Kodak BW400CN Film

[sanking]

Has anyone made, or know of, any direct comparisons for sharpness and grain between Kodak BW400 CN, an ASA 400 chromogenic film, with a fine grain B&W film like Fuji Acros or TMAX-100? A friend suggested that I could get finer grain and sharpness from this ASA 400 film than with Acros and Tmax-100 and I am wondering if his advice is consistent with the experience of others?



Sandy King

 

[Ian Grant]

Sandy, you should also add XP2 into that equation.

My understanding is that the Kodak 400CN film outperforms XP2 when making B&W prints via a minilab, because its optimised for that use. While XP2 is far superior for conventional B&W printing. I think there was an article in B&W UK magazine.

Ian

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Sandy -

I have not used this film. But looking at Kodak's data sheet:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4036/f4036.jhtml
Comparing the RMS values for this film with 100TMX or Acros will tell us - wait... crap! They don't list a RMS value!!! THey now have a section called "Print Grain Index Magnification Table" which they say is replacing RMS granularity. Stupid Kodak.

Well, as with all color neg films, it will have a dye cloud which forms the image and I would suspect that it would in fact lower the "graininess" of the image when compared to a similar speed B&W film. But then it will most likely have lower resolution, and I would suspect less sharpness too. But if you are doing contacts from super large negs, then it should not matter really.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

If you're shooting roll film, give it a try. It shouldn't take that much time or money.

Kirk

 

[aldevo]

Ian is 100% correct.

Kodak B&W400CN has an orange mask which makes printing onto conventional B&W paper in a darkroom more or less impossible. A usable result is possible using a Multigrade 4 or 4.5 filter, but the results are not very appealing. On the other hand, it easily prints on to color paper with no trace of a color cast.

Ilford XP2 Super has a clear mask and is quite compatible with printing on to B&W paper. Unfortunately, it is very prone to a greenish color cast when printed on to color paper.

In my opinion the choice is clear; if you are going to be handling the printing in a traditional B&W darkroom then choose XP2 Super. If you will have a lab print your photos, then choose the B&W400CN.

 

[aldevo]

Ian is 100% correct.

Kodak B&W400CN has an orange mask which makes printing onto conventional B&W paper in a darkroom more or less impossible. A usable result is possible using a Multigrade 4 or 4.5 filter, but the results are not very appealing. On the other hand, it easily prints on to color paper with no trace of a color cast.

Ilford XP2 Super has a clear mask and is quite compatible with printing on to B&W paper. Unfortunately, it is very prone to a greenish color cast when printed on to color paper.

In my opinion the choice is clear; if you are going to be handling the printing in a traditional B&W darkroom then choose XP2 Super. If you will have a lab print your photos, then choose the B&W400CN.

I will also add my $0.02 - which comprises nearly 300 rolls of XP2 Super and its ealier Kodak competitor Tmax400CN (which had a clear mask, btw) - and that is that these C-41 films do not provide the subjective impression of sharpness that traditional B&W films provide. In my experience, it isn't really close.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I will strongly disagree with your assessment that you cannot make good prints on traditional b/w fiber paper using T400CN. The orange mask does require some contrast filtration, but not grade 4.5 ! It also does increase overall density, requiring longer printing times, but I have made beautiful 16x20 prints from 35mm negatives using this film, with full tonal range and virtually no grain.

I too have probably shot a similar amount of film using this emulsion. Perhaps one difference is that I do not rate it at box speed- I shoot it at ISO 100. Yes, this yields a denser negative, but it is very printable, and you're right, it isn't the same grain structure as Tri-X or Tmax 400- it is much finer. I have never had an issue with the apparent sharpness of my images shot on this film. All the panoramic vertical figure shots on this page were done with this film:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

for some examples of what it can do.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Sandy,

As far as I know, no-one has made direct comparisons using the same grain criteria: RMS granularity, for all its apparent objectivity, varies according to who is doing the testing and how.

I can however tell you that some time ago Ilford compared XP2 Super and Delta 100, and Delta 100 and Acros. From memory, Delta 100 is the sharpest of the lot; Acros is finer-grained than Delta 100 (but also at least 1/3 stop slower in almost all developers). Kodak chromogenics are finer grained than XP2 Super, but less sharp and (from my own tests) 1/3 stop slower, though I've not plotted the curves since a year or so after XP2 Super came out.

Shooting a test target will probably tell you all you want/need to know.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[DaveOttawa]

Agree with aldevo, my experience is with XP2 hand printing on B&W paper mostly: prints easily, typically needs a bit higher contrast filter, overexposure (1-2 stops) seems to noticeably reduce the apparent grain in the print, very good at retaining easy to print highlight detail.
400CN: not so good, steer clear if hand printing for all the reasons stated by other posters. Haven't tried at minilab on colour paper.
Both have a different look to conventional B&W film, try a roll & you'll know if you like it or not.

