Kodak BW400CN Film

I used about 60 rolls of 120 XP-2 super on a trip to London a few years ago. These negatives make some of the best looking prints I've ever made, and this holds true both for optical prints and other types. And these negatives scan really, really well. The only BW film that scans better, IMHO, is Technical Pan, as long at it's density is really well controlled. The grain seems finer to me than TMX in Xtol, especially when scanned. However, if you're going to print big enough to see the grain, and that's really quite big with XP-2 Super, I prefer the look of grain on the conventional films.

Bob Carnie said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bob,

Thanks for the comments about processing. I don't know what my local lab uses but they do a very good job as the film is generally quite clean with no scratches. But what about my question regarding washing the film after I get it back from the lab? Will this help to make the film more archival?

Basically it down to BW400CN or Fuji Acros for this trip because that is what I have and can test before I leave. I had hoped to get out today and make some identical exposures with the two films to test for grain and sharpness but it is just too hot down south to venture out. It was 106F yesterday in South Carolina, and that is an official weather station reading. Today we had a real cool down and the high was only about 99F.

Sandy

Sandy, my estimation of you has sunk to the pits, it couldn't sink further.

How on the one hand can you champion LF & ULF, and then come up with such a great developer, Pyrocat HD and its variations, and then give all your principles up, just because your off to China.

Plenty of people here are using Pyrocat HD for 35mm, 120 and of course many of us are LF and ULF users.

Have you no faith at all in the excellent developer you brought us, do you think it's so bad you must resort to a C41 processed film.

You appear to have a total lack of confidence in the developer you created !!!!!

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Sandy, my estimation of you has sunk to the pits, it couldn't sink further.

How on the one hand can you champion LF & ULF, and then come up with such a great developer, Pyrocat HD and its variations, and then give all your principles up, just because your off tom China.

Plenty of people here are using Pyrocat HD for 35mm, 120 and of course the LF users.

Have you no faith in the excellent developer you brought us, do you think it's so bad you must resort to a C41 processed film.

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian,

I am so sorry to be such a disappointment. However, I am above all a pragmatic photographer looking for practical solutions, so I ask questions of those with knowledge and experience, and I also test to find answers.

The issue here is that I want to get 4X5 quality, not close to it, from a 6X7cm system. So I am looking for whatever combination will give me the very best results in terms of sharpness and grain. I believe that the very best would be TMAX-100 or Fuji Acros in Pyrocat-HD. But, if I can gain two full stops with Kodak BW400CN that would be a great advantage in hand held work because it would permit a faster shutter speed at the same aperture.

I have to admit that looking at the data provided by the California Creek group has lead me to to take a fresh look at this. The data from one of the studies clearly suggests that both in terms of grain (RMS) and resolution I can do quite a bit better with Fuji Acros and Tmax-100 than with BW400CN or with XP2. And I know that processing in a staining developer like Pyrocat-HD or -MC will give me even more sharpness and finer grain than the developers used in the tests. However, I like to know for sure, so I still plan to test this myself.

Still, unless my tests give conclusive evidence to the contrary,my current plan is to take with me on the trip a good supply of color negative film for one of the cameras, and dedicate the other one to Fuji Across which I will then develop in Pyrocat-HD or -MC.


Best,

Sandy King

Sandy,

Your under estimating your abilities, yes you must get the best possible quality.

You will never get the same quality from 120 film that I can get or even Hicksey, from 5x4, why because we will all be using the same techniques with different format films. Film size is the criteria you have chosen.

Pragmatism is your keyword, all I can say is Tmax100 TMX or Tmax400 TMY 6x7 or 6x9 is superb in the right developer, Rodinal, Xtol & Pyrocat HD seem to be the best for me. but that's only 20 years experience.

You probably under estimate the experience of others on this forum. It's very easy to shoot larger formats and loose complete touch with the realities of grain and sharpness balanced with tonality.

"California Creek group" the data might be fine but it's totally outside our remit, no-one knows any thing about them, and so it has no validity.

