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
 

 

 

lost and found

 It has been a very tiring year. One that has knocked out of me any notion of making photographs in any shape or form. I have not wanted to do any of it - not make, print or talk about it. My interest has been rubbed out to such an extent that I have wondered whether I was ever a photographer.

The writing of this article is the first time I have given photography any serious thought recently. I have noticed over the past few weeks that my interest has started to re-assert itself here and there. I have never found it easy to write about my love of photography and the scrapes I manage to get myself into. This blog still remains a mystery to me as to why I started it.

I am still surprised at how popular it is. I know a lot of you judge popularity by comment and the number of likes, but I do not. For me it is the number of visits and also the number of other blogs carrying some of the themes I have talked about long with the odd magazine article. That in itself is all the incentive I need. 

So, to the year ahead. I’m hoping I will be able to get on with all the things I have been meaning to, including making more magazines, selling more prints etc. Will just have to wait and see.

 I’m going to end with a big thank you to all those who have been reading the blog in these barren times with few new posts. To all of you, I wish a very creative future.

The articles that follow this post were, in some cases. written before my creative slump and are now being published.

A big thank to our new editor for getting things rolling again.

 

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

   

  

 

Bronica battery trouble.

I really enjoy using my SQAi But recently its reliability has become unpredictable to the extent that I have seriously thought about getting rid of it.

I know what the problem is, it is to do with the silver oxide batteries and the way they make contact or not with the contacts in the camera. On occasions a film has built up insulating the batteries from the camera contacts. A quick scrape and all is well again. Recently this has gotten out of hand in such away that I'm no longer sure if the shutter will fire from one frame to the next even after checking that the contacts are clean.

I've concluded it is one of three things: the batteries are not up to the job, bad manufacture, or that something in the camera has worked loose? Or maybe all three. I am so fed up with it so much so that I have dug out my motor drive for the Bronica - something I have not used in years. I have also bunged on the eye level prism, which corrects the backward view you get from the flip up viewfinder. I did this because it makes the use of the camera more seamless.

A drastic move I know as Bronica did not produce an auxiliary battery pack for its cameras like others have. It adds weight that I'm not happy about but if it makes the camera more reliable then all to the good.

I can not believe how much these changes have reinvigorated my image making. It is akin to when I first purchased the camera. It works every time freeing me up from that nagging 'will it?' or 'wont it?'. It was satisfying to hear the clump of the shutter with the outlandish sound of the motor as it wound on. No more senior moments. With the addition of all this technical wizardry it has made it more enjoyable. If I had known this, I would have made the changes ages ago.

Has anyone else experienced this problem with their Bronica, if so how did you cure it?  

update 12/2018

I thought I would update this post by saying that the motordrive I fitted a couple of years ago has dealt with the battery problem. It does this by taking on all the power requirements of the camera. 

Update 5/9/21

Further to the battery problem noted above I have now put a bit of card in the battery box to force a better connection. It has work well but the build up on the contacts needs an eye kept on it. As it can go back to it's old ways. It is also a good idea to sand the negative side of the battery it gives a better contact.

If you use the motor drive without the silver oxide batteries fitted the light meter view finder will not work as it takes its power from them only.

Cropping your photograhs

Print of the whole negative

When it come to cropping your prints there are two schools of thought. Those that believe that once the view has been carefully framed in the camera, you should print the whole negative and in some cases include the rebate as well to prove it. The alternative view is that each image is unique and should be judged as such irrespective of its format.

My stance tends to follow the latter view or what best emphasis the composition whole frame or part of. It does not always follow that what your pre visualized view at the time translates to the baseboard when it comes to printing. 

It is important to consider how you're going to frame the image at the beginning of the printing process. The start of which is the contact print once produced time should be taken to consider what is best for each picture. In some cases it is an automatic decision how the picture is going to look. In others it is not quite so clear as to what is right. In these situations it maybe better to print the whole negative and use a crop tool to ensure what framing brings the best out of the image. 

Cropped for impact

Setting hard and fast rules when it comes to producing your pictures will prove detrimental in conveying the vision. It is better to keep an open mind and be bold in the way you frame your pictures. Sometimes it is good to seek other peoples opinions they may offer an idea that you have not considered, but remember these are suggestions that should not be followed blindly. You should only do what others indicate if you truly believe that it is the best for the composition and coincides with your vision for the picture.

I crop photo's for a number of reasons some listed below:

• 

  change story

  To remove unwanted items from the picture that sometimes get missed in the making process from around the edges.
• To correct a bad holding angel.
• To remove processing faults, dust hair etc.
• To change the balance and or emphasis of elements in the picture.
• To change the format of the picture.
• To remove dead areas from pictures tightening the composition.
• To create a better sense of intimacy.
• To improve composition.
• To tell a different story. If you are doing this then you should give serious consideration to the facts of the situation before changing the emphasis especially from a photojournalists perspective.

Crop tool.

You can use a crop tool which was mentioned earlier. It can help to improve how you compose images at the making stage. It is a way of training your eye.

Crop tool made from

They are simple to make as described below:

You can make a crop tool out of two bits of cardboard it needs to be 50 to 75mm (2” to 3”) wide and 500 x 400mm (20” x 16”) long or bigger than the largest print you are likely to make. If you do not want to make it completely from scratch then you can use a pre cut mount frame cut to make two L shapes. This allows the framing of the picture to be infinite.

This simple idea allows you to try out those more radical ideas along with the more prosaic to see if they work. It may surprise you in the process.