Perfect timing! I have Panchro in my C330 right now. Given the way the highlights slope, I think I'll do it in HC-110 to bring some "zing" to the highlights. I noticed in the zoomed in section that though it's obviously more grainy, it appears to be higher acutance as well. The details of what I'm guessing is a bounce umbrella in your eye is noticeably crisper with the Panchro. Projected 1080P on an 8' wide screen, the Panchro looks noticeably sharper than Tri-X even if it's grainier.
The Bergger base fog brought me to this review. I was lured to Bergger by the lower price and initially associated the paper Bergger brand with the film. They are ultimately very different. The base fog is considerable, leaving the highlights looking like middle greys. A big let down. Price savings weren't worth it. I'm back to my faithful Tri-X even if nearly double cost. I have an excess of Pancro Bergger leftover that I may try to develop in Rodinol to curb grain or try bleaching out the base fog, if that's possible. 🤔 I continue to print on Bergger FB without hesitation.
Love this film. Been using it for awhile. The grain coarseness is sort of odd. Comes from the dual Silver Iodide + Silver Bromide emulsion. The two emulsions have differing grain size. I haven't noticed that sloping toe in my shots. I have very good shadow separation even when pushed to 800. I think it being underdeveloped is giving it that profile. For those interested in this film, I can wholeheartedly recommend it. Definitely not has "high performing" as Tri-X, but for the cost, its exceptionally good.
There was a episode of Mad Men where Draper told some tobacco executives that they should say in the ads that the cigarettes were “hand rolled” or something like that. The execs said all the brands did that. Draper said yes, but if they say it then it silently implies nobody else’s were. All black and white films have two or more emulsion layers incorporating silver iodide and silver bromide.
I used Bergger Pancro 400 for some time now. I used it with pyro pmk, d76, rodinal, beerspeed, and many other developers. I didnt find a way to get rid of the basefog. With some dev - film combos I got basefog up to .40-50. I really like the film but the basefog made it a real pain for me. Sadly I did not find a way to remove the heavy fog yet. If you or anyone else knows how to reduce it, Id love to know more.
HC-110 in a 1+31 dilution (or 1+16 if you're brave). Has an anti-fog agent included already. No need to play around with benzotriazole or potassium bromide.
Have been on the waiting list at B&H for 50 sheet 4x5 film since Oct’20. Still waiting. Losing interest yet I did like images from my first box. Strange the lack of production and/or distribution. I
This film in 120 has a major problem-the backing paper is too slick to easily catch in my Rolleicord. I've had it unspool and refuse to advance. The lack of numbers on the backing paper means I cannot use the red window to align my first exposure. I might use it in 35mm or 4x5, but losing 2 rolls out of 3 means it is too expensive to continue buying. It soups well in FA-1027 1:14. Good negatives. Please, if you review 120 film in the future, note whether or not the backing paper has exposure numbers.
Wow, this is really good. It would be interesting to see how you set up these comparisons. I assume you didn't just shoot one shot from each roll. Also, how did you set focus? And how were you in the exact same spot each time?
I posted a photo of the setup on my Instagram awhile back. I used a single 1 meter x 1 meter softbox, I sat in a chair with the gray card clamped to a light stand in front of it. That helped me orient myself for each shot. I used the camera’s autofocus and bracketed the exposure heavily in 1/3 stops to ensure a good exposure for the printing.
Under development, not under exposure. As I explained before showing any results, I used the film manufacturer’s provided development time for stock D-76.
Most people forget that you at least need to pre wash your pancro 400 film at 21°c for 1minut and fix it for at least 6 minutes. If you don't pre wash the film it will under develop most of the times.
@@TheNakedPhotographer the pre soak instruction cannot be found on the packaging. It is only given in the online spec sheet by Bergger. I shot a number of this film in 4x5 and 8x10, I can say pre soaking and longer than usual fixing time are mandatory with this film.
I used pancro400 a lot. It is a strange kind of film. Very long feet closed shadow, grainy a lot and they are things that you can’t do nothing about it. So the only possibility is to emphasize. I found the best practice for that to push it in order to have very high contrast and grain negative to make high contrast prints. Overall it was a film that i enjoyed, for a certain look. It’s not a film to buy for clean and soft look
" Bergger film is made by Inoviscoat in Germany. Inoviscoat designs the film, makes the emulsion and coats it. However, this specific emulsion is only sold to Bergger. You cannot get it under different names." This was commented on the Fomapan 400 video.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Both originate from agfa. Have you BTW tested APX 400 for this series? It seems its still being sold, that stuff cant be old stock anymore... is it still being made by someone? EDIT: "The new Agfa APX 400 is called “NEW” because there was an Agfa APX 400 produced by a German manufactory. But they stopped their production some time ago (the old stock was/is sold under the label “Rollei RPX 400) and somebody bought the rights to use the name “Agfa” and now produces this new APX 400. Therefore, the new Agfa APX 400 has nothing to do with the old Agfa APX 400 - confusing, I know." So nothing to do with the original APX, that stuff had some character to it.
