View Full Version : Bergger Pancro 400 in Pyrocat-HD?
Anyone using this combination? Keen to try and process with Jobo and expert drum to evaluate against HP5+. I want to standardise on one developer, being HD. Wanting to see if Pancro has a character I’ve been missing with HP5.
If people are using this film / dev combo, what are your dilutions and times?
esearing
23-Mar-2019, 04:31
I'm not a fan of this 4x5 film with Pyro HD. The few successful negatives I have had, I processed with minimal agitation very dilute or two bath. I added 20% more time than my usual time for FP4+/HP5 and still got thin negatives. Over developing didn't produce a printable negative. I also had odd staining issues but that may not be the film, and lots of pinholes. I think this film is probably better rated at EI200 or less, but then whats the point of buying a higher speed film? Its definitely not the quality and look of Bergger 200 + Pyrocat HD from 2005.
135 in HC110 came out ok, but since it was mostly a test roll I did not print from it.
For testing Take at least 4 shots of same subject and exposure the run them different times in your processor.
I'd like to know what developer people like with this film. I've had a few boxes of the sheet film in 4x5 and 8x10 and wasn't happy with the results I got with it in Rodinal 1::100 stand either.
Rodinal is known to not be great with Pancro. Popular account has it that Ber49/Atomal 49 and PMK bring out the best in it, but I’m assuming there are other more standard developers that are good, too. I tried it with D76 stock in 120 and didn’t like it too much, but I was scanning and not wet printing.
I don’t mind rating the film slower if the aesthetic of it outweighs that inconvenience. I guess I’m looking for a film that has more character than HP5 and only want to use it with 8x10”, mostly for contact prints and occasional wet print up to 20x24”. I always loved Tri-X but refuse to pay what it now sells for. I have a habit of wanting to support the little company doing good things, like Bergger. I love their warmtone semi-gloss fibre paper, so wonder about their film too. Being in New Zealand though, I need to research and plan a bit before ordering anything else it can end up being an expensive experiment.
Jim Noel
23-Mar-2019, 16:03
I am not sure what you mean by "more character", but my preference for contact printing is FP4+ in Pyrocat HD.
paulbarden
23-Mar-2019, 16:05
Rodinal is the worst choice for Pancro400. I suggest BER49 or PMK. Or Xtol.
See: https://flic.kr/p/SNJ3Q7
Thanks Paul for the test. I didn’t like D76 with my few rolls either, and you’ve found words to describe what I found better than I.
By more character I mean that HP5 renders things pretty straight down the middle. I like it, especially with PMK, but wonder if the Bergger grain structure, shadow rendering and extra claimed highlight headroom-not to mention spectral sensitivity-might result in a different aesthetic I like more. Hard to saw without giving it a go, I guess.
Is the current Bergger film any better than that from a few decades ago? That just would not do expansion development worth anything.
I found this thread with a comment from Bergger regarding Pancro 400 and Pyrocatechol-HD:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/bergger-pancro-400-4x5-testing.139655/
They suggest it is not compatible, but I wonder if anything else has been learnt in the meantime?
PS Paul, I forgot to ask. Have you tried Pancro with Xtol? I'm wondering how you found it, and if for the combinations mentioned you developed per Bergger's recommendations for time etc.
My issue at the moment is that I'm about to transition from tray processing using PMK to Jobo processing in expert drums, so PMK is out and if I want to stay with pyro stain the Pyrocat-HD makes the most sense. I like the idea of making duel purpose negatives that I can use for both silver VC and later UV processes. Anyway, this has me thinking it might be time to experiment to find a new combination I like to supplement or, if it's really to my taste, replace HP5+. As I said above, I've seen examples posted from Pancro I really like and enjoy supporting the small manufacturers with business where I can, but the product has to be both reliable and high quality. Bergger's papers are great, so have been wondering about Pancro.
Rodinal is the worst choice for Pancro400. I suggest BER49 or PMK. Or Xtol.
See: https://flic.kr/p/SNJ3Q7
paulbarden
26-Mar-2019, 07:25
PS Paul, I forgot to ask. Have you tried Pancro with Xtol? I'm wondering how you found it, and if for the combinations mentioned you developed per Bergger's recommendations for time etc.
