welford NP Qld Australia.

Mick.

[williaty]

This is a film I've been eyeing too, as it's one of the few available in 5x7. Thanks for the info, guys.

[peter schrager]

try FP4 with pyro..you will be very surprised.

[Tim V]

Thanks all for your feedback.

Yes, while I think Hp5 is a good film, it's just in my experience with it it's quite straight down the middle with the developer combinations I've tried. I would like to try something else with a bit more character for 8x10", hense the questions re. Bergger.

From what I've read elsewhere, it seems people either love the stuff or find it flat. Some find the grain objectionable. I think I'll buy a box and try it out; I'll shoot it at 200ISO for a start and soup it in D71 stock and see how it takes me. In general, I like a mid-to-low contrast negative with good density in the shadows, hopefully I can get it to fit the bill. As I said above, I like to support the little guy and look forward to giving it a try.

I'm a newbie for tray development, so it'll be a combination of things to learn in the coming months.

In the meantime, if anyone else has examples they'd like to post with info on processing, I'd love to see them.

Thanks again,

Tim

[Mrportr8]

One final point if I may. When I say I shoot at EI 200 that is not to reflect that the film is slow, but it may be accounted for in the bias of my exposure meter. It is imperative to test film and processing to find your personal film speed based on your process "habits". Nothing is wrong, as long as it works and you achieve the look and performance you are after. Any manufacturers recommendations are a good starting point, your results may vary.

[Drew Wiley]

I wonder who actually makes the film. One common problem with EU films is that the sheets often have extremely sharp corners which easily scratch other sheets in the tray or even cut fingers. Have you noticed anything like that?

[Drew Wiley]

Foma had a dual-emulsion film too, really grainy, to try and bag a long scale. But Bergger 200 did it even better with a single coat emulsion of finer grain (not fine enough for me to like it in 4X5, but a dream film in 8X10). It's very hard to gauge grain structure on web images.

[Michael Kadillak]

The lure of the newcomer being the magic elixir that will amaze is an old tune. Bergger put out a film 10+ years ago that was claimed to be as good as Super XX and that was a truthful statement - as long as you only looked at the middle section of the film exposure/density relationship. What this meant was that as long as you exposed it in daylight under perfect normal conditions whereby the middle section of the film curve was in play all was well. Try to go to a N+ exposure requirement and gamma infinity quickly kicks in because the film density curve tops out - just like HP5.

Completely concur that Kodak film is like drinking expensive whiskey. Why go down that road when there are alternatives that work just as well if not better at a reasonable price point.

FP4+ is the best cost competitive alternative sheet film in the market today without question. Amazingly forgiving and produces amazing results. But the best part of FP4+ is that in a Reduced Agitation Development (RAD) process, the film curve straightens out such that you can go N+3 without hesitation and it produces amazing results.

You are obviously free to go purchase and test this new Bergger film. Let us know what you find out.

[Drew Wiley]

Bergger 200 was fine at plus one. Remarkly long straight line. But beyond that, no, it was not a substitute for Super-XX, or in water bath dev. But hey, it covered 99% of exposures I encountered, way more range than FP4 at four times the real-world speed. And it had finer grain than Super-XX. Wish it was back. FP4 is great, and I just pulled a box of 8X10 out of the freezer. But it's a bit slow for our upcoming Spring winds. I just couldn't stand the idea of thawing my TMY400 and replacing it at such a high price. I'll save it for something special.

[Michael Kadillak]

But hey, it covered 99% of exposures I encountered, way more range than FP4 at four times the real-world speed

If Bergger 200 was such a great film, why was it discontinued in relative short order?

Gut check.

Reduced Agitation Development - FP4+ can be shot at 125 ASA box speed any day of the week and go to N +3. It fundamentally changes the film curve substantively because FP4+ is not supposed to be able to do THAT..

