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.

Right place right time Agfa 400s

 

As I write this, the log fire is blazing but it still feels cold. Outside the wind is howling, throwing rain against the windows like small stones, and distracting me from writing this article. The part of the article’s title is wrong in that the 120 format film contained in the black tubes is really Rollei Retro 400s.

I have used the film once before - so long ago that I cannot remember if I liked the results, nor even which developer I used. Now the rolls of film that are left are passed their best before date, by about two years. The film has traveled a lot in my camera bag, waiting for a set of circumstances which would allow me to use this fast film to its best effect. 

I was at a location that I may not return to and the weather was not playing ball, with long, dull, overcast days. It would be a challenge to produce any images without the sun casting a shadow, but I was not going to be deterred.

The hand held light meter was telling me F 1.4 @ 125 the sec for my usual 100 ISO film, which was well below my Bronica SQAi F 2.8 lens. As I looked into my camera bag, there it was waiting - three rolls of Agfa 400s. Brilliant! Finally it would be used on a worthwhile project, instead of being used for the sake of it. 

As I was loading the film into the camera, my mind had already wandered off to which film developer I was going to use and which paper to print with. I have been using Kodak’s HC 110 a lot and thought it would be a good idea to continue with it to enhance the contrast and reduce grain on the negatives.

Before you ask why I didn’t use a tripod, the simple answer is the terrain was very difficult to navigate and to use one would have been more of hazard than an asset. Needless to say that the time making images slipped by unnoticed, as did the changes of film backs. There was an ongoing question mark over the whole proceedings and whether or not it was a good choice of film.

Back in the darkroom, I checked out the dilution and time needed for the 400s in HC 110. I was surprised to see it was dilution B (1+31) for 6.5 minutes - the same as delta 100, apart from the extra half minute. I had a nagging doubt at the back of my mind as to whether it would be sufficient time. 

With the diluted developer in the graduate and the thermometer reading 20C, I poured the chemical into the tank and proceeded with my standard processing method. When I removed the lid to pour out the developer, I noticed a lot of bubbles in the top, so alarm bells started ringing. The last time this happened, I ended up with a set of mottled negatives. Fifteen minutes later I was rinsing the developed negatives, regardless.

After dismounting the film from the spiral into the tank full of water, I pulled it out and between my fingers to get the excess water off, only to be presented with some very thin looking negatives. I was not pleased with myself for dismissing my doubts about timings. The upside was that the negatives looked to be very contrasty compared to the very overcast and flat day when they had been made.

I did increase the development time for the second and third films. It did make a difference, but not as much as I would have liked. Another downside of this film is its server curl. It was going to be interesting getting a contact print. Having studied the negatives in their sleeves, they look to be the thinnest I have ever produced. Printing will confirm whether this is the case. The other issue is that one set of negatives looks mottled.

The paper choice would be determined by the level of contrast the negatives produced. Normally I would not make pictures on dull, overcast days as I do not like low contrast light and the grey, washed out look that can result. However, on this occasion I had no choice, as I was at a location that inspired me with image ideas and despite the days being overcast, I doubted I would get a chance to return in better weather. 

All the images were scanned from photographs