p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Has anyone used this film? How does it compare to the likes of HP5+ and Tri-X ?
It seems to be relatively cheap in UK - half the price of Tri-X
Regards,
Pan
It seems to be relatively cheap in UK - half the price of Tri-X
Regards,
Pan
Ronald M
Veteran
I used to use the 200 speed and it had unique imaging, beautiful round grain and wonderful tones. Never used the 400 because the 200 bordered on too much grain.
I have since learned any film can be exposed at 1/2 box speed and development cut 20% and the resulting grain is much more fine with better shadow detail. Knowing this now, I would try the 400 and shoot it 200 right out first try. Developing instructions used to be in box and was accurate even considering how fussy I am.
This film will be very old school film quality. It will not be Delta 400 or TM400 or tri x.
Try this review in the center column.
https://figitalrevolution.com/tag/bergger-brf-400-plus/
I have since learned any film can be exposed at 1/2 box speed and development cut 20% and the resulting grain is much more fine with better shadow detail. Knowing this now, I would try the 400 and shoot it 200 right out first try. Developing instructions used to be in box and was accurate even considering how fussy I am.
This film will be very old school film quality. It will not be Delta 400 or TM400 or tri x.
Try this review in the center column.
https://figitalrevolution.com/tag/bergger-brf-400-plus/
Greyscale
Veteran
I just shot a roll. Harsh contrast, unforgiving on exposure, and it hates sunlight. Poor dynamic range. Mountainous grain. Probably an OK rainy day film. I did not like it very much at all. I might try Ronald's advice and try it at half box speed next time.
But maybe I was just having a bad day.
But maybe I was just having a bad day.
x-ray
Veteran
You're not really going to get the feel of any film with one roll. It takes shooting several rolls and trying different developers and optimizing exposure and process times.
I'm just about to develop two rolls of this film. Will post again when I see the results. Judging by the little write up on the instruction sheet I wouldn't think it'd be unforgiving on exposure.
x-ray
Veteran
I'm just about to develop two rolls of this film. Will post again when I see the results. Judging by the little write up on the instruction sheet I wouldn't think it'd be unforgiving on exposure.
The sheet you posted says "wide exposure latitude" which implies very forgiving of exposure and broad dynamic range. Usually faster films are flatter in contrast vs slower films. I agree.
Greyscale
Veteran
That is what I meant about the bad day thing. But I have been conversing with another user who has been having similar results.
A few shots from the roll were very nice. Like this one:
But the bad ones were very bad. Blown highlights and blocked shadows. Midtones were very nice, but there was a drop off at both the bright and dark sides of the scale, which led to my suggestion that it may be better suited for overcast days.
I have three more rolls, I will hold my final judgement until I finish them.
x-ray
Veteran
That is what I meant about the bad day thing. But I have been conversing with another user who has been having similar results.
A few shots from the roll were very nice. Like this one:
But the bad ones were very bad. Blown highlights and blocked backs. Midtones were very nice, but there was a drop off at both the bright and dark sides of the scale, which led to my suggestion that it may be better suited for overcast days.
I have three more rolls, I will hold my final judgement until I finish them.
I've used this process for fifty years. Take one roll and setup on a tripod. Shoot the entire roll on one stationary subject with constant lighting. Use typical light that you normal shoot under. Bracket your exposures. Start with the first frame at metered exposure at 400 ISO. Open the lens 1/2 stop for the next frame, do the same again for frame 3 but open 1 stop. Frame 4 close down 1/2 stop from the metered exposure and frame 5 down 1 full stop from the metered exposure. Repeat this until you've shot the entire roll.
Go in the darkroom and clip about a foot of the roll and process that clip normally. Next go back in and clip another foot of film and then reduce development 10%. Do the same again and reduce development 20%. Mark the film to indicate what you did. Now examine each set of frames and determine the best shadow density and then highlight density. Scan or print those frames and see which works best.
The key is to expose for good shadow density and develope for correct highlight density. Also if you're scanning, don't be afraid to adjust curves and levels. Canned scanner profiles leave much to be desired. They were established from a perfectly exposed and processed set of negatives which rarely ever happens. My technique, I scan in a linear mode applying no specific profile. I want everything in my neg. after scanning I normally apply curves and levels in Photoshop using 16 bit files. You can apply curves and levels in some scanner software but I rarely do. I scan with an Imacon 848 which allows raw format FFF scanning which also allows more flexibility.
Contrast and density are simple to tame. Just try the test. Also try different developers. What works with one film isn't necessarily good for another. You might also need to alter dilution and or agitation.
Ronald M
Veteran
Scanning has a completely different development time requirement from printing to darkroom papers depending on film.
TMax and Delta 100 and Tri x will print on #2 paper with condenser enlarger perfectly and my KM5400 scanner will scan perfectly.
My old favorite was plus X. Kodak times worked perfectly for enlarging, did not work for scanning. There was way to much contrast.
My test target has been the same for 30 years, Kodak grey scale , color wedges, and a doll with flesh tones, pleated black satin skirt and white linen blouse. I can pickup detail/texture in all with no burning or dodging-straight print- if developed properly. You must have a target so you know exposure is correct based on shadow detail and highlights that are not blown from over development or grey from under.
