Tmax 400 CN - Exposure, (Push)Processing, Tonal Range

[bjornholland]

Hi!

 

Trying to find a suitable 35mm b&w film for my 3 month travel in hot/humid

conditions, I have phoned the Kodak tech department and they recommended

Tmax 400 CN. After this phone-call, several questions came up to me, and I

reckon you guys will have PRACTICAL experience and, also, you probably

don't want to sell (unless you work for Kodak :-).... Anyway:

 

1) Can I really shoot this film at ANY speed between 50 and 400 ASA?

Wouldn't that result in very dense negatives (at 50 ASA) and a shift of tonal

range? I mean, coming from the Zone System theory... Does that mean I don't

have to meter carefully anymore, just overexpose and I'll be fine????? I just

don't get it, sorry! In the end, I don't want to end up in the darkroom with even

more dodging&burning work to do than I already have when printing from a

traditional b&w film.......

 

2) The Kodak technician also said, that the lower the ASA setting, the lower

the grain and the sharper the film... In other words: overexpose, and you'll get

more detailed negs???

 

3) What happens when you push-process or even pull-process this film (1

stop, 2 stops) ?

 

4) Is this film really less grainy than Tmax100?

 

5) Is the Tmax400CN more suitable for scanning?

 

6) Could I process this film in "low quality" chemistry? I am going to

Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam... I wouldn't want to process my colour-

negatives over there, but as the Tmax400CN obviously is a b&w film, does

bad chemistry really matter?

 

 

Kind regards

Bjoern

[pete_andrews]

T 400CN isn't really a true B&W film, it's a chromogenic film. I uses the same technology as colour negative film, which also means that it needs to be processed like a colour negative film in C-41 chemistry. That consequently means that pushing, and especially pulling, are right out, unless you can find a lab that's willing to change their entire processing line timing for just your film! (unlikely)<p>If you're going to go with a chromogenic film, and they do have the advantage of that incredible exposure latitude, then I'd say that Ilford's XP2super film has the slight edge, because it gives a negative that's better suited to being printed on proper B&W paper. The Kodak product is more geared to being printed on colour paper.<p>Availability in central Asia might be a problem, but then Kodak's T 400CN is in their professional product range, which means that it's not that widely available at retail outlets even in Western countries.<p>For goodness sake don't use that awful amateur market B&W portra400 garbage that Kodak are trying to hype. It's a completely different film with a strong orange mask that can ONLY be printed on colour paper - Yechhh!<p>Of any B&W film in the 400 ISO speed range, XP2super is one of the best choices for scanning, IMHO.

[henk]

Bjoern,

 

I Always found the Neopan 400 a perfect match when traveling. When shooting at sunny 16 (batteries died on me alot) i could still use the pictures. I dont know if its still the same formulae though. Fuji doesnt change film production as often as Kodak but anyway, better check with Fuji. Three months is very long especially in hot conditions, youd better develop them in the country you are in. Test them with rodinal before you go, its available allmost anywhere. Bigger labs in citys use Tmax RS dev often. An alternative is to send them home every few weeks, you can make arrangements with a (pro)lab before you go(so they know what you want them to do with your films). Bad chemistry matters, however keeping film in a backpack for 3 months matters even more. Keep it dry in a container, exposed or not. Dont leave your pack in the sun or rain etc....

 

Greetings,

[andy_piper2]

Bjoern:

 

 

1) Yes and yes. C-41 (color neg chemistry films, which is what Tmax400CN is ("CN" stands for 'color negative' even though it produces a monochrome B&W image) are somewhat more tolerant of overexposure since there are built-in limitations to how dense the dye cloud can become

 

2) I wouldn't bet on more SHARPNESS from overexposure - but there will be less grain as the denser dye clouds overlap and fill in the spaces between themselves, making for a smoother gradation of dye rather than bigger chunks of silver. And the converse is true - even at 400 the chromogenic films (TMax400CN, Ilford XP2, etc) already start to show MORE grain in the (thin) shadows than in the mid-tones/highlights.

