I was very excited to shoot Pancro 400 as it's a new film, however it wasn't quite what I expected. Now part of that is definitely on me as I'm primarily an HP5 shooter and Pancro definitely is not HP5.

In general I'd say the grain doesn't feel that organic and it doesn't disappear into the shadows or highlights, it's sort of omnipresent. That's a shame because despite being a 400 speed film it is very light hungry and didn't really pick up much shadow detail, honestly it felt more like a 125 speed film.

In my experience it's also very flat, which is great for printing but it wasn't amazing when scanned, it definitely prefers the darkroom. Also I think as a part of that flatness it sort of turns a lot of the highlights into mids, which combined with the drop off in the shadows it looks almost like it's a 100 or 200 speed film that's been pushed.

Even though it's left me feeling deflated, it's not a bad film, it just isn't an all rounder and I think definitely warrants further experimentation.

I shot this film indoors in subdued light on a Mamiyaflex TLR at iso400 and processed at home in xtol 1+1. The grain is very present but it has an interesting painterly quality which I liked. I have another roll which I'll try in better light to see how it handles it. The development is a slightly longer affair than usual with extended pre-wash and fix times so I was a little put off at first but I'm intrigued by the results so will definitely try it again.

Pentax 67 165mm f2.8. 1/125th @f2.8 Processed in Bellini Hydrogen @20 degrees C for 14 minutes
I was introduced to this film a few years ago and initially shot it in the LeRouge66 pinhole camera where exposure was somewhat unreliable. Having transferred it to the Pentax I found my initial development time 0f 6.5 minutes was way too short. Everything was under processed. I revisited the Massive Dev Chart and it quoted 10 minutes, so I trialled that for one roll, which was way better. With further use, using my exposure techniques, and the Pentax have settled on 14 minutes. For me, it produces the images with great depth and feel. The greys are subtle and the blacks black. Clean highlights too. But we have to remember all reviews are very subjective. We all have different, exposure, development, and scanning techniques, not to mention the kit the pictures are taken on or scanned on. They all have an influence, as does the contrast of the scan you prefer to work with for your post production. It's always helpful to have a starting point, but these things should be just that. The most important thing is consistency in how you do your work flow, then minor adjustments can be made to produce the images you are looking for. The types of photography boxes below I have ticked are one I have used it for. All of them produced lovely results. But getting to know a film takes time, so don't use it once and discard it if it didn't do what you thought it would. This film is up there for me, and is great value for money.

I really enjoyed the results I got from my first rolls of Bergger in 120. Shot on a mamiya rz67 in studio I loved the depth of the shadows and sharpness in spite of the grain. Very manipulatable dependent on the developer you use.

Developed in Bellini Hydrofen. Shot with a Yashica-Mat Red window compatibility isn't great as the text is feint.
I think this film is very selective about the developer you use. Rodinal and Caffeinol don't work and it wasn't great in hydrofen. Dev time was six minutes as was fix time and it required a pre-soak. The grain is noticeable, clear skies were a bit streaky, the images just weren't great. Shadow detail and sharpness are there but it isn't a patch on Delta, Rollei Retro & rpx, HP5+, or Foma, all of which are cheaper, some significantly so. I am unlikely to shoot this again unless someone donates a roll, I certainly won't be buying it. Some people get good results but I can only review from my own experience.