[Keith Fleming]

The reason the original Bergger films were "discontinued" some years ago was that they were made by Forte, and Forte went belly-up and went out of business. The question remains: Who makes the current Bergger film? I ask because the films sold under the Forte brand were actually cheaper than the identical film sold as Bergger. And the Forte films were good.

Keith

[Michael Kadillak]

The reason the original Bergger films were "discontinued" some years ago was that they were made by Forte, and Forte went belly-up and went out of business. The question remains: Who makes the current Bergger film? I ask because the films sold under the Forte brand were actually cheaper than the identical film sold as Bergger. And the Forte films were good.

Keith

I looked at the Forte films at Freestyle a while back and then someone mentioned that the same film was sold as another brand considerably cheaper. I order the cheaper version of the 100 speed film and tried to develop it at least three times in three different developers and quickly concluded it was cheap film and threw the rest of the box in the trash. The time I expect on photography is not best suited for playing around. I did the same thing with a box of 11x14 HP5 trying three sheets and concluding that the narrow limitations on using it was not suite for me. I gave the rest of that box to a friend. That being said in this instance if you cannot identify the manufacturer then I question why one would opt for a black box versus a known commodity like Ilford that is at about the same price point?

[Drew Wiley]

It was originally marketed here under the Lotus brand (the camera co). Then Bergger distributed it. Forte made it, as just noted. They were a major paper manufacturer too. Polygrade V was a home run product. But without former Cold War era govt subsidies, large scale facilities could no longer be maintained. And not profitable enough to start over downsized. So they retired. A different kind of problem than Kodak and the stock market. The only "straight line" film left on the market is Fomapan/Arista/Classic 200. Even less flexible than Bergger 200 compared to the old standard, Super-XX, but when you need 12 clean stops of range, It's got it.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - you're apparently confusing Forte with Foma. Forte/Lotus/Bergger 200 was never discounted. The current Fomapan 200 is sold at a discount under the Arista 200 label, but it's an open question if the coating is properly cured when the discount version is cut from the master roll.

[Tim V]

Wow, lots of good information here!

I'm must confess thought to not quite understand some of the jargon / technical terminology, or at least think I understand some of it but question if I am on the right track...

When people are saying 'straight line film' are they talking about the film maintaining good detail in the toe and shoulder, at either end of the exposure spectrum? I'm assuiming this is a good thing if one wants good, usable detail from pire black to puire white, and is prepared to alter contrast in the printing stage (if at all)?

From the comments here, FP4+ is still considered a great film; something I agree with, having used it a little bit (all be it a long time ago in roll film varieties). Many great practitioners I know now use it instead of Kodak after the price hikes. I'd love to try pyro processing, but confess to know nothing about pyro development. I'm always been a D76 guy, but am keen to try something different for my venture into sheet film. Bergger themselves seem to recommend the PMK developer over all else for Pancro 400. Is it easy and relatively safe for tray developement? If so, I might buy a box of FP4+ and another of Bergger, and see how I get on from there...

I must say, although I've been shooting LF for a long time – 4x5" for over ten years and various view cameras, but only with colour film or high-res digital backs – I'm a total newbie when it comes to 8x10" cameras and sheet film processing. Part of the attraction is trying new things and simply trying to keep things fresh. Is great to hear that there are some many film manufacturers still out there, and such a strong community of people still using the stuff plus sharing knowledge here.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael - you're apparently confusing Forte with Foma. Forte/Lotus/Bergger 200 was never discounted. The current Fomapan 200 is sold at a discount under the Arista 200 label, but it's an open question if the coating is properly cured when the discount version is cut from the master roll.

Yes, I believe you are correct Drew in that I got the two names juxtaposed unintentionally.

But looking at the current Freestyle website the costs appear the same as FP4+ on a per sheet basis. I was a staunch Kodak guy for years and while I firmly believe T Max 400(2) is the best sheet film ever produced, the costs are exorbitant to the current LF consumers and are unjustified in the marketplace. The results I get with it are not 2.5X superior to FP4+ and I do not have to be concerned about quality control and I can get full 125 ASA box speed out of FP4+.

