Select Page

Film review: Bergger Pancro 400 35mm Part 2 – EI 800 (bracketed +/- 1 stop)

UPDATE: Part three: EI 1600 bracketed +/- 1 stop is here

Read part two of this series, exploring 35mm Pancro 400 shot at EI 1600 and bracketed +/- 1 stop here!

Following on from my recent film review of Bergger Pancro 400 (35mm shot at EI 400 and bracketed +/- 1 stop), I’m pleased to bring you the second instalment, this time discussing Pancro 400 shot at EI 800 and bracketed +/- 1 stop. Once again, the format is 35mm.

I will also be sharing my 35mm results at EI 1600 (bracketed) and with the film processed as black and white slides. Once published, you can expect exactly the same treatment for 120 format film – it’s all been shot and developed, so it’s just a question of time to put it together.

 

By way of a quick recap for those of you new to this film:

BERGGER, Pancro 400 is a two-panchromatic emulsion film, each emulsion being composed of silver bromide and silver iodide. The film is offered in 35mm, 120, plate and large / ultra large formats.

In 35mm, Pancro 400 uses a 135 micron acetate base, which should make for some interesting results when I publish my slide processing tests. In 120 and sheet format this base is switched out for a 100 micron PET base.

 

 

 

Shooting / development methodology

The roll discussed here was shot at EI 800 (ISO 800). As with the first test, the film was shot using a Nikon F100 set to manual and a Nikkor AF-D 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 zoom/macro lens, which was consistently shot at f/5.6. The camera was used in spot meter mode and each frame was bracketed with a single stop of under exposure and over exposure.

As with the first test, I developed the film at 20C in Rodinal 1+25. For the single stop push process, I developed the roll for 12 minutes using a x1.5 multiplier. During development, the film was agitated continuously for the first 60 seconds and then again for 10 seconds at the top of every minute thereafter.

Considering that Rodinal doesn’t provide what you may call exceptional results when used for pushing film, it was tempting to switch to another developer for this and other pushing tests. However, for good or bad, I decided to stick with Rodinal for a flavour of some consistency for this series of articles.

I used Ilford’s Ilfostop and Rapid Fixer at the recommended dilutions and once again, the film was fixed for an additional minute before being dunked in Kodak Photoflo and then rinsed for five minutes.

The six sample sets you see below show the underexposed frame, correctly exposed frame and overexposed frame.

Weather conditions ranged between overcast and partly sunny. The light was generally flat, so please consider the results below with that in mind.

 

 

 

Sample 01

The order of images for this and other sample sets is: overexposed one stop, exposed per meter reading and underexposed one stop.

Click or tap on the thumbnails below and use the gallery to navigate left and right.

 

 

 

Sample 02

 

 

 

Sample 03

 

 

 

Sample 04

 

 

 

Sample 05

 

 

 

Sample 06

 

 

 

Conclusions

I finished off part one of this series of short reviews saying that I’d developed a liking for this film and saw a lot of potential that the “wide latitude” touted by Bergger. To my eye, samples 01 and 04 above (doorway and tree/courtyard respectively), are the best examples I’ve seen so far that this claim is more than just marketing fluff and whilst I’ve yet to reproduce the latitude shown in Bergger’s own examples, the light I’ve encountered in the test so far has been mediocre to say the least.

Still, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the results and my EI 1600 negatives and the slides produced via black and white reversal development are pretty damned gorgeous. Those, and my equivalent experiments in medium format will be coming soon – six more parts in total!

Bearing in mind my choice to start these tests using Rodinal as my developer, it should not surprise anyone that the grain will appear fatter the more I push. Whilst I generally prefer a finer result when doing these kinds of tests, I will continue as I started – consistency is crucial when making comparisons, although the temptation to switch developers high!

Much like part one of this series, the difference between under/correct/over exposure is relatively small. Under better conditions (direct and what I would call “animated” sunlight), I would expect the difference to be more pronounced, however as with all panchromatic film, I wouldn’t expect a couple of stops of over exposure to be too much trouble (under exposure is still fixable if you’re into post-production but rather more destructive in my opinion.

If in doubt, over expose a touch.

I’ll be back with part three covering this film shot at EI 1600 with the same +/-1 stop bracket. Stay tuned!

Do you have any experiences or tips to share? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

As ever, keep shooting folks.

~ EMULSIVE

 

 

Contribute to EMULSIVE

EMULSIVE NEEDS YOU. The driving force behind EMULSIVE is knowledge transfer, specifically engendering more of it in the film photography community. You can help by contributing your thoughts, work and ideas.

Help drive an open, collaborative community – all you need do is drop us a line and we’ll work something out.

 

 




About The Author

EMULSIVE

Self confessed film-freak and film photography mad-obsessive and OVERLORD at emulsive.org. I push, pull, shoot, boil and burn film everyday, and I want to share what I learn.

4 Comments

  1. Thanks to you, Emulsive, for posting these two posts (bracketed 400 and 800 articles) and including the bracketed pictures. Articles like these must be a real pain to get onto the web, but they are also very helpful to me! So I really appreciate that you took the time to do it.

    As you say, tastes will vary. I sometimes like the underexposed, as in the scenes with no bright sky present. More often I like when shot to the meter better. In cases where the bright sky is present in the shot, I like either the correct exposure or in a few cases, the overexposed the best.

    Well, anyway, this seems a very usable film; one that can be made to perform to one’s liking. So, I ordered a brick in 120 to try for myself.

    Reply
  2. Puncy result, like the texture and tonality of this film, inspiring to buy and to experiment with it. Thanks

    Reply
  3. Really like the film so far. Good details in the article. Thanks for sharing.
    @Nietko

    Reply
  4. @BERGGER_FRANCE Thanks for sharing. I really like the results so far. Time for me to try it I think.

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Film review: Bergger Pancro 400 35mm Part 1 - EI 400 (bracketed +/- 1 stop) | Articles, Experiments, Film Reviews, Reviews | EMULSIVE - […] […]
  2. Successfully damaged with X-Ray my first Bergger Pancro400 120 film - Photographer's log - […] time ago – here the whole of damaged by Barcelona Airport X-Ray machine my first roll of the “Bergger…
  3. I am Roger Harrison and this is why I shoot film | Interviews | EMULSIVE - […] new photographer will by joining us at the same time next week but don’t fret, there’s plenty to occupy…

Add your voice to the discussion

EMULSIVE in your inbox

Recent Tweets

Pin It on Pinterest

Get EMULSIVE updates to your inbox

Get EMULSIVE updates to your inbox

Join our daily and weekly newsletters to receive the latest from EMULISVE.

* indicates required
EMULSIVE News

You have successfully subscribed. Please check your email for our confirmation link.

%d bloggers like this: