Bergger pancro 400 in bergspeed: Unseen base fog

[phdgent]

I just tested a new to me B&W film, the Bergger Pancro 400 in 120 roll, twice actually...
The developer was the Bergger Berspeed and I used it as prescribed: prewash, dilute 1+1, 8 min @ 24°C with the advised agitation and finish as usual.


The 5 litre stock dilution was mixed two days before, in demineralised water, while carefully respecting the imposed steps, left it stand in amber bottles so it could 'acclimatise' a bit, anyway it should keep for 4 months.


The first test came out wel developed but showing a very dense and 'ugly' base fog.
As I am far of being perfect and commit mistakes regularly, I tested again, carefully paying attention.
Alas, the same 'ugly' and too dense base fog came out.
I held the lead-in of the film against a 0.3 ND filter, I use these in the enlarger to lengthen the exposure times so to have the time for carefully dodging and burning (*), and the film's base looked even a tad denser.


The film isn't expired, and was bought a week before and kept (by me) at room temperature.


In the 48 years of darkroom practice, I have never seen this dense (and ugly) fog on a film exposed and processed at 'box speed', unless I made a mistake...


I haven't printed nor scanned the negatives as these aren't fully dry yet.


Does anybody has an enlightening thought?


(*) printing at F 8 with a Rodagon is sacred to me.

[paulbarden]

Pancro 400 has a much greater fog base than most any other modern film. Doesn't matter what you develop it in, its got serious base density. You may find you get less base+fog if you expose at 160 ASA and shorten the development time accordingly. I find it must be overexposed* by at least one stop to record usable shadow information.

Adding a couple drops of 1% benzotriazole to the developer will suppress fog buildup a bit. See my notes on this image (https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbarden/51366481144/in/photolist-2mgaaNq-2mg5tjr-2mg5Dgf)

*over box speed.

[Michael R]

Interesting. High fog density could explain two characteristics I’ve seen people attribute to this film. Namely, (1) coarse granularity, (2) low EI.

[martiansea]

I went back and looked at my Pancro 400 negatives and see that it has a consistently dense base as Paul mentioned, and this is regardless of how much I exposed it and what developer I used.
Though I will say that I got surprisingly good results metering it at ISO1600 and push processing with extended time in Microphen. Shadow details are there in an attractive "gritty" way that is different than the objectionable grain I was often getting when metering at ISO400. But I agree that metering at 200 or lower looks generally the best with this film.

[martiansea]

That looks great, Paul. Shots like that are what got me interested in Pancro 400 in the first place, and my initial failures were a big disappointment (120 format with Rodinal...OH DEAR!!! LOL). I've gotten smooth results finally since I've shot thru a box of 4x5 and found some good developers for it (D-23 definitely being one of them, I like it in PMK and Perceptol, as well, in addition to the interesting punchy results with Microphen).
I'm getting ready to shoot some Pancro 400 in 5x7 format today. I'm going to try metering at around 160 and developing with Divided D-23 as you've suggesting.

[tuco]

Do you know the density of the base + fog? And does the the film base look like Delta 3200 or Rollei RPX 100? I think those films are pre-flashed giving them a B + F density of around 0.35 which is a high value given a film like RPX 25 or Retro 80S have a B + F density around 0.05 or less with the developers I've use with them.

[interneg]

Delta 3200 or Rollei RPX 100? I think those films are pre-flashed

They aren't. Some modern emulsions may have higher base fog for various very arcane chemical reasons (important interactions between solvent developers and the emulsions to significantly enhance sharpness & modulate highlight density are part of this) - because it's easy enough to print through a bit of base fog.

[Neal Chaves]

Sounds a lot like the old Kodak Royal X Pan film. Kodak rated it at 1200 in 4X5. I used some in the 80s and after testing rated at 1200 processed in Diafine. Base fog was very high but it printed well.

[sperdynamite]

It's a pretty weird film. The amount of grain for a modern film is kind of bonkers. I do use it occasionally, sometimes I like the extreme grain in 35mm. Just shoot first and ask questions later IMHO. This is not a film for geeking out.

All the 120 rolls I've seen and shot have backing paper mottling, so be aware.

[martiansea]

It's a pretty weird film. The amount of grain for a modern film is kind of bonkers.

