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:

[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.