My issue at the moment is that I'm about to transition from tray processing using PMK to Jobo processing in expert drums, so PMK is out and if I want to stay with pyro stain the Pyrocat-HD makes the most sense. I like the idea of making duel purpose negatives that I can use for both silver VC and later UV processes. Anyway, this has me thinking it might be time to experiment to find a new combination I like to supplement or, if it's really to my taste, replace HP5+. As I said above, I've seen examples posted from Pancro I really like and enjoy supporting the small manufacturers with business where I can, but the product has to be both reliable and high quality. Bergger's papers are great, so have been wondering about Pancro.
Hi Tim.
I have to check to be sure, but I am certain I have processed 120 rolls of Pancro 400 in Xtol and probably done some 8X10 sheets in Xtol as well. If I have only done it occasionally its because I switched from Rodinal early on and went straight to either PMK (in trays) or BER49 (A repackaging of Atomal 49) which I much prefer. I think Xtol would be a perfectly reasonable choice for Pancro 400, but because it seems Xtol restrains highlight development, it may not get you negatives that are good for UV processes. You might want to find something else if you want good negs for Alt UV printing.
If you want to try Pancro 400 for yourself, but don't want to dive straight in to a full box of sheets (now priced at about $125 per 25), then I will gladly send you a few sheets of 8X10 to try for yourself. I stocked up on 8x10 Pancro in 2017 so I have a few boxes of it, and I can certainly spare 4 or 5 sheets for you to try out. Just reimburse me the cost of mailing and we're good. PM me if you're interested.
Thanks Paul, that is a very generous offer! Unfortunately I live in New Zealand so that makes things difficult. I think I might add a few rolls of 120 Pancro to a B&H order, process in PMK and see if I like it. D76 was awful I thought, but people seem to like it with PMK. I’m trying to keep myself in check thinking that I’m trying a new film for no good reason other than curiosity, but I guess that’s how one finds their own look and process.
Can anyone recommend a simple way to determine a dev time with Pyrocat, without resorting to densitometers etc? Was thinking about a clip test kind of thing with 120 film; same exposure repeated 10 times, cut roll into equal lengths and process separately?
paulbarden
27-Mar-2019, 06:41
Can anyone recommend a simple way to determine a dev time with Pyrocat, without resorting to densitometers etc? Was thinking about a clip test kind of thing with 120 film; same exposure repeated 10 times, cut roll into equal lengths and process separately?
That is exactly the way to approach the issue, yes. 12 shots exactly the same and cut the roll up into 3bor 4 pieces, process and adjust.
Thanks.
To determine a good starting point for testing, if Bergger's recommended time for PMK 1:1:100 is 18min and Pyrocat has reportedly shorter development times, should I begin at a time 20% shorter than PMK, eg 14.5mins? Then do next test at 15.5min, followed by 16.5min then if needed 17.5/18min.
I'll have to do these tests with manual inversion and am conscious it will be different, am I correct in thinking that rotary is generally 10% shorter?
Lastly, what's the best way to assess the actual negative information? I'm guessing simply making wet prints (how they'll end up) is best, and aiming to get the scene to print at grade 2-3?
David Schaller
28-Mar-2019, 13:14
I have no experience with the Bergger film, but lots with Pyrocat. I would start with even less time, like 12 (or even 10) minutes, then 14, 16 and maybe 18. I think one minute differences are too close. You can fine tune it later with real pictures. My guess is with hand inversion you’ll end up in the 12-14 minute range, since that’s where I have found tri-x, hp5, and tmy to sit, with roll film hand inverted and sheets in trays (or hand inverted in Jobo). I would look at the Pyrocat times for those films, and expect the Bergger to be nearby. You could then either scan or contact print the strips.
Jim Noel
28-Mar-2019, 15:34
I think David is on the right track, but his time increases ae relatively minor. 10 minutes to 14 minutes is factor of 1.4, (sound familiar?) 14 -16 minutes is a factor of only about 1.15. I use a factor of 1.4 consistently. whether developing film or exposing film or paper. When testing a new film/developer combo I usually begin with 10,then 14, then 14 x 1.4 = 19.6 or 20 min (or seconds if you are talking about exposure) and so forth. if beginning with a shorter time, 5 for example, 5x1.4= 7, etc.It is easy to interpolate from this point.
