A surprise in the post Wows in the darkroom

 

I must admit that Rollei’s 120 RPX 400 was not on my list of film to use. Until, that is, an unexpected package was handed to me by the postman. I usually tend not to use film rated at 400 ISO, as it is usually too fast for the weather I prefer to make images in - bright days with cloud and to a certain extent, warm. 

I did ask a question on the forum (FADU) and was advised that the film can be grainy. With this in mind, my thoughts turned to which developer I should use. HC 110 seems to fit the bill, producing a fine grain and sharp images. The problem with using a new make of film is that any choices you make towards processing are all down to past experience and gut feeling. The Rollei retro and R 3 (the latter no longer made) I have used in the past have always produced some wonderful negatives developed in ID11. What’s different about this one?

With the developer chosen, all I had to do was load the film into my Bronica SQAi with 250 mm lens, set 400 ISO and wait, wait and wait for a break in the weather. It finally did, with some wicked, bright days.

Fortunately I had access to an ancient wood in need of some TLC. The piercing sun presented some great interlaced shadows to play with and a look of dereliction. The four of us spent an hour or so going this way and that looking for interesting shapes, angles, plays of light and dark. A good test of the film’s capability. I tend to take my time lining up an image and, once done, I move on, making each frame count. I know that some people make a back up shot in case the original is damaged in some way. Others bracket above and below the light meter reading they settle on. My counter argument to this is that when using the Bronica SQAi, you only have twelve frames. I accept that I do not always get the light reading spot on with it, which just makes things interesting when printing in the darkroom. Oh! If you are scanning the negs, it won’t matter anyway.

Some days later, the film is loaded in the developing tank and it’s time to process it in HC 110 diluted 1 to 39 for a suggested six minutes. There is always a little apprehension when developing a new film for the first time, wondering if the time will be long enough. As it turned out, there was a nice set of well toned negatives hanging up to dry. Now a bit of impatience sets in while I wait for them to dry - the burning question being how big the grain will be?

24 hours later, the negatives have been cut and sleeved, but not all is well. I have noticed on a number of the negatives that there is a darkened area - something I glimpsed while making one of the pictures. My Bronica 250 mm lens had sustained some damage along the front edge that I should have dealt with by blacking it out. This led to a number of the negatives having a flare of light across them. How bad would be revealed when I print them in the darkroom.

The following is the official line on Rollei RPX 400s capabilities - Panchromatic black and white negative film, 400 ISO with standard development, fine grain and sharpness, broad tonality and contrast range. It is forgiving in that it has a broad latitude of exposure, making it a good choice for push pull development. It’s Panchromatic sensitivity is from 360-660 nm at 2850 k. You will need to bear in mind that this information was sourced after I started the developing process. I tend to do this so I can form my own opinion on what I’m presented with. 

Having removed the cobwebs from the darkroom, it is time to fill the print processor with fresh chemicals and a holding tray with water. The first exposure will be to make a contact print of all the negatives - this will show how many and to what extent the light flare has interfered.

It is disappointing to see that the light damage has touched nearly all the negatives in some way, but never mind - my cropping skills will need to be at their best here. One of the things I have noticed over the years is never to dismiss a set of negatives just because they have not turned out perfectly. It can mean that you produce something more creative than you had in mind in the first place. Serendipity can be a good friend.

 Looking at the contact print, it suggested that the negatives could be printed at grade 2 or 3. With further consideration, I opted for grade three because I thought I would get better separation of the tones. To check my decision I would do a second print at grade 2.

I chose to use Ilford multigrade paper and developer - the latter, when fresh, produces some really crisp, rich blacks at the right grade. I set the paper easel to 8 x 10, the enlarging lens to F8 and the filtration to grade 3. With the negative in place, I turned on the test light and used the focus finder to make sure the focus was sharp. Trying to get sharp focus took a bit of time as the grain was very small, much to my amazement.

I always time paper development. It is a way of keeping an eye on how exhausted the developer is becoming. It is obvious, looking at the segmented test print, that the negative is on the thin side and my choice of F8 was a good first step.