Any way back on topic, TMY is excellent in Pyrocat actually almost gives full speed, excellent fine grain and great tonality.

Come on Sandy this is more about you lacking self confidence with smaller formats and trying to build in a safety margin, you should trust using your own excellent developer Pyrocat HD with 120 films.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Sandy,

Your under estimating your abilities, yes you must get the best possible quality.

You will never get the same quality from 120 film that I can get or even Hicksey, from 5x4, why because we will all be using the same techniques with different format films. Film size is the criteria you have chosen.

Pragmatism is your keyword, all I can say is Tmax100 TMX or Tmax400 TMY 6x7 or 6x9 is superb in the right developer, Rodinal, Xtol & Pyrocat HD seem to be the best for me. but that's only 20 years experience.

You probably under estimate the experience of others on this forum. It's very easy to shoot larger formats and loose complete touch with the realities of grain and sharpness balanced with tonality.

"California Creek group" the data might be fine but it's totally outside our remit, no-one knows any thing about them, and so it has no validity.

Any way back on topic, TMY is excellent in Pyrocat actually almost gives full speed, excellent fine grain and great tonality.

Come on Sandy this is more about you lacking self confidence with smaller formats and trying to build in a safety margin, you should trust using your own excellent developer Pyrocat HD with 120 films.

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian,

For some reason this exchange appears to be personal for you. I don't underestimate at all the experience of others on this forum. In fact, my original question sought their advice.

And why should there be an issue in that my questions indicate a lack of self-confidence with smaller formats? Most of my experience has been with LF and ULF and that is where I feel most comfortable. However, for this specific trip I have decided that MF is the most practical solution and I am simply exploring options to optimize my results and for that reason sought advice from persons experiencedced with the chromogenic films.

But yes, I do *believe* that with appropriate and best practice and use of materials it should be possible to get 4X5 type quality from the Mamiya 7 equipment. My belief is based on simple facts, most important of which is thet fact that at the optimum apertures for maximum DOF for both formats (which would be f/5.6 or f/8 for the 6X7 format, and f/16 or f/22 for the 4X5) the Mamiya lenses resolve more than 100 lppm, more than twice what you will get with 4X5. Reasons relate to both inherent lens quality (i.e.Mamiya 7 lens resolve more than 4X5 lenses, and to the results of *diffractiin", which limit resolution with any lens. And since the magnification is only 2X more for the 6X7 negative compared to 4X5 it seems very reasonable to suggest that one can get as much resolution with Mamiya 7 as with 4X5, assuming best practice for both formats. And if so, at that point the issue is film type and grain. I am not asserting this as fact, but as a point of experimentation.

Sandy King

TheFlyingCamera said:

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.

Click to expand...

T400CN has a much lighter base than BW400CN, there it was definitly easier to print on b/w paper when it was availiblle.

Sandy
I cannot answer if your film will be safer if you wash after it gets back from the lab. I would go to the Whilielm book and see what they say about stability of these C41 films. But be prepared for a major amount of dust busting if your lab is not careful, I would not run it through roller transport unless you can control their runs. For example if I use roller transport*and I do* I will force the operator to drain the machine, clean the rollers, mix fresh chem , run control plots to my satisfaction and then run clean up before they run my film.*
As I have said for critical film=Jobo , less critical = Roller Transport
I have no problem using these film as I now shoot Fuji colour film on the 6x9 rangefinder for a very large project I am working on. I plan to scan the colour film and make separation films off the Lambda to make tricolour images as we have discussed in our meetings.
But I am fully aware that this film will not be in its original state within 10-20 years from know. * you could think of it like Brett Weston destroying his original negs, except you won't need the scizzors.*
So I proof immediately when the film comes back, edit, proof, edit proof and then go to scanning for finals and I over scan.
BTW when you do get back and want to come to Toronto to do final scans , we can get the workshops going to help cover your costs, as well you can have full run of my Scanners if you want, spend a few days and scan your brains out. For that matter Sandy if you decide to use the C41 roller transport, come to Canada and photograph the amazing colours in fall and you can use my machine , and pay my operator to run it for you, at least you will get as close to clean as possible as a Jobo.
and proof on the Lamda, this offer is always open to you.
good luck in China

best regards
Bob

Apologies Sandy

In no way was my post meant to be personal.