[Mrportr8]

In the end, it's whatever works.

[peter schrager]

Forte also went out of business because the real estate became valuable

[Drew Wiley]

Well, my financial default when March winds arrive will be to shoot 4X5 TMY400 instead of 8X10. And I too consider this to be the best quality most versatile sheet film ever made. But FP4 will work fine in the 8X10 in the meantime. Later in the year, I often enjoy working with the extreme contrasts found in the forest and high mountains. The further the straight line goes into the toe, the better in that case. Bergger 200 was wonderful for that, but TMax films come close. Glaring sparkly ice or glacial polish adjacent to deep deep shadows - now that's a nice day.

[Drew Wiley]

Tim, the term "straight line film" is relative, because most films have a straight line in the middle of the characteristic reproduction curve, but some films have a much longer straight line than others. At the bottom of the curve is the "toe" representing shadow exposure. If this toe itself is long, it means that it is easy to get exposure in the shadows, but that these shadow values won't be crisply differentiated, and might seem muddy or "boring". At the very top of the film curve is the "heel". If the film is overexposed, the highlights will be pushed off above the straight line an onto this curved-over heel, and you'll lose differentiation of the high values - they'll look bleached out. So it's important to match both your specific film and exposure and development technique to the contrast range involved. A film like Pan F can handle only a narrow contrast range because it has only a brief straight line section, but can give lovely results in beach fog etc. TMax films have a very long relatively straight section, but need careful shadow metering. FP4 is more forgiving, but can't dig quite as deep into shadows.

[paulbarden]

Well, my financial default when March winds arrive will be to shoot 4X5 TMY400 instead of 8X10. And I too consider this to be the best quality most versatile sheet film ever made. But FP4 will work fine in the 8X10 in the meantime. Later in the year, I often enjoy working with the extreme contrasts found in the forest and high mountains. The further the straight line goes into the toe, the better in that case. Bergger 200 was wonderful for that, but TMax films come close. Glaring sparkly ice or glacial polish adjacent to deep deep shadows - now that's a nice day.

Drew, what do you think of Delta 100 in 8X10?

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I'm glad that I have 100 sheets of Bergger 200 in 14x17 in my freezer. It does do well in extreme contrast situations in the Redwoods as does my Efke 25. When I empty the freezer I'll go to FP-4.

[Drew Wiley]

Delta 100 is not a film I often use because it has quite a long toe unsuited to the kind of outdoor subjects I typically encounter. It's also a very slick film especially prone to Newton rings in a glass carrier. It is a good choice for high-key subjects where one wants good expansion in the upper tones at expense of the shadows, basically a substitute for the old studio portrait film, Plus-X. The quality is good.

[paulbarden]

Delta 100 is not a film I often use because it has quite a long toe unsuited to the kind of outdoor subjects I typically encounter. It's also a very slick film especially prone to Newton rings in a glass carrier. It is a good choice for high-key subjects where one wants good expansion in the upper tones at expense of the shadows, basically a substitute for the old studio portrait film, Plus-X. The quality is good.

Thanks, I was just curious how you found it compares to the TMX/TMY family of films.

[Michael R]

Paul,

When processed in general purpose developers the Delta 100 characteristic curve is virtually identical to that of TMX. Attached is an example comparison of the two films developed in XTOL. The films behave the same as eachother in D-76, Rodinal, and other general purpose developers.

TMY-2 is somewhat different. It's characteristic curve is essentially the same as TMX/Delta 100 until you get into the upper and extreme highlights, where TMY-2 maintains higher contrast (ie it has a longer straight line region) and shoulders later. The extreme highlights develop to significantly higher densities than TMX/Delta 100. In that respect it behaves more like Acros does (did).