As I look at the test print, it is suggesting that 10 to 15 seconds should produce a really good photograph. So I opt for 12 seconds. As I pull the print from the developer ready for the stop, it looks as though I have over exposed. Disappointing maybe, but you should not make quick judgements under red light conditions. 

As I pull the picture from the fix, I turn the room light on. I’m presented with a crisp, high contrast print with some very defined smooth tones. Wow! WOW! It stopped me in my tracks for a bit as I took in the view. Shame about the light pollution, but I can crop that out.

The next print was exposed at grade two for 18 seconds and has a completely different feel to it - again I was impressed. Next, I enlarged the negative to 10 x 20, printing part of it on 8 x 10 paper to see what grain it would produce. None that I could see. 

I have printed a number of the negatives and have been impressed with each of them. I’m not sure why I do not use Rollei film more often. It has a look and feel that I really like - I think some more rolls will be on the cards. Please try this film. You will not be disappointed. 

 

 This article is the copyright of Mitch Fusco all rights reserved 

 

Bergger Pancro 400 a delightful surprise

 

I am writing this from the darkroom as I process the second roll of Bergger Pancro 400. It is being developed in Kodak HC 110 for 9 minutes I'm not sure how it is going to turn out as I forgot to soak it for a minute in clean water. I knew something was a miss. It is becoming a joke, nearly every film processed this year, has had a fault one way or another. I will be pleased to get back to the mundane predictability of old. In more ways than one.

Now with the film hanging up to dry I can get back to what I wanted to write. I'm pleased to say that the initial look over the negatives is good in comparison to one I did correctly. I will only know for sure when I start printing.

As you may have already gathered the film needs to be soaked for a minute before the developer go's in. When you pour the water out it has a very slight colour to it. Stop bath is as normal for those that use it but you must fix the film for six mins or longer depending on how old your fix is. Agitation for the developer is for the first 30 seconds (twelve inversions) and then for 5 sec's every 30seconds  ( two inversions.) If you tumble your tank instead of twiddling. When you open the top to pour away the developer there will be bubbles in the top so far I have not noticed any problem with the look of the negatives. 

The lock down has found me time to slow down and consider what I should do. While I mulled things over I did a bit of surfing those were the days now it is just the net for information on macro photography. It became clear that it would be best to use a fast film because of the drop off in light reaching the film plane when using a bellows. I'm in trouble I have no 400 ISO film in 120 while I was surfing down the pipe I came across references to film called Bergger. It did not take long before the screen was swamped with peoples opinion on this film. I scratched the surface to see what was said and looked at the pictures it produced. I was disappointed to find that most of it was scanned negative. One video I watch stated the negatives were flat. I'm pleased I took no notice as the results I have hanging up to dry show otherwise.

I have long held the view that one favourite film developer at a certain dilution should not be a catch all for all makes of film and that a comfort zone is the enemy of creativity and missed opportunity. Manufactures go to great lengths to produce a developer that best brings out the qualities of their film and as I have discovered Bergger is no different only in this case their film has a twin layer of emulsion giving it its full light sensitivity hence the name Pancro. Which would suggest a look all of its own. A comparison of their developer could be on the cards?

For instance I chose to use HC 110 to develop the film, it could quite easily have been Rodinal or one of the half dozen others I have on the shelf but had in mind the fine grain qualities of HC 110. Fast films are not known for there fine grain unless it is a T grain. I should add that the developer you choose has a big influence on the size of grain and the character of the negative and therefore should be given due consideration.

When doing something like this the first time it is a leap of faith that all the information about development is correct. I have found that the time suggested for HC 110 produces a negative that is a little on the thin side for me. It has shown its self in the darkroom with shorter than my usual exposure times. I may increase the development time but for now I'm going to let it stand until I have processed a few more rolls.  

I have exposed a number of rolls of Pancro 400 at box speed. Most of it in high contrast conditions. In some cases with the lens closed down to F 32 at 500^th of sec. it has managed to capture a wide range of detail from darkest to brightest. All waiting for you to utilize when exposing it to your chosen paper if you wish. I have found printing these negatives to be some of the easiest. The whites are brilliant and detailed to a degree I have not noticed before with other film. The blacks are rich and pure but can also be very detailed. 