You brought up an old issue of shooting smaller format film with supposedly LF qualities.

I think that was laid to rest many years ago, I remember a photographer telling me he was shooting 5x4 quality images with his 35mm camera. To which I remember replying so what film do you use, and he said Tech Pan, OK I said so what format are my 5x4 Tech Pans equivalent to. The fact that I did'nt like the tonality at 35mm, 120 or 5x4 was irrelevant.

As you rightly say your original post was asking for advice, and reading your reply you are happy to state "you ARE happiest with LF & ULF" that's not a problem.

So there is actually another issue !!!!!

Lay to rest any myths that 120 can get on a par with 5x4 for quality, APX25 was the only film to get close. Well processed EFKE R25 (120) is superb but then PL 25 is the 5x4 & 10x8 version, but they are too slow for most hand-held work, which is what you are after.

You actually said "so I ask questions of those with knowledge and experience".

Experience is a funny thing, when you shoot film for a living you instinctive know what film is most appropriate, because you have good and the occasional bad experience.

I have to ask a very basic question, have you tried Pyrocat HD, or its variants, with 35mm or 120. If not then try it the results are superb, and you came up with the formulae.

OK put another way Pyrocat HD and variants are **** so Sandy why do we get such great results.

Ian


""

Ian Grant said:

I have to ask a very basic question, have you tried Pyrocat HD, or its variants, with 35mm or 120. If not then try it the results are superb, and you came up with the formulae.

Ian

Click to expand...

I rarely ever use 35mm. However, I have developed many rolls of B&W film, primarily TMAX-100, in Pyrocat-HD, and the results are indeed outstanding.
However, recall that the motivation for the thread was a comment by a friend, who is a good photographer, that I could get equivalent grain and sharpness, with two stops more film speed, with Kodak BW400CN film, compared to TMAX-100 or Fuji Acros. I have never used BW400CN so thought it might be interesting to hear comments from other Apugers.

Sandy King

Sandy,
One thing which is not readily apparent in this thread is the pictorial quality of chromogenic films as opposed to traditional B&W stuff.
At my camera club one guy used exclusively chromogenic film, as he dropped the film to the nearest minilab, get them processed and concentrate only on printing. Very convenient for him.
These films exhibit a low contrast which is very good when shooting very contrasty subject but not so good for low contrast scene.
The graininess is totally different from conventional film. You'll like it or hate it. (on some shot they are grainless. Well on small printing size like 8x10). So some old timers lack the soul of HP5 or TX...
I urge you to test these films BEFORE going to China. Because if you don't like the outcome, you'll be stuck with unpleasant images for this trip.
BTW, I ran a test years ago of C41 B&W film into E6 chemistry to produce B&W slides. (I tested all 400 film avail, Ilford, old Kodak Tmax, and Konica) the better looking slide were from the Konica. The slides had a particular look, with soft and smooth rendition. Quite agreeable. The Ilford and Kodak gave warm to green images, the Konica being neutral.
Have a nice trip !

I found that to get best results from the chromogenics, a fair chunk of overexposure was necessary. That means you won't get the speed benefit of a 400 speed film. If you do shoot it, try it at 100. You'll still get the advantage of being able to easily process on the road, and you'll be able to enlarge to the same size you'd be able to enlarge 4x5 without loss of image quality.

TheFlyingCamera said:

I found that to get best results from the chromogenics, a fair chunk of overexposure was necessary. That means you won't get the speed benefit of a 400 speed film. If you do shoot it, try it at 100. You'll still get the advantage of being able to easily process on the road, and you'll be able to enlarge to the same size you'd be able to enlarge 4x5 without loss of image quality.

Click to expand...

And grain will be finer and sharpness will be WAY down. I'd not go below 200. But a lot depends on how you meter.