David Schaller
28-Mar-2019, 16:00
That’s very helpful Jim. I will try that when making test prints!
Thanks for the tips, much appreciated!
Bergger’s Recommended developing times with all developers are very long across the board. E.g. they recommend stock D76 at 20 degrees C at 9min, vs. Ilford’s recommendation for HP5 with stock ID11 at 7:30mins. Kodak recommends 6:45mins for Tri-X in stock D76. Interestingly Bergger recommends 6mins for Pancro in rapid fix, which is also longer than other films. I wonder if it’s a thicker, more silver rich emulation?
Anyway, I’ve received 3 rolls to test so will report back.
I like Pancro 400 when it works but actually I'll say I don't much care for it in XTOL. It feels too slow at its box speed, which is frustrating because I feel like CHS ii, TMX, and HP5 all give me properly dense negatives at box speed of similar subjects. I'm sure I'll end up with a different than box speed if I ran through tests, but I'd bet they are close - Pancro is not.
Pancro seems like it's MUCH slower than 400 if I based it off the thin negatives I get. Granted, I get good (if grainy) results from it. Feels like it has a lot of latitude but I generally like well developed negatives and Pancro 400 just seems thinner than other emulsions. In XTOL. I think perhaps trying BERSPEED might be something to try but then again I tend to prefer films that gives me good results in XTOL so I can have one developer. I use it replenished as well and it just simplifies things.
On the plus, their packaging is absolutely top notch. Which is a silly reason to like a film but, really, they pack their sheet film really well in sturdy, fancy, boxes.
It's not 400 but really digging the newly reintroduced ADOX CHS ii. And to be fair I like the results in Pancro 400 when it works. It's just a bit frustrating to deal with given it just feels soooo far off 400.
Thanks for your reply. Do you rate it at EI200, or slower?
I could cope with 200 effective ISO but slower would be a killer. Like you, I’d rather try CHS100ii or stick to FP4+. The Adox looks great though, and I’m itching to try it and the Pancro but want a good starting point for developing with Pyrocat first.
Thanks.
To determine a good starting point for testing, if Bergger's recommended time for PMK 1:1:100 is 18min and ...
Sorry it’s 1+2+100 and I wouldn’t go shorter. I’ve had no remarkable problems with this combination and it’s rather longer than shorter, or warmer, e.g. 22° C.
BTW, there are some very nice examples of this film in the thread: ‘what did you compose at water’s edge’. So, to state that this film is difficult and that formerly Bergger was better is not justified imo.
Good spotting, I got PMK dilutions mixed up with Pyrocat-HD standard dilution.
Yes, I'm sure it's a quality product. After all, that's why I'm interested in it as an alternative to other current emulsions. My only wish is that there was more information about how it performs in different developers.
Sorry it’s 1+2+100 and I wouldn’t go shorter. I’ve had no remarkable problems with this combination and it’s rather longer than shorter, or warmer, e.g. 22° C.
BTW, there are some very nice examples of this film in the thread: ‘what did you compose at water’s edge’. So, to state that this film is difficult and that formerly Bergger was better is not justified imo.
Thanks for your reply. Do you rate it at EI200, or slower?
I could cope with 200 effective ISO but slower would be a killer. Like you, I’d rather try CHS100ii or stick to FP4+. The Adox looks great though, and I’m itching to try it and the Pancro but want a good starting point for developing with Pyrocat first.
I haven't done proper film tests but yes I tend to get better results at 200. Moreso in large format than the smaller ones. At some point I'd like to do actual film tests but I'm not quite there yet. I will say even though the negatives tend to towards thin, I do get some nice results both in the darkroom and scanning. In the darkroom my last few prints used a #3 contrast filter and looked pretty good.