@@Nobody-Nowhere The old one was called Agfa oder Agfapan APX. The newer "Agfaphoto" APX 100 and 400, marketed by germany based Lupus Imaging, are basically the same emulsion as Kentmere 100 + 400, so it has been tested here already. RPX 100 + 400 are similar emulsions as well. All produced by Harman in England, relabled by different companies afterwards. And yes, depending on where you look, they sometimes do have slightly different developing times, but the deviations are ~10%, so it basically doesn't matter, it's just a bit of marketing voodoo to make you think they are different films.
I’ve found this film really falls apart for me personally when I begin to push it. Becomes very noisy. I tend to push most of the time by at least one stop, so this particular stock doesn’t quite work for me. That said, in a pinch, it’s not bad.
I hate this film with a passion! I shot a box of 8x10 of them and the emulsion which is on both sides is so soft that it comes off no matter what. In the end I couldn’t decide if this is good for anything and the softness of emulsion makes it so risky to use.
@@EaterOfBaconSandwiches I am pretty sure! I have developed 25 sheets of that with my own hands! I can tell you that it is the softest emulation I have ever had, it comes off even when you use hardener and totally dry. It’s a nightmare of a film. I don’t see any point using it when there are all the other iso 400 films are around for the same price.
Ooohhhh I'm excited for this. Have a couple of rolls in the freezer I haven't tried yet.
thanks for the comparison. pancro ist one of my fav films, both in 35 and 120. i just love the grain structure.
Perfect timing! I have Panchro in my C330 right now. Given the way the highlights slope, I think I'll do it in HC-110 to bring some "zing" to the highlights. I noticed in the zoomed in section that though it's obviously more grainy, it appears to be higher acutance as well. The details of what I'm guessing is a bounce umbrella in your eye is noticeably crisper with the Panchro. Projected 1080P on an 8' wide screen, the Panchro looks noticeably sharper than Tri-X even if it's grainier.
The Bergger base fog brought me to this review. I was lured to Bergger by the lower price and initially associated the paper Bergger brand with the film. They are ultimately very different.
The base fog is considerable, leaving the highlights looking like middle greys. A big let down. Price savings weren't worth it. I'm back to my faithful Tri-X even if nearly double cost.
I have an excess of Pancro Bergger leftover that I may try to develop in Rodinol to curb grain or try bleaching out the base fog, if that's possible. 🤔
I continue to print on Bergger FB without hesitation.
Love this film. Been using it for awhile. The grain coarseness is sort of odd. Comes from the dual Silver Iodide + Silver Bromide emulsion. The two emulsions have differing grain size. I haven't noticed that sloping toe in my shots. I have very good shadow separation even when pushed to 800. I think it being underdeveloped is giving it that profile.
For those interested in this film, I can wholeheartedly recommend it. Definitely not has "high performing" as Tri-X, but for the cost, its exceptionally good.
There was a episode of Mad Men where Draper told some tobacco executives that they should say in the ads that the cigarettes were “hand rolled” or something like that. The execs said all the brands did that. Draper said yes, but if they say it then it silently implies nobody else’s were.
All black and white films have two or more emulsion layers incorporating silver iodide and silver bromide.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Just reading this....... Well, that is certainly surprising to hear.
I used Bergger Pancro 400 for some time now. I used it with pyro pmk, d76, rodinal, beerspeed, and many other developers. I didnt find a way to get rid of the basefog. With some dev - film combos I got basefog up to .40-50. I really like the film but the basefog made it a real pain for me. Sadly I did not find a way to remove the heavy fog yet. If you or anyone else knows how to reduce it, Id love to know more.
You can try a restrainer such as
benzotriazole, or latent image bleaching can also help reduce base fog (but probably need overexposure to compensate)
@@SamStinson Thanks a lot I wanted to stay away from additives but I might give it a try for my next rolls!
HC-110 in a 1+31 dilution (or 1+16 if you're brave). Has an anti-fog agent included already. No need to play around with benzotriazole or potassium bromide.
at the end, developer choice, mix, temp and time counts so much that how can you compare??
Tnx for work.
Have been on the waiting list at B&H for 50 sheet 4x5 film since Oct’20. Still waiting. Losing interest yet I did like images from my first box.
