Bergger pancro 400 in bergspeed: Unseen base fog

[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:

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:

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?

ADDING SODIUM SULFITE TO RODINAL.pdf