I feel like Pancro has flat contrast and lots of latitude which maybe can also explain the thinner negatives. That would arguably be a good thing but without film tests I'm just speculating and comparing the results I've gotten. It does have very nice tone - the negatives just don't behave like what I'm used to with every other film :)
Pancro 400 is what caused me to start reading Beyond the Zone System because it's been so tough to nail down. Would be interesting to see it's film curve relative to others - that might explain a lot I'm thinking.
Looking at the curves it seems that it has a longer toe than say HP5+, but also a longer straight line that builds up to a higher optical density. Different developers for each company running the tests, mind you. I've been thinking a lot about this film and wonder if it is indeed best exposed at 200ISO to get that extra shadow detail. I think if doing that it would be a film more suited to wet printing, as the optical density might end up being too high for most scanners save the absolute best to extract the best from it. D-Max is always an issue with CCD scanners like Imacon Flextight / Hasselblad.
Would be interesting to see it's film curve relative to others - that might explain a lot I'm thinking.
189701189702
Hmm that's interesting. It's marketed as I recall for having lots of latitude due to the dual emulsions and a long straight line seems to indicate that. Likewise I've seen it be sort of flat, although when I crank up the contrast (in darkroom or scans) it can be rather lovely. In 35mm though I felt like some scenes did have a sort of punchy look. In 4x5 though it seems kinda flat to me. Might be great for portraits (though I'd prefer less grain in that case). In fact I've seen some samples (I forget where) and the tones were quite lovely.
Since it's on the flatter side, it almost makes me wonder if it's a film that should be pushed / expansion. If it has a long straight line and a large dynamic range, adding more contrast that way could make sense maybe? Just speculating.
I certainly wouldn't pull / contract it since it already seems potentially flat for some of the scenes I've shot it in. Which I suppose is a good thing but it's still been a tough film to wrangle as a result. I wish Bergger had more info for scenarios like these - their documentation is rather sparse compared to say Ilford or Kodak film docs.
Maybe that’s why their recommended development times seem really long? 18mins for PMK mixed 1:2:100 @20 degrees seems overkill compared to any other film I’ve ever used... longer times to push the contrast up, perhaps? Also makes me think again that the claim it’s a 400iso is optimistic. I’ve found a few 8x10” sheets from my first test box. It’s just over one year old and hasn’t been refrigerated but I’ll expose two sheets at ei200, then develop first sheet as recommended in PMK for 400iso, and second sheet in Pyrocat. Wish me luck...
Paul Ron
7-Apr-2019, 05:15
i got a box of berger 400 i tried in TMax developer. the negs were so thin rated at 200 iso i had to use it at 25 iso to render anything printable.
just for giggles i used some dektol. rated at 400, my negatives were now way too dense and reducing the time wasnt a very good fix either. instead im now diluting dektol 1:4 and getting very nice results.
interneg
7-Apr-2019, 18:02
It's marketed as I recall for having lots of latitude due to the dual emulsions
So could any current 400 speed film. In fact, some probably have 3 or more. A few years ago, there was talk of the possibility of taking Agfapan 400's formulation and re-working it into a more Tri-X alike film - the curve shape of the Bergger certainly has some commonality with TX (not TXP) - I wonder if Bergger took up an offer (from Innoviscoat?) to put this potential film in production.
as the optical density might end up being too high for most scanners save the absolute best to extract the best from it. D-Max is always an issue with CCD scanners like Imacon Flextight / Hasselblad.
Not been a real problem in my experience, at least with the later Imacons & Hasselblads. Getting an overly dense negative for them is really very challenging, though it does make more demands of the operator.
Quick follow up:
I shot two 8x10" sheets of Bergger today and doubled up with Ilford HP5+. I shot the Bergger at EI200 and the Ilford at EI320, although a small fluctuation in light (I was outdoors) might have equalised things somewhat, although no more than a third of a stop.
I developed in trays with Pyrocat-HD, 1:1:100. Single sheets at a time in 2L of soup. 14mins @20 degrees C. for HP5+ and 18mins @20 degrees C for Bergger. This is the recommended time for HP5+ for Pyrocat, which is also the recommended time for PMK that I have standardised on. Because of that, I used the recommended PMK time for the Bergger. Not scientific, but should be a good start...
First impressions just looking at wet negatives...