I almost threw up the first time I developed a roll of 120 with Rodinal. Couldn't believe how ridiculous the grain was. Only thing worse that I've seen (so far) is the Foma Retropan 320

[paulbarden]

I almost threw up the first time I developed a roll of 120 with Rodinal. Couldn't believe how ridiculous the grain was. Only thing worse that I've seen (so far) is the Foma Retropan 320

Yep, it’s a terrible combo. Friends don’t let friends develop Pancro 400 in Rodinal!

[interneg]

There's a good chance it's very sensitive to the level of solvency of the developer used (i.e. too low a level of solvency is a bad idea) - this is not an unknown phenomenon.

[Mark Sampson]

It's worth mentioning that Rodinal was never meant to be used with fast films. In fact when it was introduced (in the 1890s?) there was no such thing as "fast film" and enlarging was a rarity. So it would be unfair to blame the developer when you've asked it to do something it was never designed to do.
That said, my experiments with Rodinal were decades ago and unsuccessful. And I have no experience with the Bergger film(s) mentioned here. But they might be worth a try, perhaps I can find a suitable use for them. It IS very good to have choices in these matters!

[martiansea]

I don't have anything against Rodinal. With the right film/subject, it works very well. I used it very often for a couple years many different films and got a good sense of what it's good for. I think the reason why we keep mentioning Rodinal in reference to Pancro 400 is that Bergger lists development times for it right there on the box! That's the only reason I thought it would be good to use with my first roll of Pancro 400, and the horrible results (following the dilution/times on their box!) gave me a really bad first impression. If anything, the box should say "Please do not develop this with Rodinal."
I even think HP5+ can look fine with Rodinal; a bit too harsh grainy for my taste, but tones are still nice.

[Michael Graves]

I use a lot of Bergger Pancro 400. Yes, it does have a higher base fog density. However, that can be tamed if you make sure you make some minor modifications to your developing procedure. I use a 2 minute pre-rinse in a sodium bicarbonate solution. A touch of benzotriazole in the developer goes a long way in reducing the fog. Personally, I like Rodinal for Bergger, at 1:100 dilution. But the developer doesn't matter that much as long as you test for accurate time. The real key here is that BP400 requires about twice as much time in the fixer as other films. In Kodak fixer, it doesn't even start to clear until about 2 minutes in the fixing bath.

[Willie]

How does the film work with expansion and contracion development? Forgiving, or does it go "so far - and stop"?

That was a real problem with Bergger films some years back. Looked good but did not allow for the same amount of control as some compeitors.

[interneg]

How does the film work with expansion and contracion development? Forgiving, or does it go "so far - and stop"?

That was a real problem with Bergger films some years back. Looked good but did not allow for the same amount of control as some compeitors.

The problem is really that people don't realise that not everything behaves like relatively simple single-emulsion films from the mid 20th Century talked up by Adams and others with media column/ weekend-workshop bully-pulpits - and that you sometimes need a more aggressive developer rather than proclaiming that an emulsion 'doesn't expand well'.


It's worth mentioning that Rodinal was never meant to be used with fast films. In fact when it was introduced (in the 1890s?)...

It was apparently intended as a Universal developer initially - and seems to have carried on being marketed as such up into the mid 20th Century.

[paulbarden]

If you're using Pancro 400 in sheet film formats (not 120 or 35mm) then its almost irrelevant which developer you choose, since grain isn't going to be conspicuous no matter what. Rodinal delivers the least shadow information of pretty much all the developers, so you should expect to have to expose Pancro 400 at 125ASA or thereabouts, to get decent negatives, than develop accordingly.
I have found D-23 and DD-23 to be very good paired with Pancro 400, but you definitely need to expose generously to get an ideal negative.

[martiansea]

This is what I got from this past weekend. Please forgive the less-sharp-than-it-should-be handheld DSLR scan:
http://entropyandchaos.com/foto/imgpost/Tools1.jpg
Bergger Pancro 400 5x7, metered the scene at ASA160 and settled on an exposure time of 4 minutes. Lens was a CZJ Tessar 135mm,f/4,5 with the aperture set to f/22. There was some front rise. Camera was my big n' clunky B&J View.
Developed in Barry Thornton's Divided D-23 recipe in a Poilot rotary tank (Jobo knockoff). 3m30s in each bath at a temp of 75F. Don't usually have temps that hot in my developers, but it's a hot summer... Stopped with plain water. Fixed with Ilford Rapid Fixer for 5 minutes.
Whatever is going on with its reciprocity seems to be fairly forgiving of long exposure times without needing to stretch into hours. This was shot in quite dim room light from a single overhead florescent around the corner from the scene.