When you get down to it, the current Kodak and Ilford offerings all have long exposure scales and form a relatively homogeneous group, tonality-wise, within a fairly wide exposure range. That includes TMX, TMY-2, Delta 100, FP4+, HP5+, Tri-X 400. Tri-X 320 (TXP) would be the exception, having a long toe and more "upswept" curve shape by design.

I can't comment on Bergger films since I haven't used them.

As far as Newton rings go, the Ilford films (including Delta 100) are noticeably less slick than Kodak's T-Max films, which are quite slick.

Full disclosure, I mostly use T-Max films.

Hope this helps.

174174

[Drew Wiley]

Nonsense. Just plain nonsense. What might seem like a tweak of differerence at the bottom of the logarithmic scale actually amounts to at least two more stops of shadow separation in either TMax versus Delta. I've done very many densitometer plots which look a lot like the factory ones, but that version you're showing is mighty strange. Sorry.

[Tim V]

I've ordered a box of Bergger and some PMK Pyro to try. Might as well throw all routine out the window and go on a wild ride...

[Drew Wiley]

Remember to always use gloves. But PMK can be used with all kinds of film.

[Michael Kadillak]

I've ordered a box of Bergger and some PMK Pyro to try. Might as well throw all routine out the window and go on a wild ride...

If you are tray developing - wear good nitrile gloves and I would also advise wearing a breathing mask during the development process. Let us know how it works out for you.

[Tim V]

Thanks for the tips. I hadn't even considered how much more toxic Pyro is to use and the need for good ventilation. How toxic is it, really? I have an air flow system of sorts in the darkroom at work, but it's a pretty small space.

I'm really looking forward to trying the Bergger film. In an ideal world I'd just use Tri-X, but it's good to try something new and I was never a great fan of HP5+. Will do some tests of the Bergger in Stock D76 as well and try share some results.

[Michael Kadillak]

Thanks for the tips. I hadn't even considered how much more toxic Pyro is to use and the need for good ventilation. How toxic is it, really? I have an air flow system of sorts in the darkroom at work, but it's a pretty small space.

I'm really looking forward to trying the Bergger film. In an ideal world I'd just use Tri-X, but it's good to try something new and I was never a great fan of HP5+. Will do some tests of the Bergger in Stock D76 as well and try share some results.

The greatest toxicity with pyro is mixing it from scratch ( I mix mine outdoors with mask and gloves) but since it sound like you are going to purchase the premix that solves that problem. That being said I still wear a mask when I develop film in pyro as well as use nitrile gloves just to be safe. My reference point with organic compounds is mixing stop bath from 12% acetic acid with and without a mask. Huge difference. I figure it is just good sensible policy to be cautious as it is really not inconvenient at all.

My experience is that pyro needs substantive reduction in effective film speed to accommodate the long toe of the film density curve. I drop my T Max 400 film down to 160 ASA with pyro regularly and that seems to work out. I am sure others will chime in with their experiences to this topic.

[Sal Santamaura]

...As far as Newton rings go, the Ilford films (including Delta 100) are noticeably less slick than Kodak's T-Max films, which are quite slick...TMY-2 sheet film's emulsion side is dull enough that newton's rings aren't a risk in glass carriers. TMX sheet film's emulsion side is so shiny that newton rings are almost impossible to avoid in glass carriers. Delta 100 sheet film's emulsion side's glossiness falls between those two, but is much closer to TMY-2's. I've never managed to get a Newton's ring with Delta 100 sheet film. Extreme high humidity ambient conditions might be sufficient to cause them, however.

[Drew Wiley]

Fog is more common than not here, Sal. Newton ring hell. For that reason I reserve TMX for film to film applications like masking for smaller formats like 120 film, where small grain is vital. Otherwise, I use FP4, which is less slick and more affordable. TMY400 and HP5 never cause problems.

[Drew Wiley]

Every darkroom should have a fume hood or equivalent. I buy PMK in premixed A&B bottles from Formulary for convenience. It lasts a long time prior to mixing per application. It's always used one-shot. Repetitive skin contact is the highest risk - essentially nil with nitrile gloves. Pyro doesn't vaporize until well above 75F, at which point water will be hot enough to ruin your emulsion anyway. I've never had issues, and actually use gloves for every kind of darkroom chemical. Common sense.