It's clear that the HP5+ has more punch; shadow detail and density in the highlights. The Bergger looks to have a high amount of base fog, which I've heard other people mention before and also noticed on the few 120 rolls I shot in the past. I've never compared directly to other film bases, but doing this today really surprised me. It's really pronounced!
The Bergger looks ok, but clearly less detail in the darks and I bet it will print with less contrast... Not sure how I feel about this, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding, i.e. when I make some contact prints tomorrow. I'll report back...
I've got two more sheets left, so will do another side by side comparison and this time develop in PMK.
One note, while the Bergger is well within expiry date it has not been stored refrigerated since I bought it almost 14 months ago. I've used other film stored unrefrigerated a lot longer than this before with perfect results, but I guess it's possible this fact might skew the test a little...
Quick follow up:
I shot two 8x10" sheets of Bergger today and doubled up with Ilford HP5+. I shot the Bergger at EI200 and the Ilford at EI320, although a small fluctuation in light (I was outdoors) might have equalised things somewhat, although no more than a third of a stop.
I developed in trays with Pyrocat-HD, 1:1:100. Single sheets at a time in 2L of soup. 14mins @20 degrees C. for HP5+ and 18mins @20 degrees C for Bergger. This is the recommended time for HP5+ for Pyrocat, which is also the recommended time for PMK that I have standardised on. Because of that, I used the recommended PMK time for the Bergger. Not scientific, but should be a good start...
First impressions just looking at wet negatives...
It's clear that the HP5+ has more punch; shadow detail and density in the highlights. The Bergger looks to have a high amount of base fog, which I've heard other people mention before and also noticed on the few 120 rolls I shot in the past. I've never compared directly to other film bases, but doing this today really surprised me. It's really pronounced!
The Bergger looks ok, but clearly less detail in the darks and I bet it will print with less contrast... Not sure how I feel about this, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding, i.e. when I make some contact prints tomorrow. I'll report back...
I've got two more sheets left, so will do another side by side comparison and this time develop in PMK.
One note, while the Bergger is well within expiry date it has not been stored refrigerated since I bought it almost 14 months ago. I've used other film stored unrefrigerated a lot longer than this before with perfect results, but I guess it's possible this fact might skew the test a little...
Are you sure it is not underexposed? Maybe rating it lower will help?
More than a decade ago Bergger was a film that would not push at all. It would go a bit and just sit there, building base fog with no real expansion. Did not matter how you exposed it, expansion development was not in the cards.
As you write, you are just starting with it. Let us know after a couple of full boxes how it goes.
It'd be pretty bizarre for a film sold as 400ISO to need to be shot with EI slower than 200 though, don't you think. I was cautious with my exposures as it was. I'll check the negatives out today now that they're dry to see how they print and scan. 400ISO does seem a very ambitious claim though...
Rather than try with PMK, what I might try next time is Pyrocat mixed 2:2:100.
EDIT: I'm not familiar with Bergger's old film or how it processed. I have been suspicious about their development times for Pancro 400 though, which are very long with every developer combination. I've emailed Bergger for the third time to see what they say regarding the fog, but I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply. They've not replied to anything else I've asked them. At the end of the day it's probably easier to just stick to what I know, which is a shame because I love Bergger's paper and was hoping Pancro might be of the same high quality and give me a slightly different look that I'm after. I also like to support the 'little guy'. The other possibility for it might be to try with Ber49 / Atomal 49 developer, but I'm not keen on buying another box and wasting time testing only to find I need to expose at 100ISO to get acceptable shadows. I'd sooner just shoot FP4+ or Adox CHS100II, which would both give vastly finer grain and sharpness.
Showing base density / fog compared to same shot on HP5+...
189865
Brief update:
After printing the negatives I can’t say I’m keen to try another box... VERY flat and difficult to printer to base density / fog. Again, could be my slightly old box but I don’t think so.
I did process another 2 sheets with 2:2:100 dilution and they might be better overall although base fog was worse, but the HP5 negs were perfect so might not bother printing them.