OK, here's a weird anomalous one:
http://entropyandchaos.com/foto/imgpost/NI1.jpg
This was underexposed by rather alot; the negative is very thin. Exposure time was about 2 seconds. I think I guesstimated very wrongly for the effective F value of the experimental stop I used in the lens (Waterhouse stop consisting of a 3x3 grid of holes, used in a Rapid Rectilinear). This was processed in the same tank along with the previous shot. This one got alot of uneven development. I think this is my fault because I was too slow getting the second bath poured in after getting the first one dumped out, and I think remaining developer pooled on the film. May also have been exaggerated because of the developer being so hot and extra active. Some shots got this fault, but others not so much, I think it depends on where it was arranged in the film holder in the tank. You do see a slight light horizontal line across the top of the first shot, which is the same fault.

Alright, with that out of the way, here is what I really want people to notice: Her skin tone is WAY off. It looks like it was shot with blue sensitive film, like a glass plate or x-ray film. Very weird! In comparison, the large metal plunger cylinder thing in the bottom left corner of the first shot is painted red and came out correctly rendered, so this film is obviously sensitive to red in normal circumstances. I know Bergger touts this as having a unique dual emulsion. So, is what I'm seeing here that one of those emulsions is only blue sensitive, and if you underexpose you'll potentially only get that one "energized"? Interesting phenomenon!

[phdgent]

I use a lot of Bergger Pancro 400. Yes, it does have a higher base fog density. However, that can be tamed if you make sure you make some minor modifications to your developing procedure. I use a 2 minute pre-rinse in a sodium bicarbonate solution. A touch of benzotriazole in the developer goes a long way in reducing the fog. Personally, I like Rodinal for Bergger, at 1:100 dilution. But the developer doesn't matter that much as long as you test for accurate time. The real key here is that BP400 requires about twice as much time in the fixer as other films. In Kodak fixer, it doesn't even start to clear until about 2 minutes in the fixing bath.

Dear Michael,

Could you please elaborate?
Adding an external compound to an existing (commercial) developer is something Pat Gainer suggested to do with Rodinal (for example: add 1 gram of Borax to Rodial work 1+50).
That pre-rinse with Sodium Bicarbonate sounds interesting: what dilution, does works with any developer like Berspeed?
Can Benzotriazole, I suppose this is for reducing the fog, be replaced with K Br, and at what amount?

Realising I have a lot of testing to do, any suggestion is welcome...

I add that article on Rodinal by Pat Gainer in appendix, perhaps this can work inspiring and could be applied on others like Berspeed?

228158

[phdgent]

I forgot to mention that I have NOTHING against RODINAL at all.
I happen to use it a lot at the time when AGFA was still alive, but I am convinced that it works at it best combined with the famous (and beloved) AGFAPAN (not really APX), for which these two seems to be meant.

But this is, of course, a personal opinion...

[Michael Graves]

Dear Michael,

Could you please elaborate?


The sodium bicarbonate was something I read about somewhere, but I don't recall where, so I can't offer a reference. I use about a half a teaspoon in 32 ounces of water for the pre-rinse. If my memory of the article serves correctly, this helps break down the antihalation backing -- which is apparently quite robust on BP400 and is more difficult to dissolve. I mixed up about a quart of 1% solution and it'll probably last me the rest of my life. I only add 5 drops of the solution to a quart of developer. The image below is a medium format image, but it was from a negative developed using this process. While the grain is certainly quite visible, I do not find it objectionable. Don't think I'd want to develop 35mm this way, though.

[paulbarden]

This is what I got from this past weekend. Please forgive the less-sharp-than-it-should-be handheld DSLR scan:
http://entropyandchaos.com/foto/imgpost/Tools1.jpg
Bergger Pancro 400 5x7, metered the scene at ASA160 and settled on an exposure time of 4 minutes. Lens was a CZJ Tessar 135mm,f/4,5 with the aperture set to f/22. There was some front rise. Camera was my big n' clunky B&J View.
Developed in Barry Thornton's Divided D-23 recipe in a Poilot rotary tank (Jobo knockoff). 3m30s in each bath at a temp of 75F. Don't usually have temps that hot in my developers, but it's a hot summer... Stopped with plain water. Fixed with Ilford Rapid Fixer for 5 minutes.
Whatever is going on with its reciprocity seems to be fairly forgiving of long exposure times without needing to stretch into hours. This was shot in quite dim room light from a single overhead florescent around the corner from the scene.

