400CN vs Tri-X home development quality

[lance_frost]

<p>I've had several rolls of the 400CN commercially processed and loved the results. Will I see a big drop-off in quality when I switch to Tri-X and D-76 home development?</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>They are both unique in their own ways. with the CN you can only process them 1 way with DIY you have more control over everything the results are up to you. Tri-X and D-76 is a great way to start learning film development. Learn all you can with this combination before you move on and don't be afraid to ask questions.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Tri-X has an outstanding tonal range and a tight grain structure conducive to good sharpness. 400CN images are dye-based, consisting of dye "clouds" rather than silver. The latter is a significant advantage when scanning, since you can use Digital ICE with 400CN (or any C-41 process film), but not silver-based images like Tri-X. From the specs, both have comparable resolution and dynamic range (about 10 stops). 400CN has a smaller density range than Tri-X (silver is opaque, dye is not), which would be better for scanning. You'll have to judge the image quality for yourself. I've used a lot of Tri-X and Fuji Reala, but not any chromagenic film (e.g., 400CN).</p>

<p>400CN Data Sheet: <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4036/f4036.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4036/f4036.pdf</a><br>

Tri-X Data Sheet: <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf</a></p>

<p>Tri-X processing is inexpensive and very easy to do at home. Time and temperature control are not especially critical. I like to use D-76, diluted 1:1 and discard it after one use. Unused developer lasts a long time (about 3 months), and is very consistent batch to batch. There are better developers for grain and tonal range (generally not both at the same time), but people tend to keep expensive developers too long and reuse them too much. That's not good for consistency or image quality.</p>

[btmuir]

<p>One of the main reasons to use Tri-X for me is the "look" of the grain.</p>

<p>Also, you have only yourself to blame if it gets scratched if you diy.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Bruce</p>

<p>Exactly I can only blame myself never the film or the out prosesser. I have been using Tri-X for years and recently more because I am using the Arista 400 Premium it is fun to play with using Diafine Acufine Rodinal Hc-110 you name it... I am re discovering this fill again with all of it's limits and no pun intended pushing and pulling the limits.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>Depends on what you're doing with the film post processing. If scanning the film is part of your workflow, then yes, there will be some loss of quality with Tri-X. If you are printing with an enlarger onto B&W paper, then Tri-X will outperform the 400CN. For the best compromise of both, try Ilford's XP2 Super. It is a C-41 process monochrome film like 400CN, and it scans beautifully giving all the advantages a C-41 film + scanner workflow affords. Unlike the 400CN film, it is on a neutral colored (as far as B&W printing is concerned) base, making it completely compatible with standard B&W papers. I've printed a number of negatives on this film and it performs almost like a conventional B&W film in the darkroom. </p>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>I process my own BW and scan on a Coolscan 5000. On a whim, I decide to try 400cn because, I was getting tired of touching up the BW scans (no ICE), and the Coolscan is not the best for scanning true BW.<br>

I was very pleased with this film. It has nice dynamic range and is fairly fine grained. You can get even smoother grain by cleaning it up in Neat Image or a similar program.<br>

This is one of my son, in some pretty harsh lighting, but the film handled it very well.</p>

<p>Anthony</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[larrydressler]

<p>Anthony</p>

<p>I have some of that film in 120 in the freezer I should try it. But I just don't trust sending my film out these days other than to Dwayne's in Kansas and that is only for my Chrome. Next year I plan on setting up my own C-41 and E6 but economy problems exist for me...<br>

That is a nice shot BTW.</p>

[david_manning1]

<p>As an aside, Tri-X is archivable. I can still make good prints from my grandfather's Tri-X negs. C-41 process B&W film will last about like C-41 color film. His color print stuff from the 60's looks pretty bad without LOTS of digital help.</p>

[lance_frost]

<p>Larry,<br>

I shot 120 400CN and loved it. That's what started my dilemma. I actually sent my film out through Ritz. It took two weeks, but I couldn't argue with the results.</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>I hope that we can explore this topic a lot more.. I'm an almost complete novice to B&W, although fairly well experienced with E-6 scanning, and printing with a Nikon LS-40 and Epson 2200. Just shot my first two rolls of 400 T-Max and it was amazingly good! I'd had it developed and printed at a pro lab (Philadelphia Photographics). </p>