I'll try to post a couple of scans from work I did with this film, shot as I described, both 2 1/4 and 35mm work.

I finally got outside yesterday and shot a roll of Fuji Across and Kodak BW400CN to compare grain and sharpness. I first shot the AF resolution chart at a distance of ten feet with the camera on a trip, using the 43mm, 65mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses with the aperture at f/8. I finished the frames with some real life shots, with the camera on tripod. I developed the Acros in Pyrocat-MC, and had the BW400CN evaluated by a local lab.

My evaluation, which was done by examining the negatives with a microscope, first shows that the Mamiya 7 lenses are very sharp. With a very conservative reading of the test results the 43mm, 65mm and 80mm lenses gave resolution with both films of over 80 lppm. The 150mm lens did not do as well, with only about 50 lppm. I suspect the distance was just too close for the rangefinder of this lens.

My conclusion is that in terms of resolution there is very little difference between the two films, and the differences that do exist are probably due to slight differences in focusing with the rangefinder. Grain seems finer on the BW400CN.

Of course, none of the above tells me exactly how the negatives will print. Since I plan to do that digitally I have scanned the negatives and examined them on screen after adjustments in Photoshop (which I won’t go into here). My initial impression is that both films will print digitally equally well from the scanned files.

Although I don’t print silver very much in the darkroom I went ahead and made a couple of tests with both negatives to see how they would look on a VC paper. After adjusting for contrast and density I have to say that I liked the look from Acros in Pyrocat-MC much more than the look from BW400CN. The prints from Acros seemed to have a much snappier look.

OK, that is where I stand. My overall conclusion is that if I scan the negatives and print digitally my friend was correct, i.e. I can gain two stops of film speed with equivalent sharpness and grain with BW400CN compared to Acros. But I lose the ability to control contrast, and must send the film to a lab since I won’t process C-41. For printing in the darkroom, I like the Across in Pyrocat-MC.

BTW, from the same tripod set-up and as a curiosity I tested Acros with a Fuji GW690III (90mm lens) and a Moscow-5, with 105mm lens. I tested the 90mm Fujinon EBC at f/4, 5.6, 8 and 11, the 105 Industar at f/5.6, 8, 11 and 16. I have developed the film but not yet read the results. I will post them later this evening in the medium format section in the long running thread on folders.


Sandy King

sanking said:

......
OK, that is where I stand. My overall conclusion is that if I scan the negatives and print digitally my friend was correct, i.e. I can gain two stops of film speed with equivalent sharpness and grain with BW400CN compared to Acros. But I lose the ability to control contrast, and must send the film to a lab since I won’t process C-41. For printing in the darkroom, I like the Across in Pyrocat-MC.
.......


Sandy King

Click to expand...

Sandy,

Now you begin to raise an interesting point that probably cannot be pursued here.

It seems that more and more "new" films are being optimized for scanning and, consequently, digital printing.

This would make sense since the BW400CN is a C-41 processed film - and, as such, can be readily processed at just about any mini-lab outlet.

We've seen this "optimized for scanning" with some other newly-introduced films (e.g. Fuji).

And that probably takes further discussion to Hybrid....

copake_ham said:

Sandy,

Now you begin to raise an interesting point that probably cannot be pursued here.

It seems that more and more "new" films are being optimized for scanning and, consequently, digital printing.

This would make sense since the BW400CN is a C-41 processed film - and, as such, can be readily processed at just about any mini-lab outlet.

We've seen this "optimized for scanning" with some other newly-introduced films (e.g. Fuji).

And that probably takes further discussion to Hybrid....

Click to expand...

Hi George,

Yes, many new films are being optimized for scanning, and the BW400CN film scan wonderfully. Compared to most color C-41 film grain is almost non-existent. Of course, some color films scan much better than others.

For most folks not heavy into ideology quality for the price (bang for the buck) is where the line is drawn between digital and film. The future of film is probably in scanning, not in traditional wet processing, and there are many applications where film is a better choice than digital.

Sandy King