Strange the lack of production and/or distribution. I
This film in 120 has a major problem-the backing paper is too slick to easily catch in my Rolleicord. I've had it unspool and refuse to advance. The lack of numbers on the backing paper means I cannot use the red window to align my first exposure. I might use it in 35mm or 4x5, but losing 2 rolls out of 3 means it is too expensive to continue buying. It soups well in FA-1027 1:14. Good negatives.
Please, if you review 120 film in the future, note whether or not the backing paper has exposure numbers.
Thanks for mentioning the numbering issue. I was about to pick up a few rolls for my Holga since it's cheaper than even Arista at the moment.
Wow, this is really good. It would be interesting to see how you set up these comparisons. I assume you didn't just shoot one shot from each roll. Also, how did you set focus? And how were you in the exact same spot each time?
I posted a photo of the setup on my Instagram awhile back. I used a single 1 meter x 1 meter softbox, I sat in a chair with the gray card clamped to a light stand in front of it. That helped me orient myself for each shot. I used the camera’s autofocus and bracketed the exposure heavily in 1/3 stops to ensure a good exposure for the printing.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Thanks for the explanation. Looking forward to future videos.
Hmmm, why did you accept the underexposure for comparison when surely it would affect results? Anyways, always love seeing these comparisons.
Under development, not under exposure. As I explained before showing any results, I used the film manufacturer’s provided development time for stock D-76.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Ah I see
Most people forget that you at least need to pre wash your pancro 400 film at 21°c for 1minut and fix it for at least 6 minutes. If you don't pre wash the film it will under develop most of the times.
I followed the manufacturer’s instructions
@@TheNakedPhotographer the pre soak instruction cannot be found on the packaging. It is only given in the online spec sheet by Bergger. I shot a number of this film in 4x5 and 8x10, I can say pre soaking and longer than usual fixing time are mandatory with this film.
I used pancro400 a lot. It is a strange kind of film. Very long feet closed shadow, grainy a lot and they are things that you can’t do nothing about it. So the only possibility is to emphasize. I found the best practice for that to push it in order to have very high contrast and grain negative to make high contrast prints. Overall it was a film that i enjoyed, for a certain look. It’s not a film to buy for clean and soft look
Is Pancro 400 manufactured by Harmon like the Bergger papers?
Not to my knowledge
" Bergger film is made by Inoviscoat in Germany. Inoviscoat designs the film, makes the emulsion and coats it. However, this specific emulsion is only sold to Bergger. You cannot get it under different names."
This was commented on the Fomapan 400 video.
If Nico’s sources are correct, Inoviscoat will soon be (or already has become) part of ORWO.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Both originate from agfa. Have you BTW tested APX 400 for this series? It seems its still being sold, that stuff cant be old stock anymore... is it still being made by someone?
EDIT:
"The new Agfa APX 400 is called “NEW” because there was an Agfa APX 400 produced by a German manufactory. But they stopped their production some time ago (the old stock was/is sold under the label “Rollei RPX 400) and somebody bought the rights to use the name “Agfa” and now produces this new APX 400. Therefore, the new Agfa APX 400 has nothing to do with the old Agfa APX 400 - confusing, I know."
So nothing to do with the original APX, that stuff had some character to it.
@@Nobody-Nowhere The old one was called Agfa oder Agfapan APX. The newer "Agfaphoto" APX 100 and 400, marketed by germany based Lupus Imaging, are basically the same emulsion as Kentmere 100 + 400, so it has been tested here already. RPX 100 + 400 are similar emulsions as well. All produced by Harman in England, relabled by different companies afterwards. And yes, depending on where you look, they sometimes do have slightly different developing times, but the deviations are ~10%, so it basically doesn't matter, it's just a bit of marketing voodoo to make you think they are different films.
I had the best results by exposing it at 250 iso and developing with D76 stock.
I’ve found this film really falls apart for me personally when I begin to push it. Becomes very noisy. I tend to push most of the time by at least one stop, so this particular stock doesn’t quite work for me. That said, in a pinch, it’s not bad.
One should push for a specific result, i.e. more contrast, not because it's habitual. The film is relatively contrasty anyway. So why push?
@@jiajiajiaism Speed, contrast, artistic choice, etc etc
I hate this film with a passion! I shot a box of 8x10 of them and the emulsion which is on both sides is so soft that it comes off no matter what. In the end I couldn’t decide if this is good for anything and the softness of emulsion makes it so risky to use.
@@EaterOfBaconSandwiches I am pretty sure! I have developed 25 sheets of that with my own hands! I can tell you that it is the softest emulation I have ever had, it comes off even when you use hardener and totally dry. It’s a nightmare of a film. I don’t see any point using it when there are all the other iso 400 films are around for the same price.
I hate this film. They charge a pretty good money for a film that is... Just a novelty. Very bad experiences in 120 and 35mm.