On a side note, this is my first foray into Pyrocat after being a diehard PMK fan for quite some time. I must say they do print very differently with VC papers. I didn’t realise how much I was utilising and relying on the highlight compression of PNK. The HP5 in Pyrocat had harder highlights which made it more difficult to print as I’m used to. I guess I’m back to school...
Note: I’ve just edited this post as Bergger have replied to my email stating:
The Pancro400 has a slightly higher Dmin than other films on the market, because of its anti-halation layer which is very specific and powerful.
Depending on where you got your box of Pancro from, it is possible it has been X-rayed. That would explain a too high DMin.
Based on our experience, the DMin in non staining developer should be around 0,28.
We carried out some experiments with Pyrocat HD
Dilution 1+1+100
Température 24°C
Speed 200 : 17 minutes (contrast 0,65)
Speed 400 : 20 minutes (contrast 0,71)
interneg
10-Apr-2019, 01:48
Speed 200 : 17 minutes (contrast 0,65)
Speed 400 : 20 minutes (contrast 0,71)
That's rather significant. Usually 0.6-0.65 is the usual design range used for determining box speed - and pyrocat (because of the phenidone) is a speed gaining developer to begin with. In D-76 it might be 1/3-2/3 stop slower.
That's the weird thing, as these times seem out of step with the other published developer combinations. Note the above for Pyrocat is spec'd at 24 degrees C., 17min if rated at EI200. That's a full 4min extra that what they state for PMK when shot at box speed. Does this seem out of whack to you?
189941
interneg
10-Apr-2019, 04:58
That's the weird thing, as these times seem out of step with the other published developer combinations. Note the above for Pyrocat is spec'd at 24 degrees C., 17min if rated at EI200. That's a full 4min extra that what they state for PMK when shot at box speed. Does this seem out of whack to you?
189941
Only other thing I can think of is that the emulsion might be poorly compatible with low solvency developers - look at the D-76 stock & 1+1 times - that's a big jump compared with many other 400 speed films. High solvency in the developer actually allows better access to the iodide in the emulsion, which produces better sharpness, thus potentially giving a better mix of sharpness & finer grain. It may also relate to why Ilford don't recommend deeper dilutions of various developers with Delta 3200 - though I also recall something about another aspect being insufficient to develop Delta 3200 to the correct G-bar when diluted 1+1.
Thanks Interneg, that's interesting information. I must admit I'm not used to testing film like this, so all information and advise helps.
At the end of the day, I'm interested in this film because it might provide a viable alternative to other 400ISO options on the market. In terms of 8x10" sheets, there are only a few left!
I suspect however that it simply doesn't perform as intended with Pyrocat. I'm deeply suspicious of these times and temps needed to get to contrast 0,65-0,70. I thought PMK times seemed exceptionally long at 18mins @20 degrees, but the same time at 24 degrees for Pyrocat seems ridiculous! If I do end up buying another box, I'll try with BER49 or Berspeed. The latter is very hard to get hold of here, while the former is easy to source under the Adox brand. Alas, I don't have any more sheets to try. Might go to plan B and try with 120 film...
interneg
10-Apr-2019, 13:29
If I do end up buying another box, I'll try with BER49 or Berspeed. The latter is very hard to get hold of here, while the former is easy to source under the Adox brand.
Nothing I've seen about Berspeed suggests it's anything other than an ID-68/ Microphen variant - plain old D-76/ ID-11 might be a more telling test.
With a clear head today I evaluated the fibre prints made from both the HP5 and Pancro negs, and to my surprise they were very similar with more detail on the extreme ends with Pancro. I worked harder to print the Pancro negs, but didn’t agonise over it, just used intuition. For HP5 it was a straight grade 2 print (I can’t recall time but have it written down), for Pancro about 20 secs grade 2.5 followed by a hit of about 5 seconds grade 5. Pancro was softer details with more subtle mid tones, and as I said slightly more detail on either end of the scale. The overall brightness was pretty matched, but the HP5 negs retrained more of the sharp look of the light, which was harsh mid-morning sun. Overall it might be a wash at contact print sizes, but grain is certainly larger with Pancro. Pancro certainly seems to have a more ‘vintage’ look.
