OT--BW400CN Film

[cyr_.]

I've looked in the archives and found nothing relative to my question

which is: Can anyone give me two or three examples of pictures taken

with Kodak's BW400CN Film and compare them to traditional films such

as Tri-X or T-Max (which I am familiar with). I've never used BW400CN

film before and wonder what makes this film (besides the processing)

better or worse than other B+W films. Please....some real examples

(pictures) of the differences would be appreceated. Thanks.

[neal_wydra1]

Dear Cyr,

 

Let's see if I can figure out how to post these.

 

Neal Wydra

[neal_wydra1]

#2

[neal_wydra1]

#3

[kaiyen]

The major, major benefits of using any C41 film over a traditional one is that it's almost grainless in comparison, easier to scan (because of less grain and ability to use ICE), and you can it processed a billion places. Whether you can get neutral prints from your one-hour lab or not is a different issue. But if your goal is to get consistent negatives without doing your own processing, it's not a bad way to go. But it sounds like you're pretty experienced with traditional films so perhaps that last point is moot.

 

Other than that - I find them all to be rather low in contrast, and needing something more like an EI of 250 or even 200 to get good shadow detail. I also end up doing more work in terms of curves in Photoshop with scans from these films than with traditional b&w film.

 

There are some differences between the C41 films - some push better than others, color of masking, etc. But that's what I can come up with off the top of my head vs. traditional films.

 

allan

[cyr_.]

Thanks for the three pic's. Can you explain each for me.

Are they cn film or ??

Thanks.

[cyr_.]

On second look I see the pic's are a bit "pink" this I take it is due to the way in which the film is processed.....?

Not, I think, a quality I like........

I'll probably buy "a" roll and give it a try, just for the fun of it..

Thanks.

[charles_hohenstein]

I've never used BW400CN, but I have used T400CN (hope I spelled that correctly). I

understand that BW400CN has a strong orange mask and is much harder to print on

real black and white paper. Is that correct?

[silent1]

Mini-lab processed prints from C-41 B&W often have a slight color cast -- pink or green are most common. If you request it, many/most mini-labs can now print onto B&W stock -- same color dye process as color paper, but with black dye image, same as the C-41 B&W films. This gives a nice, neutral image on the print. The negative is another story -- Kodak C-41 B&W films have an orange mask just like color negs; the Portra is supposed to match the settings for the Portra colors films, so to be printable with the same machine settings, while the 400CN is supposed to be conventionally printable (whatever that means) -- it's still orange, I believe. If you might print your own, XP2+ is the way to go; with no orange mask, it's reported to print much like silver image negatives.

 

That said, unless you're scanning the negatives with a scanner that doesn't like silver negatives I'd say stick with "real" B&W films -- you have many more film choices and much more control over the process, ISO speeds from 25 up to 1000 (real speed of the 1600 and 3200 films) and real speeds up to 2000 with specialty developers like Diafine, control of contrast, etc. instead of three or four choices of ISO 400 and always the identical process.

[zachariah_edwardson]

all my current B+W use c-41 kodak film. buying darkroom stuff peice by peice however....

[zachariah_edwardson]

example no 2

From 400CN with a 50 summicron<div></div>

Here's another with a 35/2 AIS wide open on cn400. I generally like the results for scanning and the images generally look much cleaner. I'm still in the beginning stages of starting my own processing, so I am hoping that eventually I'll be able to get the same results from my bathroom darkroom.<div></div>

Although I don't care for this picture, this is one of the rare examples of tri-x that have the clean look I want. Processed in t-max developer at suggested temp, time, and dilution.<div></div>

and here's an example of tri-x that has a look that I am not happy with.<div></div>

[kaiyen]

Anthony,

That 2nd TXT shot just looks like it's way too contrasty. Have you tried pulling development to control the highlights a bit more?

 

allan

Allan.

Mostly I go by the recommended times. This particular roll was developed 2 degrees warmer than I thought, as I had two different readings from different thermometers. I also think I tend to agitate too much, or too vigorously. Next roll with hp5+ I'm going to try rating at 200 and cutting developing time down.

[kaiyen]

If your goal is to scan, I'd recommend cutting back on recommended times close to 20%, if not more. I cut Agfa's recommended time for FP4 in Rodinal 1+50 by 50%.

 

allan

My main goal for scanning is mainly to see which frames from a roll would possib;y make decent prints. My version of a proof sheet. The secondary rason for scanning is to post here on PN so when I get slammed for crappy technique I can hopefully learn something.

[digitmstr]

>>This particular roll was developed 2 degrees warmer than I thought<<

 

That enlarges the grain. Agitation will definitely increase contrast.

 

Having said that, to answer the original post, I think CN film is best used for certain "emergency" uses only. It was mostly created for practicality than fine-art use.

 

As noted earlier, there is a color shift that needs to be dealt with. That magenta cast for example. It will never approach the look of a properly processed Plus-X, Tri-X, Verichrome, etc...

[________1]

Cyr, this is 400CN. I quite like it. I find it easier to handle than XP2 which, from my lab at least, tend to be a bit curly and not lay flat in the neg holder for scanning. <p>

 

<center><img src="http://members.shaw.ca/mywebspace88/europeguy1.jpg"></center><center><i>~~~</i></center>

[ilkka_nissila]

The invisible grain is largely due to low contrast. If you increase the contrast to match traditional films, the grain becomes visible. However, it is still much less grainy than conventional film when I scan it with a desktop film scanner.