 

3) Push/pull processing is just as possible with 400CN as with any other color film - but a pro lab is more likely to be able/willing to do it than the corner 1-hour. Pull-processing is generally unnecessary since you can get down to EI 100 or so with normal processing - it would probably make for REALLY flat negs since the film is already contrast-limited by its chemical nature.

 

4/5) My Nikon (LED-illuminated) scanner does prefer dye images to silver - slightly. The LEDs act like a point-light-source enlarger and emphasize crisp grain edges when hitting the bits of silver metal. I've mostly used XP2, and the midtones-highlights are virtually grain-free and smooth when scanned (but not shadows - see 2). Less "grain" than even Delta 100 when scanned - but not sharper.

 

6) I wouldn't - especially after travelling half-way around the world for the pictures. But you could try it with one roll and if that particular lab does OK, try some more. Color balance is clearly not an issue - but bad chemistry can still screw up the tonal range.

 

In short - the chromogenic "B&W" films are perfectly usable, and even beautiful - but have a somewhat different tonality and response to exposure/development than silver-image films - they're just a different animal, like digital images or color slides vs. color negs.

[mbuntag]

If you dont want to do color processing (C41) in those countries, then TMAX 400 CN is clearly not a good choice. As TMax 400 CN is a chromogenic film, your'e going to have to process it in C41 chemistry anyway for best results, not in D76 or other B&W developers.

 

Chromogenic films generally do better with overexposure than with underexposure, which is why the people in Kodak where recommending that you can shoot at a lower ASA/ISO without changing development. Don't expect this film to behave exactly like panchromatic B&W films, so the Zone system as you know it doesn't apply here in exactly the same way.

 

If you have to mess with development, it's generally better to push than to pull chromogenic films.

 

Kodak probably didn't tell you, but TMAX 400cn has a slight orange cast similar to other chromogenic films, so this isn't the best film to do conventional B&W darkroom work with either. Portra B&W 400 has an even stronger orange cast, which makes it more suitable for color printing.

 

If you wan't to do your own B&W processing and printing, stick with the classics: Tri-X, HP5, Neopan, Agfapan.

[larry_lambert1]

1) actually even further range, out to 640 for sure. 50 is pretty dense but ends up "smoothing out" details=portraits good, landscapes bad. if you're doing your own darkroom work Ilford xp-2 may behave more like something you are used to...can't understand why the Kodak guy wouldn't have told you this (puzzled look scratch head).

2)the lower the grain yes, sharper no, just mushy as the dye clouds grow and merge together and edges disappear.

3)don't know, never had to, it can be processed with every other shot a different E.I. and the results are at least acceptable.

4)shot at 400, yes, absolutely.

5)certainly better than a true B&w film, which have notoriously short scan gamuts, requiring a lot of PS expansion to fill the range.

6)t400cn is a CHROMOGENIC b&w film, read that as color film made up of only (in a manner of speaking) grey dyes, not silver grains, and are subject to the same problems with shitty chemistry as color negs or trannies, i.e. destablizing emulsions that will stick to the storage sleeve, and rapidly shifting-over-time dye densities, not to mention a poor base fog color.

Seems like this might be your first time using a chromogenic B&W, so at least give it a fighting chance in decent chemistry, overwise some twit Cambodian's chemistry might sour you on a potentially significant discovery.

[lex_jenkins]

I've used all the variations and incarnations of Kodak's chromogenic monochrome films in 35mm and MF. They're wonderful for skin tones. Not much exposure latitude for underexposure, but I like the results I get at ISO 250 with a green filter. The stuff scans just fine but is a PITA to print in the wet darkroom due to the heavy orange mask.

 

If you plan to print conventionally go for Ilford XP2 Super. It's not a better film, tho', just different. XP2 is a bit sharper and a tiny bit grainier; Kodak's stuff has finer grain and seems somewhat less sharp. Choose according to your subject matter and desired end product.

 

BTW, don't expect particularly good prints from a one-hour lab. You'll need to have the negs printed by a fairly good lab to properly evaluate them.

 

Oh, are these films less grainy than TMX? Heck no. But almost nothing is less grainy than TMX. They are less grainy than other 400 b&w films, tho', provided they're properly exposed.