Further to a thread of earlier today, I am going to try Bergger BPF200 developed in PMK Pyro. I shoot 4x5 and will be enlarging. (I'd love to have a 11x14 and contact print only but can't seem to find a reasonably priced used one). The previous thread mentined some graininess when enlarged...Is there a way to avoid or minimize this? Is it so nasty as to be considered "ugly" (for lack of better words). I won't be enlarging more than 16x20 - diffusion enlager printed on Gallerie &/or Ilford MG FB D76 1:3

Thanks in advance

Matthew

-- Matthew Hoag (hoagm@bostonpizza.com), December 20, 2001

Answers

For me when I was shooting BPF in 4x5, the issues I ran into when enlarging had more to do with sharpness rather than grain. At 8x10 things were just fine, but at greater magnifications things got a little soft around the edges. I still think it's a great film, and I'm still convinced it's a lot better than some people make it out to be, but it's not so well suited to enlarging as films like FP4 and TMX. The tonality is superb, especially in PMK, and I love it for contact printing. Give it a try, though. Make some 11x14 prints and judge for yourself whether the results are good enough or not.

-- David Munson (apollo@luxfragilis.com), December 20, 2001.

Mathew What is more important to you, being able to show people what you have seen, or some grain in a photograph. Some of the most moving photographs I have ever seen had very poor craft behind them, while some of the most boring photographs I have ever seen had perfect craft behind them. The "craft" involved in the Art of Photography isn't perfect. Kevin

-- Kevin Kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), December 21, 2001.

I don't think you will have any problems with graininess from 4x5 enlargements to 11x14. I've enlarged my 6x7 BPR200 negs to 11x14 and was quite satisfied with them. It is really an old-fashioned film, with lovely tonality in PMK. I think Galerie would be an excellent choice to print on.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edb@unblinkingeye.com), December 21, 2001.

Matthew,

from my experience with BPF200 and PMK, I can say that it was not as sharp and quite a bit more grainy than FP4+. Also, for me, the difference in tonality compared to fp4+ in tge same soup. BPF200 for me was nice but not briliant. (also, I hate the it's packed...)

-- Hagai Kaufman (hagai@albatross.co.il), December 21, 2001.

I have used forte 200 400 in 8x10 extensively. This is ALOT like bregger , which I suspect is repackaged Forte. Please correct me if I am wrong. The 400 rated at 200 has some grainyness, The 200 rated at 100 and developed in, hang on here, TMAX, has great tonality and very low grain, the sharpness is high and I cannot blow out highlights. I have not done pyro on this. I would encourage you to use Tmax, I have Steichen lab in Toronto process it and we just use the same times and dilutions as tri-x. I am very pleased with the results dn the overall tonality is much better than tri-x.

-- ED (zeke@idirect.com), December 21, 2001.

One film/PMK combination I use is Tmax100 and PMK. I haven't tried it with Bergger as a comparison, but my results are spectacular. 16x20 shows the little hairs on a model's cheek! No apprerciable grain and tack sharp. The negs were shot with a Hasselblad, 150mm lens, 120 Tmax100.

They were TOO SHARP for me to use for that job and I had to switch to D-76 for the final s

-- John Barnier (jhb101@aol.com), December 22, 2001.

To Ed:

Bergger is NOT repackaged Forte. It is made in France at the old Guillemot factory, I believe. (I may have spelled Guillemot improperly.)

-- Michael A. Smith (michaelandpaula@michaelandpaula.com), December 24, 2001.