Good quality B/W film

[nathancraver]

I just bought a Mamiya 645AF and a roll of Kodak BW400CN and a roll of Fuji Pro 160C 100iso. I haven't

had a chance to try either one yet (I just bought the camera yesterday, and its the first medium format

camera i have "never" used. The only reason I haven't already used up both rolls is I have no filters yet.

Anyway, I was just wondering how the Kodak 400CN compares to the Tri-X in terms of grain and overall

quality. I am completely new to film, but have been shooting DSLRs for a few years.

[peter_thatcher]

My feeling is that the Tri-X is going to be grainier than the 400cn, though I do not have my negatives at hand to compare. As for quality though, I prefer the Tri-X over 400CN, and T-max over that. I am sure you know this, but in case you don't, Do not proccess CN in B&W Chemistry. It is a Colour Film and needs to go through C-41. That is the main reason I don't like it too. My prints tend to come back (from the Hour Photo place) with a blue/green tint to them. The nice thing about it is that you can create any tone you like. Provided the Lab tech understands you, or you print them yourself. When I asked the girl at the counter for Sepia toning she said "Huh?"

[jordan_w.]

They have completely different looks, but I like them both. Tri-X is a traditional, moderately grainy B&W film. 400CN is basically a monochrome colour negative film (one black dye layer instead of three colour layers) -- as a result it appears nearly grainless, at the expense of some perceived sharpness.

 

My suggestion to you is that if you're new to B&W film, you should keep shooting 400CN. It uses a standard process (C-41), in contrast to the many variables that affect B&W film processing (none of which you have control over if you take your film to a lab). Once you are set up to process your own B&W film at home, you can start in with the Tri-X.

[yann1]

400 CN is a chromogenic film, very different from Tri-x. The first scans very well, but it's a kind of boring (matter of taste...). As for chromogenic films, XP2 is much better. Now for "real" black and white, tri-x is a favorite, especially for street photography,with beautiful grain, very forgiving film, and still not too expensive. In terms of grain, 400 CN may have less grain than tri-x, but it looks dull. Ilford HP5 is also a great film, pushable, forgiving, and all purpose. If you don't develop yourself and if you want to scan, try Ilford XP2.

[john_shriver]

The BW 400CN has a creamy look. It's not super high acutance. (Not a big issue in 120 size.) Scans great, forgiving about exposure, predictable. Fine place to start if you're not processing film yourself.

[spanky]

The size you end up printing at also is a factor. At any given size a 645 neg will produce a better print then a 135mm simply due to less magnification required. Can't say for sure how this compares to DSLRs...seems to be a wide area of opinion on this.

[jamespjones]

Both films are very common and produce distinct results. As others have mentioned, the

BW400CN is a dye based film and will be processed by a photo lab, while the Tri-X is silver

based and can be developed at home.

 

BW400CN will appear grainless; flat B&W. This has its applications, and it is definitely easy

to use and predictable. You should get reproducible results every time. It is a very good

film.

 

But, it is not a silver grain film as in most B&W films. Film that contains silver particles can

be developed at home. When the grains of silver are exposed to light, the clumps of

exposed silver will become visible when developed. The more light; the more silver is

exposed, and the darker the negative will be.

 

Tri-X is a silver based film, it is an older film and it is grainy; but this is part of its appeal.

It has a look that can be exaggerated to create images reminiscent of a few decades ago,

and I believe there is even a process to make it appear almost orthographic in nature (no

grays, just black or white). I find it a wonderful film for low light and night photography

where I want the character of film to be obvious.

 

On the other hand, when I want clean graduated B&W lines and shadows, it's hard to beat

a modern T-grain film such as Kodak TMAX 100. T-grain films are silver based films with

extremely fine granules. They provide very smooth transitions from light to shadow, as

you may have on a rounded surface like the hood of a car or a face.

 

The trick to the true B&W's (silver based films) is that the processing is as important as the

film. You can achieve different looks by using different developers. You can exaggerate

or accentuate characteristics; including "sharpness" or grain.

 

I would ask around amongst your friends and find out if someone is developing B&W at

home. Have them show you how it is done; it is tremendously rewarding. If you don't

want to deal with developing, you can find a competent pro lab that develops silver B&W

for you, or you can stick to dye based films like BW400CN.

 

good luck!

[jdrose]

Keep is simple. Use a C41 B&W for ultimate quality. Try Neopan or Pan F for amazing traditional quality.

[jdrose]

Tri-X shows grain, but in 645 that is not a real problem. Actually, depending on your intent, grain is never a problem.

 

C41 B&W, BW400CN XP2, etc uses dye instead of crystals of silver to record the image. It is grainless and has an amazing tonality, however, it does not have the flexibilty during developing that Tri-X has. Tri-X can range from a huge palette of grays to a mono image of only black and white.

 

XP2 and Tri-X are both only about $3.00 a roll. Try 'em both.

 

(Make sure you develop your XP2 at a dip-&-dunk lab; almost no one keeps their rollers new or clean enough for your precious negatives...no scratches. Do the Tri-X yourself.)

[chris_waller]

Ilford XP2 is the best chromogenic b+w film. I only use it occasionally, in the most recent case to shoot an event at short notice. XP2 is very tolerant of contrast and is virutally grainless.

[al_divenuti]

Nathan,

 

I shot C-41 B&W film, almost exclusively, for nearly a dozen years from about 1990-2002. My cumulative experience with both the Ilford and Kodak C-41 B&W films of this period totals about 275 rolls.

 

Looking back on my use of these films, I am struck by one thought:

 

"What the f*** what I thinking"?

 

Both XP2 Super and B&W 400CN do not have the edge sharpness of "true" B&W films. Moreover, their contrast cannot be controlled by varying development time with the result that they become muddy pretty fast when shot at EI 400 and above. Overexposing these films to improve their shadow separation in contrasty light also will meet with very limited success.

 

Worse yet, both the available C-41 films pose issues for printing. Kodak's B&W 400CN has an orange mask and cannot be printed on to B&W paper with satisfactory results. Ilford's XP2 Super has a clear base and can be printed on B&W paper just fine - but it prints with a greenish cast on most color paper. If you can find a lab that will actually honor your request to have a C-41 film printed on B&W paper; well, that's great - but let's remember this is 2007 before you start looking for such an animal.

 

Yes, the grain is fine. But you will also get fine grain (finer, actually) by shooting traditional C-41 films like Portra or Reala, scanning them in 24-bit color and then channel mixing to your heart's content prior to de-saturating the image in Photoshop.

 

I switched to shooting traditional B&W films in late 2002 and haven't looked back. If you are shooting 6x4.5 you won't notice the difference in grain between properly-processed Tri-X and B&W 400CN until you hit an 11x14 print and I doubt you'll find the Tri-X objectionable at that size.

[poah]

I don't get a cast on my C41 processed 135 film. they print them on a fuji frontier machine as B&W images. I prefer the look of of the fuji to XP2 but I mainly do people with it which may contribute to the fact I prefer it. for traditional B&W fill I find kodak plus-X to be my favorite and I also really like ilford delta 400 + 3200. here are some of my samples from various films.

 

ilford XP2

 

Fuji neopan 400CN

 

plus-x 125

 

T-max 100

 

ilford delta 400

 

ilford delta 3200

 

ilford fp4

 

Ilford Fpan 50