Welcome to part three of my Bergger Pancro 400 review series, which this time takes the film to EI 1600, while maintaining the +/-1 stop brackets that you’ve come to know and love.

In case you’re new to the series, you can read part one, which covers Pancro 400 in 35mm shot at EI 400 and bracketed +/- 1 stop, and part two, which describes the film when shot at EI 800 (again bracketed +/- 1 stop).

My aim with this series is to provide an exhaustive reference of this film shot and developed at EI 400, 800 and 1600 in 35mm and 120 formats (with each bracketed as described above). I’ll also be publishing results of developing both formats of this film as slides – spoiler alert for slide film nerds: it has very high DMax. In the future, I hope to supplement 35mm and 120 tests with those on 4×5 sheet film.

So here we are, Bergger Pancro 400 in 35mm format shot at EI 1600 and bracketed +/- 1-stop. That’s a two-stop push process (expansion development) combined with over / as metered / underexposure. Here’s how this article breaks down:

Here’s another recap of this film, in case you haven’t already read the previous parts:

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. No word yet if we’ll ever see it in 110 format but there’s always hope for us Pentax Auto 110 fans.

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

Further details are provided in part one of this series.

Shooting/development methodology

As with both tests so far, 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. The lens was set to a constant f/5.6. The camera was used in spot meter mode and each frame was bracketed with a single stop of overexposure and underexposure.

I developed the film at 20C in Rodinal 1+25 and for this two-stop push process, I the roll was developed for 16 minutes using my “normal” development method of 60 seconds of continuous agitation followed by 10 seconds more at the top of every minute thereafter. I will continue using Rodinal for the remaining tests in order to provide consistency across the series.

After development, Ilford Ilfostop and Rapid Fixer were used at the recommended dilutions for one and five minutes respectively. Per Bergger’s instructions, the film was fixed for an additional minute before being dunked in Kodak Photoflo and then rinsed in tap water for a further five. As with parts one and two, the film was scanned on an Epson v750 scanner with minimal post-production: cropping/flipping as necessary and the occasional light straighten.

The six sample sets you see below show the underexposed frame, correctly exposed frame and overexposed frame in that sequence. Unlike the overcast and partly sunny weather I experienced for the first two rolls, this roll was shot under pretty great light!

First impressions: Bergger Pancro 400 (35mm) at EI 1600

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


As with most of the samples from the EI 400 and 800 tests, my preference leans towards the underexposed frames. Sample 03, 05 and 06 especially. The richness of the blacks and purity of the whites (06 in particular) is what catches my attention here.

The film has certainly developed a reputation for flexibility with me, and even shot at box speed one could conceivably take a roll out for an entire day’s shooting from dawn past dusk, and rely on that flexibility to shoot anything from the brightest midday sun to the darkest night. That said, I’ll wait for the results of some night time testing before I put an official stake in that claim.

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 of the “wide latitude” touted by Bergger. Part two built on this, especially considering the mediocre light I shot the film under. With the third test here, and my 120 and 35mm reversal development tests still unpublished at the time of writing, I can safely say that this film has found a place in my stable of dependable, “workhorse” fast black and white films. That it adds a certain element of character to the equation is all the better and I no longer need to go scouring the internet for Kodak’s discontinued Double-X AEROGRAPHIC 2405 film any more – bonus.

I should state that Rodinal isn’t the optimal developer to use when pushing but still, I’m very pleased with the results here. I will be trying other developers over the coming months to understand how the character of the film changes but the remainder of these tests (with exception of reversal development) will continue to use Rodinal. And on the subject of pushing, push processing typically bunches up highlights and shadows resulting in a higher contrast look with less fine detail but the feeling I have when comparing the samples above to those shot and developed at EI 400 is that Pancro 400 doesn’t seem to respond in quite the same way as many films.

Thanks for reading and as ever, keep shooting folks.

~ EM

Share your knowledge, story or project

The transfer of knowledge across the film photography community is the heart of EMULSIVE. You can add your support by contributing your thoughts, work, experiences and ideas to inspire the hundreds of thousands of people who read these pages each month. Check out the submission guide here.

If you like what you're reading you can also help this passion project by heading over to the EMULSIVE Patreon page and contributing as little as a dollar a month. There's also print and apparel over at Society 6, currently showcasing over two dozen t-shirt designs and over a dozen unique photographs available for purchase.

About the author

Avatar - EM

Founder, overlord, and editor-in-chief at EMULSIVE.org. I may be a benevolent gestalt entity but contrary to increasingly popular belief, I am not an AI.

, and please make sure you also check out their website here.

Join the Conversation



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I used HC-110 (B) to develop my Pancro 400 shot at 1600 and the grain was ridiculous. Thanks for your post. I look forward to trying Rodinal. By the way HC-110 (B) is listed as recipe for this speed, but I wanted to try it just the same.

  2. I’ve just read thru all three parts of your review of Bergger Pancro 400. I think your images came out great showing the latitude of this film at various speeds.

    I have shot Pancro 400 in 35mm format, developed in Rodinal at the same dilution and temperature as you and with same agitation scheme. Used water rinse as stop bath, fixed for five minutes but did not add the extra minute of fixing. Rinse 10 minutes with 30 seconds in Photo Flo rinse. My film has much more pronounced grain, heavier than both Tri-X and HP5. I wonder if the difference is in scanning. I scan for a neutral output on a Nikon Coolscan V film scanner at 4000 resolution. I wonder if the higher resolution of my scanner is emphasizing the grain. Any thoughts on this?

    1. That’s very strange, Anthony. Can you drop me a line via FB/Twitter/Instagram DM or the contact page on the site? Let’s see if we can compare some 100% crops. I’ll happily go and rescan a few frames from each roll at a comparable resolution to yours, too.

  3. Dang, the blacks look so good – deep! My first roll is being sent to the lab tomorrow and hope to have results by week end. This makes me very hopeful!