Just noticed that flyingcamera has found the trick of printing the 400CN, unfortunately I haven't and I know others that haven't, may depend on the the individual neg and your taste in prints but I'd still say unless there is something you really like about 400CN don't select it for handprinting on B&W paper.

 

[srs5694]

Kodak B&W400CN has an orange mask which makes printing onto conventional B&W paper in a darkroom more or less impossible.

IMHO, this is a gross exaggeration.

A usable result is possible using a Multigrade 4 or 4.5 filter, but the results are not very appealing.

I don't shoot a lot of BW400CN, but when I do, I find that using filter values that nominally equate to about grade 3-4 usually produces good results with my Philips PCS150 light source on VC paper (I use mostly Agfa and Foma VC RC papers). Exposure times also tend to be long -- maybe 2-3 times as long as with conventional B&W negatives. Of course, you might not like the results, but that's a subjective matter, and as such Sandy will just have to try the film to decide on this score.

That said, you're not the only one who takes a very dim view of using BW400CN with conventional B&W papers -- but I'm also not the only one who doesn't have such problems with it. I can think of several possible reasons for this wide divergence of opinions, including subjective judgment differences, interactions with B&W paper brands or types, interactions with enlarger light sources, and interactions with enlarger filters.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Hi Sandy
We have just finished running 50-100 rolls of the XP2 film , from that we scanned the film and outputed onto photopaper , the results were quite good and I like this film better for black white reproduction than the very orange base Kodak film as others suggest. The base density is quite high in the XP2 film but they print nicely.
But I would stick with TMAX in TMAX developer as I believe this is a first rate combination, as well I would strongly urge you to consider the dark storage capabilities of C41 film vs lets say Acros or Tmax.
Even though you are still a young chicken I wouldn't want to see your good work go bad on you 10 -15 years down the road.

Has anyone made, or know of, any direct comparisons for sharpness and grain between Kodak BW400 CN, an ASA 400 chromogenic film, with a fine grain B&W film like Fuji Acros or TMAX-100? A friend suggested that I could get finer grain and sharpness from this ASA 400 film than with Acros and Tmax-100 and I am wondering if his advice is consistent with the experience of others?



Sandy King

 

[Roger Hicks]

Even though you are still a young chicken I wouldn't want to see your good work go bad on you 10 -15 years down the road.

My XP-1 is still eminently printable 20 years on, even with the stabilized (non-water-washed) film. The water-washed stuff is as good as silver-image.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Good for you Roger
Most of the labs processing C41 based films are washless today, just giving Sandy a heads up.
Bob

My XP-1 is still eminently printable 20 years on, even with the stabilized (non-water-washed) film. The water-washed stuff is as good as silver-image.

 

[aldevo]

IMHO, this is a gross exaggeration.



I don't shoot a lot of BW400CN, but when I do, I find that using filter values that nominally equate to about grade 3-4 usually produces good results with my Philips PCS150 light source on VC paper (I use mostly Agfa and Foma VC RC papers). Exposure times also tend to be long -- maybe 2-3 times as long as with conventional B&W negatives. Of course, you might not like the results, but that's a subjective matter, and as such Sandy will just have to try the film to decide on this score.

That said, you're not the only one who takes a very dim view of using BW400CN with conventional B&W papers -- but I'm also not the only one who doesn't have such problems with it. I can think of several possible reasons for this wide divergence of opinions, including subjective judgment differences, interactions with B&W paper brands or types, interactions with enlarger light sources, and interactions with enlarger filters.

I'd have to concede it's true that choice of the B&W paper and the enlarger lightsource can play a role. Agfa MCP was about the shortest-toe paper manufactured of late. Perhaps that's a help to this particular cause.

I've witnessed more than a few attempts (firsthand, btw) to print BW 400CN negs on Ilford Multigrade IV RC on condenser head Omega enlargers and none of these worked very well even when a 4 or 4.5 filter was used.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I had great success printing on Bergger VCCB paper using either a cold light with gel filters or a Beseler Dichro head. Paper developer has been either Ansco 130 or Dektol.

 

[aldevo]

My XP-1 is still eminently printable 20 years on, even with the stabilized (non-water-washed) film. The water-washed stuff is as good as silver-image.

YMMV,

I can see evidence of degradation in a few samples of BOTH XP2 Super and Tmax400CN negs shot in the early-mid 90s vs ones shot around late 2002 (when I last shot C-41 B&w). I'm sure that they remain printable.

If time permits, I'll scan in a few samples.

