Kodak BW400CN Grain Sctructure after 8 years. Significant Difference.

[lhalcong]

I took IMG012.jpg picture of my daughter during her baptism when she was 1 year old. I took that picture on BW400CN purchased back then and scanned with Nikon 9000ED .
The second image here IMG015.jpg was taken now recently this month during her first communion. I used the same film now 8 years later but film is purchased recently (from B&H).
The recent image files looks so much deeply grainier than the one I took 8 years ago. I am still using the same scanner Nikon Coolscan 9000ED with very similar settings both as I remember were set to ICE = NORMAL and Digital GEM = 4 , (which is the max. setting for film grain reduction). The scanned images are cropped extracts so you can enlarge to 100% to view the difference in grain structure. I have always shot this film rated a box speed. ISO = 400


Has the manufacturing qualities of the film changed after 8 years ... ? , or is something else at play here that I happen not to know... ? The other significant difference is the one 8 years ago was developed at a professional Lab. ( I didn't do my own development back then) and the one recent I developed myself at home... I use Kodak Flexicolor chemicals. (standard Kodak C-41 3:15m process) <- we can go into more details here if this is/was the cause.


Thank you in advance.

 

[film_man]

To me that doesn't look like grain but scanning/JPG artefacts. But don't take my word for it, I stopped doing my own scanning a couple of years ago.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It resembles bad bleaching and/or fixing. Residual sliver metal and silver halide are left behind giving this type of effect. Being in dark areas though, I tend to suspect fixing. However, this assumes a process fault. It could be a major change in manufacturing. I would contact Kodak to check it out.

PE

 

[gone]

Impossible to know, given that one was developed by a lab 8 years ago and one by yourself recently. Far too many variables (scanner too, along w/ exposures and lighting conditions, then and now). Putting the negs on a light table and comparing them would be my first suggestion, but w/ the orange mask, that won't work probably. In short, I have no idea how you would get what you got, unless you did what you did.

 

[lhalcong]

Impossible to know, given that one was developed by a lab 8 years ago and one by yourself recently. Far too many variables (scanner too, along w/ exposures and lighting conditions, then and now). Putting the negs on a light table and comparing them would be my first suggestion, but w/ the orange mask, that won't work probably. In short, I have no idea how you would get what you got, unless you did what you did.

The lighting conditions were in fact different . The one 8 years ago I used window light (actually balcony) which was very soft and the one recent I used a Large Softbox at close distance to her and fill in the shadows with shoot-through umbrella. (which was somewhat soft as well). Black backdrop both but different fabric type.

I don't know that lighting conditions will account for significant grain structure change, other than trying to bring-up underexposed shadows... (which I am not trying to do but keep pure black).

 

[lhalcong]

It resembles bad bleaching and/or fixing. Residual sliver metal and silver halide are left behind giving this type of effect. Being in dark areas though, I tend to suspect fixing. However, this assumes a process fault. It could be a major change in manufacturing. I would contact Kodak to check it out.

PE

I read some threads about using this film rated 200 to avoid grain in underexposed shadows, etc. but I also read another thread where someone stated just this similar answer. Bad Bleaching/Fixing could account for this significant big difference.
I may entertain this possibility by adding additional information: the Kodak Flexicolor Batch I have been using expired in May 2013. (another retired engineer told me that under good storage conditions, it would easily last two years after expiration. which is about now). The Bleach and fixer bottles (the ones ready to use) have been kept partially empty though, Fixer being a big bottle was the one more at fault. Although I have tried to use butane gas on these as well, I know that oxygen may have still found the way in during the past 2 years. I know this fixer keeps very well, but I wonder if these conditions may have deteriorated the chemical. (no visual signs in the liquid of being bad though, it looks as clear and in good conditions as day one.

I do 6:30 Bleach and 6:30 Fix. as per Kodak instructions. I reuse the 500ml for 12 rolls and discard . I have enough to afford early discard so I think I am safe in terms of usage.

 

[Xmas]

If you are going to be critical you need to overexposed BW400CN or XP2 by two stops.

And use fresh chems.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The bleach will last about forever. The fix is just a fix. Exhaustion is a possible factor.

PE

 

[Rudeofus]

You can replace the fixer with TF-5 from formulary. You could rebleach and refix a sample and see whether grain looks different afterwards. Even if, as PE suspects, only your fixer went bad: your negs were exposed to light, and a rebleach may be necessary to clean up printout silver.

 

[captain ZZM]

The film underexposed l think.You should bracketing at lmportant moment,and the BW400CN has been discontinued.

 

[Xmas]

You can replace the fixer with TF-5 from formulary. You could rebleach and refix a sample and see whether grain looks different afterwards. Even if, as PE suspects, only your fixer went bad: your negs were exposed to light, and a rebleach may be necessary to clean up printout silver.

Yes I'd bleach and fix again.

And there is still BW400CN available but XP2 is easier to wet print.