Next i need to scan the negatives and prints.
esearing
15-Apr-2019, 04:26
Quite by accident I shot some Bergger 400 recently. I thought I only had FP4 in my bag. I meter at 100 so its presumably 2 stops over exposed. The scene was petrified tree roots at the beach on a cloudy day, EV ran from 11.9 to 16.9. Normal placement for me would have been zones 3-8. However with the shift of two stops I was at zones 5-10. I decided to process at my normal - 1 for FP4 knowing that B400 requires a bit longer to process so N-2 would probably be under developed. My developer is Pyrocat HD diluted 3:2:475 for 20 minutes with 3 agitation cycles. The resulting negative is dark as expected since most of the tones are light wood,sand, and sky, but I can see separation of tones in the root detail. It looks a bit flat to me with a heavy base fog. I'll have to print to know for sure if it maintained the mid-tone grays. When comparing it to overexposed under processed shots of FP4+ the tone of the negative is much darker and browner.
Jim Noel
15-Apr-2019, 08:28
Looking at the curves it seems that it has a longer toe than say HP5+, but also a longer straight line that builds up to a higher optical density. Different developers for each company running the tests, mind you. I've been thinking a lot about this film and wonder if it is indeed best exposed at 200ISO to get that extra shadow detail. I think if doing that it would be a film more suited to wet printing, as the optical density might end up being too high for most scanners save the absolute best to extract the best from it. D-Max is always an issue with CCD scanners like Imacon Flextight / Hasselblad.
189701189702
I have not tried te fil,. but looking at the curve it definitely is closer to 160-200 than 400 when developed in D-76. The curve also indicates it is not flat.
I'm told Bergger are about to release a 'super fine grain' developer. Film sensitivity will be reduced to 160ISO. Not sure what it's co-branded as, but suspect an Adox product?
I received my replacement box on Pancro 8x10” last week and today got around to exposing two sheets of the same scene and exposure.
Going from Bergger’s recommendation for Pyrocat-HD mixed 1:1:100 at 24 degrees with a time of 17mins, I estimated a with a dilution of 2:2:100 at 21 degrees as being 14mins in the Jobo with constant agitation.
The metered exposure was 4 seconds at 200iso, so going by Bergger’s data sheet I exposed for 8 seconds.
The resultant negative is still drying-man this stuff curls!-and it looks as if it might be a little under cooked. For the other exposure I’ll try a time of 16.5mins. Shadow detail looks ok though, so 200iso seems about right. 160iso might be safer though I suspect, but I’m not doing highly controlled tests.
Base fog / density of this batch looks better than last, so that’s great.
I like the look of this film so will report back, hopefully with some good recommendations to share.
Quick update:
All looks good so far, although haven't shot any clear skies to test flat tone. But I am pretty confident there are no problems with this new batch of Pancro.
Attached is a V800 flatbed scan of an 8x10" negative (800dpi), which was processed with Pyrocat-HD 2:2:100 for 14 mins @21 degrees in a Jobo 3005 expert tank, 40RPM. This is only a shot to test processing time, so not a 'real' image. It was exposed at 200ISO for the shadows using my usual method of making an incident reading in an important shadow area (it works for me!) 5min pre-soak, water stop for 1min and 6min fix. The light reading was 4 seconds at f45, so estimating reciprocity I used HP5+ compensation and exposed for 8 seconds. I've also attached a 100% screen grab taken from Lightroom.
Looking at the negative, there is the expected higher level of base density as compared to HP5+ etc. Before scanning I thought I might need to process the next sheet at 15 or 16 mins, as it looked a bit flat (taking into consideration the base density) but the scan turned out perfect without much need for tweaking. Shadow detail is pretty much on par with what I get with HP5+ rated at 320ISO, Pyrocat-HD 2:2:100 for 10min @21 degrees C.
Grain is quite a bit more visible than HP5+, but I actually like it's character. It's quite vintage looking and adds a bit of charming atmosphere. Maybe the long exposure compensating for reciprocity has pushed the contrast up a bit, I'm not sure. I just know I like what I see and look forward to using the rest of the box, trying to find my perfect development time with experimentation.
192374192375
PS: It seems forum software has compressed the attachments quite a bit, but hopefully you get the idea.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.