One note of caution it is quite easy to over expose the paper due to the extra tone and crisp detail. I have discovered that I am trying to have it all leading to overly dark and sometimes muddy photographs. With the saying less is more in mind it has lead to some wonderful photographs that are a joy to behold.

You should give Bergger Pancro 400 a go if you have not already done so and print it in the darkroom. Scanning does not do it justice.

A note of caution when using out dated 120 film it can become very grainy even with HC110 when pre soaking, I suggest not doing so to reduce the look of grain.

Technical Data:

All black and white images have been scanned from prints. Contact printed on Ilford MG 5 RC G. Key printed on Kentmere RC G, Containers of fruit printed on Ilford  MG FB, All developed in multigrade. 

The picture of the graduate is used HC 110.    

Fast film for macro will Bergger cut it?

I'm writing this from the darkroom as I process the second roll of Bergger Pancro 400. It is being developed in Kodak HC 110 for 9 minutes. I am not sure how it’s going to turn out as I forgot to soak it for a minute in clean water. I knew something was amiss. It is becoming a joke - nearly every film I have processed this year has had a fault in one way or another. I will be pleased to get back to the mundane predictability of old, in more ways than one. 

Now, with the film hanging up to dry, I can get back to what I wanted to write. I’m pleased to say that the initial look over the negatives is good, but I will only know for sure once I start printing.

Lock down has allowed me to slow down and consider what I should do. While I mulled things over, I did a bit of online research into macro photography with a bellows. It became clear that it would be best to use a fast film because of the drop off in light reaching the film plane. The problem is that I have no 400 ISO film in 120. During my research I came across references to a film called Bergger. It did not take long, the screen was swamped with opinions on this film. I scratched the surface to see what was said and the pictures it produced, but was disappointed to find that most of it was scanned negative. One video I watched stated the negatives were flat. I am pleased to say I carried on regardless and the results I have hanging up to dry, show otherwise.

As you may have already gathered, the film needs to be soaked for a minute before the developer goes in. When you pour the water out, it has a very slight colour to it. Stop bath is as normal for those who use it, but you must fix the film for six minutes or longer, depending on how old your fix is. Agitation for the developer is for the first 30 seconds (twelve inversions) and then for 10 seconds every minute (four inversions). If you tumble your tank instead of twiddling, when you open the top to pour away the developer there will be bubbles in the top, but so far no adverse effects on the look of the negatives.

I have long held the view that one favourite film developer at a certain dilution should not be a catch all for all makes of film. This approach is the enemy of creativity and creates missed opportunities. Manufacturers go to great lengths to produce developers which bring out the best qualities of their film. As I discovered, Bergger is no different - only in this case, their film has a twin layer of emulsion, giving it full light sensitivity - hence the name Pancro, which would suggest a look all of its own. A comparison of their developer could be on the cards?

I chose to use HC 110 to develop the film. It could easily have been Rodinal or one of the half dozen others I have on the shelf, but had in mind the fine grain qualities of HC 110. Fast films are not known for their fine grain, unless it is a T grain. I should add that the developer you choose has a big influence on size of grain and the character of the negative and should, therefore, be given due consideration.

 When doing something like this for the first time, it is a leap of faith that all information about the development is correct. I have found that the time suggested for HC 110 produces a negative that looks a little on the thin side for me. It has shown itself in the darkroom with shorter than my usual exposure times. I may, therefore, increase the development time, but for now I’m going to let it stand until I have processed a few more rolls.

I have exposed a number of rolls of Pancro 400 at box speed. Most of it in high contrast conditions. In some cases, with the lens closed down to F.32 at 500 th of a second, it has managed to capture a wide range of detail from darkest to brightest. All waiting for you to utilize when exposing it to your chosen paper. I have found that printing these negatives to be some of the easiest. The whites are brilliant and detailed to a degree I have not noticed before with other film. The blacks are rich and pure, but can also be very detailed. 

 One note of caution is that it is quite easy to overexpose the paper due to the extra tone and crisp detail. I have discovered that I am trying to have it all - resulting in overly dark, and sometimes muddy, photos. Less is more, as they say, which has led to some wonderful photographs which are a joy to behold.

