T400CN vs. Black & White+

[richard_newman]

Kodak Black&White+ is supposed to be the "consumer version" of T400CN, modified to get better prints from the average minilab- presumably using color paper. Has any one done a comparison of these two to determine whether there is any difference in the resulting negatives? I don't really care about the prints - I consider them as "proof prints" from which real ones can be made. However, any differences in the negatives are important. Any input?

[paul swenson]

I highly reccomend you go to http://www.photo.net/photo/ and search the

archives as the chromagenic films have been discussed considerably

there.

[richard_newman]

Paul, Thanks for the reference. I am familiar with photo.net.

However, this is a more B&W focused group, and I am hoping for some

input from others who do not use photo.net I have made some informal

comparisons, but don't want to input mine until I hear from others.

[todd frederick]

I tried the Kodak Select b/w plus once and found the orange coating

to be extremely heavy and it was very hard to print on my own

equipment...to me it was very different from T400CN or XP2.

[j._o.]

I didn't find B&W + to be as sharp, possibly because of the very heavy

orange mask. I'd rather have T400CN or XP2.

[jason_tuck]

I've tried both, examined both with an 8x loupe, gotten many, many

crappy prints, I suggest, USE REEL (punn!) B&W, but the T400CN is the

better, as mentioned earlier the B&W+ looks soft compared to the

t400cn but they both give a "dreamy" softness that I never liked...

[peter_olsson]

Ilford XP2 super gives images (on B&W paper) that look

like those from traditional B&W prints, at least compared

to Kodak TCN.