All my C-41 negs were processed by color-specializing labs. I did not keep notes as to which negatives were processed at which lab - so I cannot determine if the degradation can simply be attributed to the actions of one specific lab.

 

[sanking]

Wow, thanks everyone for the wealth of good information. Really lots to think about here. I tried to compare Kodak technical data before posting the message but as Kirk notes, Kodak uses different methods of evaluating grain with BW400CI than with the T-Max films.

I am not concerned about darkroom printing as my main objective is to have the film printed at a lab or scan myself and print digitally so the orange color is not an issue with me. Speed is a major issue and if I can get grain that is as fine with BW400CI as with Tmax-100 and Across that would weigh a lot in my decision.

The issue of stability of the exposed and developed negatives is one I had not considered. Does C-41 processed film break down fairly quickly? Can I increase stability by washing the C-41 film after getting it back from the lab?

Sandy King

 

[sanking]

BTW, I want to mention that the major reason for my interest at this time in BW400CI is because I am going to China in September for a month and am trying to decide which films to take.

I will be working exclusively with MF on this trip, including a Mamiya 711 outfit with two bodies and four lenses, plus a Fuji GA645Zi. I have already decided that most of my film will be 220 color, since this gives me the option of either printing color or via scans B&W. However, since I have the two Mamiya bodies I thought it might be worthwhile to dedicate one of them to a fine grain B&W film (which in combination with the outstanding Mamiya lenses might give quality as good if not better than 4X5 at the same print size), and I am just trying to determine if the grain from BW400CI is as fine as that from Acros or Tmax-100. Obviously the thing to do is test this myself but just wanted to get some external feedback.

Thanks again for all of the responses,

Sandy King

 

[Ian Grant]

Sandy, I guess its time for a test roll or two, but try XP2 as well.

Over the years I used a lot of XP1 and XP2 and the grain is excellent. I wouldn't say its better than well processed Tmax400 and tonally conventional films still have an edge.

Ian

 

[Alan Johnson]

Following table gives for RMS granularity Acros-7 ,old TMX-8 ,BW400CN <9.
There was a debate that Acros may have been developed in finer grain developer IIRC.
http://www.cacreeks.com/films.htm

 

[sanking]

Following table gives for RMS granularity Acros-7 ,old TMX-8 ,BW400CN <9.
There was a debate that Acros may have been developed in finer grain developer IIRC.
http://www.cacreeks.com/films.htm

Hi Alan,

That is a great study. Do you know anything about the group that carried it out? The hosting site (California Creeks) is not one that I normally associate with this type of film testing.

Sandy

 

[Alan Johnson]

No, not really. It is very high class for a non photography group.
I wish they all could be California Creeks.
Incidentally, my experience when I used PC-TEA for a year was that in the same developer TMX was slightly finer grained than Acros.The difference between the two may depend on the developer as others have had Acros finer grained.
I used XP2 before my darkroom was fully set up some time ago.No problems with grain ,dof or camera shake but no lab was ever entirely reliable at not scratching it.

 

[hammy]

I will strongly disagree with your assessment that you cannot make good prints on traditional b/w fiber paper using T400CN. The orange mask does require some contrast filtration, but not grade 4.5 ! It also does increase overall density, requiring longer printing times, but I have made beautiful 16x20 prints from 35mm negatives using this film, with full tonal range and virtually no grain.

I too have probably shot a similar amount of film using this emulsion. Perhaps one difference is that I do not rate it at box speed- I shoot it at ISO 100. Yes, this yields a denser negative, but it is very printable, and you're right, it isn't the same grain structure as Tri-X or Tmax 400- it is much finer. I have never had an issue with the apparent sharpness of my images shot on this film. All the panoramic vertical figure shots on this page were done with this film:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

for some examples of what it can do.

I agree 100%. I've made prints from 400CN that turned out great.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Sandy

Putting the stability issue aside, since you will scan not such an issue.
I would also warn you that if you take this film to a lab, be certain that the film is not going through a roller transport machine.
At our facilities we have both Roller Transport c41 as well we have Jobo C41 one shot line.
For all critical film we use the Jobo one shot over the roller transport for a few reasons.
Cleanliness of film,
No scratching,
Fresh chemicals are an obvious bonus.
Keep in mind , we charge $6 for Roller transport, and $12 for Jobo.

I am sure you can process the films yourself if you so desire, just need the Chems.
I really like the quality of the XP2, but for your trip I would use tmax in tmax dev for that smoothness you seem to want.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Good for you Roger
Most of the labs processing C41 based films are washless today, just giving Sandy a heads up.
Bob

Dear Bob,

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there is no deterioration (many are funny colours) but rather that it's not as short-lived as your post might imply.

Cheers,

R.