OK, here's a weird anomalous one:
http://entropyandchaos.com/foto/imgpost/NI1.jpg
This was underexposed by rather alot; the negative is very thin. Exposure time was about 2 seconds. I think I guesstimated very wrongly for the effective F value of the experimental stop I used in the lens (Waterhouse stop consisting of a 3x3 grid of holes, used in a Rapid Rectilinear). This was processed in the same tank along with the previous shot. This one got alot of uneven development. I think this is my fault because I was too slow getting the second bath poured in after getting the first one dumped out, and I think remaining developer pooled on the film. May also have been exaggerated because of the developer being so hot and extra active. Some shots got this fault, but others not so much, I think it depends on where it was arranged in the film holder in the tank. You do see a slight light horizontal line across the top of the first shot, which is the same fault.

Alright, with that out of the way, here is what I really want people to notice: Her skin tone is WAY off. It looks like it was shot with blue sensitive film, like a glass plate or x-ray film. Very weird! In comparison, the large metal plunger cylinder thing in the bottom left corner of the first shot is painted red and came out correctly rendered, so this film is obviously sensitive to red in normal circumstances. I know Bergger touts this as having a unique dual emulsion. So, is what I'm seeing here that one of those emulsions is only blue sensitive, and if you underexpose you'll potentially only get that one "energized"? Interesting phenomenon!

I think you can be pretty certain that the unpleasant skin tones are the result of severe under exposure. Pancro 400 actually has a bit extra red sensitivity, in my experience

[abruzzi]

I’ve liked it in PyrocatHD, and I have a box of 4x5 that is half used, but I haven’t seen any for sale since the pandemic. I’d like to get some 5x7 or 8x10, but haven’t been able to find any. Are you all shooting sheets you bought years ago? Any idea if it will ever be in stock again? (I buy most of my film from Freestyle or B&H)

[interneg]

While the grain is certainly quite visible, I do not find it objectionable. Don't think I'd want to develop 35mm this way, though.

Your sharpening seems to be cranked up very high - I'd suggest that drawing any conclusions from the image about actual visual granularity is rather questionable.

[martiansea]

I’ve liked it in PyrocatHD, and I have a box of 4x5 that is half used, but I haven’t seen any for sale since the pandemic. I’d like to get some 5x7 or 8x10, but haven’t been able to find any. Are you all shooting sheets you bought years ago? Any idea if it will ever be in stock again? (I buy most of my film from Freestyle or B&H)

I got my box of 5x7 from B&H almost exactly a year ago, and they short-dated me, expired in November 2021. It must have been sitting there a long time.

[phdgent]

The sodium bicarbonate was something I read about somewhere, but I don't recall where, so I can't offer a reference. I use about a half a teaspoon in 32 ounces of water for the pre-rinse. If my memory of the article serves correctly, this helps break down the antihalation backing -- which is apparently quite robust on BP400 and is more difficult to dissolve. I mixed up about a quart of 1% solution and it'll probably last me the rest of my life. I only add 5 drops of the solution to a quart of developer. The image below is a medium format image, but it was from a negative developed using this process. While the grain is certainly quite visible, I do not find it objectionable. Don't think I'd want to develop 35mm this way, though.

So, dear Michael, if I understand it correctly, you add sodium bicarbonate in the pre-rinse AND in in the developer?

What do you think of the suggestions by Pat Gainer?

BTW, that image of the truck looks good, and the grain isn't to be disliked, as a matter of fact, it's an essential part of analogue photography...

[Michael Graves]

you add sodium bicarbonate in the pre-rinse AND in in the developer?

No, the bicarbonate only goes in the pre-rinse. Benzotriazole goes into the developer. I haven't read Pat's article yet, but I just downloaded it and shall do so at my next opportunity. I'm with you on grain. If it isn't mushy or overly coarse, I think it enhances many images. And Rodinal never give mushy grain. Overly coarse...absolutely if you overdevelop, use it at too high a temperature or too strong a dilution. But I prefer the 1:100 dilution and agitate only every three minutes.