<p>Given the difficulty involved in scanning and dust removal with anything but the dye-based films such as the 400CN and the Ilford film that Frank mentioned, I would really like to hear more opinions of these films vs. the silver based ones, especially in regards to overall quality and with possibly scanning and printing digitally in mind.. Frank's results seem quite impressive, and I'd love to see more examples and thoughts about this topic.</p>

<p>Also, would anyone make a case for continuing to stay with a pro lab? I'm thinking about getting into developing myself, but don't know if the volumes will justify it. Thanks.</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Oops.. I was referring to Anthony's nice picture, and mistakenly said, "Frank's results.." </p>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>Interestingly enough, the developing on that shot of my son was done by - of all places - York. Thanks for the compliments. 400CN also cleans up nice in programs like Neat Image. The image I posted is a significant crop from the 35MM frame. I ran it through Neat Image and its sharp and practically grainless. But, I tend to like some grain to add dimension.<br>

I recently shot a sample role of 400Max, and developed it in Ilford DDX. I did not like that combo. I tend to shoot BW in three different scenarios. 1) I like Ilford 3200 (shot at 1600) for its character and grainy portraits, see atachment #1. 2) I'll shoot EFKE 25 for landscape work and either send it out to Dr5 (slides) or develop it in Rodinal. This film scans great and has powerful resolution and contrast - see attachment #2. 3) Then lately, for general stuff its 400CN for its smooth grain and easy scanning on my Coolscan 5000.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Anthony</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>Next One on EFKE - Anthony</p><div></div>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>Just one more clarification. The first image of Nick on 400cn that I posted here has no grain reduction. This is just a direct scan. I only mentioned NeatImage and grain reduction to point out that the film cleans up nicely for those who like smooth images.<br>

Anthony</p>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>Because it is not grain it is a dye cloud.</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Anthony, Thanks very much. Again, some great pics! I wish you many more as your son grows up. I'm trying to compile images of my young relatives as they grow up, and it is a huge amount of fun, and very satisfying; just wish I'd been doing at least some in B&W, instead of exclusively in color until now.</p>

<p>Your technical results are very impressive, also; especially the quality of the cropped image of your son. I really like the striking image of the fallen leaf, too.. didn't even know a 25 speed film was available, as my favorite color emulsions in this speed were cancelled several years ago!</p>

<p>As I mentioned, the results from the lab I used blew me away with the 400 T-Max, but of course it is a pro lab, and this was literally the first B&W I'd shot- nothing else to compare it with.. Now that I see your results with this more scanner friendly C-41 film, I'll have to consider shooting it, at least in addition to the T-Max. My biggest concern is that my older 2200 printer is not supposedly the best for printing B&W with the standard Epson inks, and I don't want to use it for exclusively non-color work, which using the specialty after-market inksets would seem to entail..</p>

<p>Thinking out loud, there seem to be two ways to go..? One would be, to learn to develop and print traditionally, oneself.. Would this be a huge learning curve with these new Kodak emulsions (400T-Max and 400CN, and I'd like to perhaps at least try the legendary Tri-X, also)? If not, can anyone recommend a really excellent, and hopefully succinct, book or two, and/or, any excellent printed, or on-line learning material for this purpose?</p>

<p>The other way might be to shoot the 400CN exclusively, have it developed (we still have some excellent places for quality film development in this general area), and scan and print myself? But, for printing, both would seem to entail the purchase of a newer printer, and that's a sticking point economically for me right now, but I may be able to do it in a couple of months.</p>

<p>Any additional thoughts much appreciated! Thanks, Jeff </p>

[robert lee]

<p>Actually, sensor noise can be suppressed nicely from just about any image source - whether it originates from some flavor of film or a sliver of silicon. Neat Image type programs work fine or just enlarge less, the principle behind either is basically the same.</p>

<p>The prime reason for using chromogenic B&W was the ubiquity and convenience of C-41 processing, which is no longer the case for the most part. In return, one loses the ability to incorporate varied development in building the negative. This is why I don't find films like 400CN particularly compelling.</p>