[Drew Wiley]

I personally use TMax films at full box speed with PMK because I can count on good shadow separation in the steep toe. This mandates careful shadow metering in open sun. If the toe isn't steep, then the contrast of the film is suspiciously low (under-distributed). But whatever works for you, works. It's Ilford films I have to cut down the ASA with, esp in high contrast situations.

[Drew Wiley]

Damn phone. Under-distributed, not under-distributed. Someone should loan the geeks an actual dictionary.

[Drew Wiley]

Did it again! #@!!!! UNDER-DEVELOPED !!

[Sal Santamaura]

Drew -- here's a hot tip for you. At the lower right of your posts, you should see four "buttons." From right to left they are the "Multi-Quote This Message" icon, "Reply With Quote," "Reply" and, finally, one labeled "Edit Post." If you click on "Edit Post," all those typos will be readily correctable without need for additional, subsequent posts.

You're welcome. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks. There must be a way to disconnect the Geek-spell-check on the phone too, but it's a recent hand-me-down from my wife. Want to get my new Mac workstation up, but have to refinish a hardwood slab first. New gear needs new furniture.

[interneg]

I've never managed to get a Newton's ring with Delta 100 sheet film. Extreme high humidity ambient conditions might be sufficient to cause them, however.

Interesting - I've had a hell of a time trying to get rid of Newton rings on a Kodak pin registered contact print frame with both Delta & HP5+ - to the point that getting an AN glass for it seems the only solution - and room humidity isn't higher than about 55%.

[Drew Wiley]

You can just slip a punched sheet of 3-mil frosted mylar between the glass and film. It has about .08 density to compensate for, though you should double-check your own sheets with a densitometer.

[interneg]

You can just slip a punched sheet of 3-mil frosted mylar between the glass and film. It has about .08 density to compensate for, though you should double-check your own sheets with a densitometer.

I have plenty of that lying around, will give it a go. Cheers!

[Sal Santamaura]

...newton rings are almost impossible to avoid in glass carriers. Delta 100 sheet film's emulsion side's glossiness falls between those two, but is much closer to TMY-2's. I've never managed to get a Newton's ring with Delta 100 sheet film. Extreme high humidity ambient conditions might be sufficient to cause them, however.


Interesting - I've had a hell of a time trying to get rid of Newton rings on a Kodak pin registered contact print frame with both Delta & HP5+ - to the point that getting an AN glass for it seems the only solution - and room humidity isn't higher than about 55%.

Please note that my post referred to film's emulsion side contacting bottom glass in a negative carrier. With contact printing, your rings are coming from the film's base side touching frame glass. Every sheet film I'm aware of does that (except 320TXP, which has a dull base-side retouching coating) and almost demands anti-Newton glass when contact printing. This also applies to a glass negative carrier's top glass. All of my enlarger glass carriers are configured with plain bottom and anti-Newton top glasses.

[Drew Wiley]

Most of my carriers have AN glass BOTH sides. If it is high-quality AN glass there is no degredation in image sharpness whatsoever. None, nada, nil, nix.

[interneg]

Please note that my post referred to film's emulsion side contacting bottom glass in a negative carrier. With contact printing, your rings are coming from the film's base side touching frame glass. Every sheet film I'm aware of does that (except 320TXP, which has a dull base-side retouching coating) and almost demands anti-Newton glass when contact printing. This also applies to a glass negative carrier's top glass. All of my enlarger glass carriers are configured with plain bottom and anti-Newton top glasses.

Of course - this is obvious & logical, and yet I didn't think this one through...

The retouching coating would have been pretty common (nearly universal?) in the era of that frame, so it makes sense!

[Drew Wiley]

I just masked some Bergger 200. It's a luxury. Neither side is terribly smooth.

