Do you print BW400CN on B&W paper?

[Vonder]

I read Kodak's data sheet and it suggests that while the film can be printed on traditional B&W paper you will need to increase exposure and contrast to get acceptable results. This is exactly my experience when printing color negatives on B&W paper.

If you print BW400CN on B&W paper by choice, why do you do it? What do you get from it? Curious.

 

[SuzanneR]

When I first got back into the darkroom after a long hiatus, I had been shooting the monochrome C-41 films, both Kodak's and Ilford's. I had some real epic battles with it, partly, I think due to having the film commercially processed (inconsistent), and partly due to the nature of the film. It's not impossible, and it was a convenient way to refamiliarize myself with printing, but traditional film that I process myself makes for far better and easier negs to print.

 

[thebanana]

Ilford xp2 film is easier to print because it doesn't have the orange film base to deal with.

 

[ann]

i have students do it all the time, usually because they bought the wrong type for class.

the prints are fine, but do take more contrast and longer times/

 

[Colin Corneau]

I get the same results as Ann. I never found them as sharp either, but that may well be a problem behind the camera not in it.

 

[fschifano]

I've done it too, and can't really recommend it if you are seeking fine results. The orange mask, there to facilitate printing onto RA4 papers, is the fly in the ointment with this film. Ilford's chromogenic XP2 Super is vastly superior when used to make prints onto standard B&W papers. Both films scan exceptionally well.

 

[Mike Wilde]

They are not 'sharp' because there is no silver grain left in them. The image is a dye image.

These chromogenic films are very good at huge amounts of overexposure though, so they can be useful for simple cameras, which lack any expposure contols.

When a new (to me) old junker/underloved camera comes into my growing trove, and I work to bring it back to life, I always try to shoot a roll in it. I print up a good image from that roll and hang it on one of may many photo covered walls in the house. Then when someone pooh poohs all of the old cameras that I also display, but admires an image, I can always point out it it the photogrpaher that makes the image, and the camera is just one of his tools, and in my case point out the tool used. It is the most fun to do this with the digi crowd at the odd camera club function that I attend.

I do occasionally use bw400cn, but that is because I have about 200' of a 12" wide roll of outdated RA-4 monochome paper that usally just lives in my freezer that I occasuionally like to put though its paces when I otherwise am planning to have the roller processor going to do other ra-4 printing. It is much easier to just use verichrome pan, ar failing that, xp-2 and dlal in the right amount of mask equivalent but alas my stash of VPL is dwindling.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have tryed BW400CN on B&W with so-so results, does better on colour paper.

Jeff

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I do it because C41 is out of MY question. And the negs print out just fine for my tastes.

 

[dfoo]

I shot quite alot of XP2 when I was in Shanghai this summer... it prints quite nicely! The prints are quite sharp, and exhibit very good tonality. My negatives are, however, very dense when compared with my TriX negatives. They require quite a bit more exposure time in the enlarger.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I second the opinion that Ilford XP2 Super is vastly superior to Kodak BW400CN for optical printing on conventional black and white paper.

I've tried the BW400CN, and it does take a lot of work to get a decent image.

 

[Vonder]

Thanks for all the replies. Pretty much confirms what I'd expect from trying to print them. I know that the C-41 prints my lab makes from this film are gorgeous so I will stick to that route unless I have a specific need they can't meet.