I would NEVER shoot pic with unknown film without running the tests. It would be unfair to the film. People use LF Bergger sheet film all over the world without issue.
The pic by Greyscale is perfect . I fail to see how one frame could be correct and the rest of the roll bad. I would have the camera checked.
x ray procedure is not scientific. There needs to be controlled tests and I normally can get in 3 6 exposure strips or less. It is amazing how close it turns out to manufactures spec.
Keep in mind printing and scanning may be different. At one time I did 10 or more trials of plus x to get a good scan development time. It did not print well.
TMax and Delta 100 and Tri x will print on #2 paper with condenser enlarger perfectly and my KM5400 scanner will scan perfectly.
My old favorite was plus X. Kodak times worked perfectly for enlarging, did not work for scanning. There was way to much contrast.
My test target has been the same for 30 years, Kodak grey scale , color wedges, and a doll with flesh tones, pleated black satin skirt and white linen blouse. I can pickup detail/texture in all with no burning or dodging-straight print- if developed properly. You must have a target so you know exposure is correct based on shadow detail and highlights that are not blown from over development or grey from under.
I would NEVER shoot pic with unknown film without running the tests. It would be unfair to the film. People use LF Bergger sheet film all over the world without issue.
The pic by Greyscale is perfect . I fail to see how one frame could be correct and the rest of the roll bad. I would have the camera checked.
x ray procedure is not scientific. There needs to be controlled tests and I normally can get in 3 6 exposure strips or less. It is amazing how close it turns out to manufactures spec.
Keep in mind printing and scanning may be different. At one time I did 10 or more trials of plus x to get a good scan development time. It did not print well.
Greyscale
Veteran
The whole roll wasn't bad, but the bad shots were really bad. The camera was an M3 with Summicron 50/2 fresh off a CLA. While it might be possible, I really doubt that was the problem. The meter was one that I have always found to be accurate in the past. Sure, I probably should have used a more familiar film with an untested camera, but this Bergger has been sitting on my desk for two months, and I am fresh out of TriX.
One problem might have been developing with the chemistry that I had on hand, as I had none of the ones on the data sheet. Some research indicated that this Berger film is rebranded ORWO N74, so I used suggested times for that film in Ilfosol 3 (8:30 at 20C). That might explain why there were blown highlights and blocked shadow in the same shot, if it were a problem with exposure, I would expect one or the other.
I will shoot the next roll in a camera with accurate TTL metering, perhaps the Nikon F4, and see how that works out.
One problem might have been developing with the chemistry that I had on hand, as I had none of the ones on the data sheet. Some research indicated that this Berger film is rebranded ORWO N74, so I used suggested times for that film in Ilfosol 3 (8:30 at 20C). That might explain why there were blown highlights and blocked shadow in the same shot, if it were a problem with exposure, I would expect one or the other.
I will shoot the next roll in a camera with accurate TTL metering, perhaps the Nikon F4, and see how that works out.
x-ray
Veteran
Not every developer works with every film. There's a reason they recommended specific developers. It's because they've done extensive testing and found that specific group to produce results with optimum limits. Sure there are other developers that will work but as you've seen you're on your own to determine optimum exposure and development.
The test I described works. It may not be 100% scientific but you'd need a transmission densatometer and density wedges to do so. I'd say most folks don't have these items. In any case the best final image is the one that looks best to you not necessarily the one Kodak, Ilford or whoever says is best. Is all about personal taste. It's art not science.
The test I described works. It may not be 100% scientific but you'd need a transmission densatometer and density wedges to do so. I'd say most folks don't have these items. In any case the best final image is the one that looks best to you not necessarily the one Kodak, Ilford or whoever says is best. Is all about personal taste. It's art not science.
Pioneer
Veteran
Good luck foks.
Grayscale's results sound much like those I experienced when I first started working with JCH Street Pan 400.
Not being very scientific it has taken me some time and a few rolls of film to work it all out, but it is working.
I am sure that you will sort all this out as well.
The main point in my opinion is to have fun and enjoy the process of learning to work with a new emulsion.
Just think, a whole weekend coming up to play with it. Have fun!
Grayscale's results sound much like those I experienced when I first started working with JCH Street Pan 400.
Not being very scientific it has taken me some time and a few rolls of film to work it all out, but it is working.
I am sure that you will sort all this out as well.
The main point in my opinion is to have fun and enjoy the process of learning to work with a new emulsion.
Just think, a whole weekend coming up to play with it. Have fun!
My two rolls are now developed and scanned. I used Super Prodol developer which doesn't seem to agree with this film all that much, and I suspect other developers would give better results.
Anyway, with its old school B&W film look and more grain than other ISO 400 films I've tried, Bergger 400 reminds me a lot of long discontinued Neopan 100 SS. Here's a few of the photos fresh out of the scanner:
I know I know, street shots don't come any more clichéd than a shot of someone wearing striped clothing with a pedestrian crossing in the background, but I took it anyway
Anyway, with its old school B&W film look and more grain than other ISO 400 films I've tried, Bergger 400 reminds me a lot of long discontinued Neopan 100 SS. Here's a few of the photos fresh out of the scanner:
I know I know, street shots don't come any more clichéd than a shot of someone wearing striped clothing with a pedestrian crossing in the background, but I took it anyway