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.
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
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.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Good for you Roger
Most of the labs processing C41 based films are washless today, just giving Sandy a heads up.
Bob
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?