[Moogie]

D76 1:1 in a Jobo CPE2 at low speed for 17'30" at 20ºC, four sheets maximum to the reel. This was in 2015.

I rate the film at 320 ASA, which works for me and my system.

Beautiful negatives.

Mick.

Hi everyone,

After I started with 4x5 I also turned away from TRI-X and to Pancro 400 soon.
Based upon a clip on youtube I shoot it at 200 iso and develop it with Spur Acurol-N 1+50 for 13 minutes at 20 degrees celsius. 30 seconds constant then every minute 3x. But this is in a big manual processed tank.
I love the results for contrasty scenery.

Now for my first 8x10 I also decided to go for Pancro 400 and shot my first 2 test images today.
As I have currently only D-76 around and also want to use a big rotation (unicolor) drum I am wondering if anyone has experience with that combination yet and could give me some useful tipps, please?

Reading the quoted post I might just go for 13 minutes as well?

Thanks a lot, Miguel

[Moogie]

I gave it a try with 17 minutes as the scenery was only having about 3 stops range and I wanted to to give it some more contrast with longer developing.
As it was my first tryout with 8x10 and the unicolor rotating machine, I am quite satisfied with the results, just looking the negative to a light source.
As I have no scanner here, I will directly of go for some contact printing and cyanotypes in the next days to see what can come out of it.
Excited I am...

[Sal Santamaura]

I recently bought, ran through EI/development testing of, and finally shot with / printed 5x7 Pancro 400. On ADOX MCC 110 (I stocked up before production of that paper was temporarily "paused") it makes beautiful images, at least to my taste. Now I'm ready to purchase more of the film in 8x10.

The sole "review" of 8x10 Pancro 400 at B&H


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1206983-REG/bergger_pc400_81025_pancro_400_black_and.html/reviews

claims extensive quality problems. While B&H sells a lot of this film in 4x5 and 5x7, its stock of 8x10 seems to languish. Question to the community: have you had any quality issues with 8x10 Pancro 400? If so, what were they, and how frequently did you experience them? Thanks in advance for your replies.

[paulbarden]

I recently bought, ran through EI/development testing of, and finally shot with / printed 5x7 Pancro 400. On ADOX MCC 110 (I stocked up before production of that paper was temporarily "paused") it makes beautiful images, at least to my taste. Now I'm ready to purchase more of the film in 8x10.

The sole "review" of 8x10 Pancro 400 at B&H


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1206983-REG/bergger_pc400_81025_pancro_400_black_and.html/reviews

claims extensive quality problems. While B&H sells a lot of this film in 4x5 and 5x7, its stock of 8x10 seems to languish. Question to the community: have you had any quality issues with 8x10 Pancro 400? If so, what were they, and how frequently did you experience them? Thanks in advance for your replies.

I've been using Bergger Pancro 400 for several years now, mostly in 8x10 format, and I have never encountered the flaws that review describes. I have however, encountered an occasional sheet that shows a flaw in the emulsion (uneven streak), but I'm talking about 3 sheets in 150. Zero would be nice, but having found only 3 marked sheets to date is something I can live with. Pancro 400 is quite good, and I really enjoy how it performs when exposed at 125 ASA and processed in PMK Pyro.

Don't let one horrible review discourage you from using it. Its currently one of the best buys in 8x10 film.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

I encountered such flaws, too, definitely. Now I have bought 400 sheets of Ilford HP5+, that is definitely worth to be produced. I enjoy every negative, developed in HC110 H. It is very reliable. Much more reliable than Bergger. I don't carry large format cameras around to see my efforts ruined.

[Bill Poole]

I used and liked Bergger Pancro 400 4x5 for quite a while, until I encountered a box where half the sheets were missing the notch codes. I now use HP5 in HC110 in Dilution E (21ml per liter). But I liked the character of the Bergger film and may well try it again. (In medium format I generally shoot TMAX400, but I agree it is too dear in sheets for me.)