You should give Bergger Pancro 400 a go, if you have not already done so, and print in the darkroom - scanning does not do it justice.

Technical data:

Bronica SQAi with TTLM, bellows fitted and extension tube, lens 150 mm.

Film Bergger Pancro 400 at box speed

Photographs exposed to Kentmere 9.5 x 12 VC select paper. Developed in ilford multigrade.

Images were made using a digital camera.

Out of date film Home truths.

The use of out of date film has become very popular over the last few years. So much so that it has become a bit of a sub culture within the film world, with some photographers stating that it is all they use. I get the impression that in some cases there is a bit of grand standing, look at me, my photography is better because of it! If it has improved your picture making then all well and good, but I have to say that some of the images I have seen makes me wonder why did they bother! I personally see no advantage in using out of date, apart from the fact it is slightly less expensive than fresh. 

Lets be honest about this how often do you end up with a blank film?

But then again there is a certain extra thrill in the knowledge that when you take the lid off the developing tank and view the wet film with nicely exposed negatives, a sense of relief at your gay abandonment to the natural order of things was worth the risk. In my experience the risk is very small but if you read some blogs it is a step to far to contemplate.

120 Fujicolour Superia
out of date by 10 years.

So why would you treat out of date film to a different set of process times?

I have always used out of date film long before it became popular. I just keep using the film stock till it runs out. It was not until recent times that I have taken note of the process before date and now that I have that knowledge it has not made any difference to the way I make images and process the film. When comparing them to in date negatives of the same make I can see no difference.

120 Fujicolour Superia
out of date by 10 years.

So how do you store your film?

There is a lot of myth and misunderstanding about how to store your film after you have purchased it. The one thing that destroys film faster than anything else is humidity. Even in these situations, as long as the film is kept in its sealed containers and wrappers (medium format) it will remain in good condition. So common sense would suggest that you only break the film out when you are about to use it. Surely? 

So why would you need to store it in a fridge or freezer?

I used to do this until I was caught out by not getting the film from the fridge the day before. I seriously questioned whether there was any advantage to doing it. Common sense suggested that the weather in the UK never really gets that extreme so why bung the fridge up? -(there was a cheer from the other half when I removed it all!) - after all, I purchased it to use, not stock pile. Obviously everyone's circumstances are different. But I have found a growing number of people who store film in a draw find it more convenient and allows for spontaneity. Not having to second guess myself about will I or Won't I need a film tomorrow has freed up creativity.

 With this in mind I purchased a carton of out of date film. It is a mixed box of T max 400, Ilford delta 100, 3200 and XP2 400. I did this because I had been toying with the idea of trying out TMAX 400, but it then occurred to me that I had never used the others either. So now is my chance. I was told they had all been stored in a draw and were still in the sealed wrappers. Good enough for me! 

This selection of emulsions are a maximum of seven years out of process date. I have used so far the delta 100 and 3200 at box speed. Developed in RO9 @1+50 @20C using my usual method. The results are what I would expect from fresh stock.

There is a down side, it can go wrong occasionally, but it is a lot rarer than people would have you believe and it is more than likely to be human error than failure of materials. Some of you will be uncomfortable with the idea and I understand that reticence, especially if you are new to film photography.

I have written two other posts on the subject: Film storage - is a more technical look and colour out of date - which talks about an old film left in the camera for years. My view on film storage has not changed as these other post will reinforce. Remember do not be influenced by other peoples narrow mindedness. Photography is about being creative and that means there are no rules. 

Out of film Delta 3200, dev RO9,
 printed on Adox MCP

Here is a link to the delta film mentioned earlier in the article.

Updated 2022:

Since writing this there is a downside to out of date film. It is unexpected and inconsistent in its appearance and affects black and white 120 film so far. The main reason for it is the paper backing, for some reason it can produce a blotchy look to the negatives which is most noticeable in the sky detail.  

The following pictures show the affect: 

Technical data:

The black and white images were scanned from photographs. 

Camera used was a Bronica SQAi with a 120-format film back.

Black and white film used for the pictures above Fomapan 100 with the black backing paper. They have recently changed the paper to the same one Ilford use. you can see what the different backing papers look like here