Kodak "Professional" BW400CN -- how does it compare?

Well, dang it, I guess if I would have remembered to do a search before I posted this message, I wouldn't have needed to. Sorry. If I could have deleted this message, I would have.

Looks like this film has been discussed at some length in previous threads. I'm not sensing a whole lot of consensus, though, as to how well BW400CN scans. According to some of the posts I read, it scans well, and with others, it does not. Same goes for printing with it.

I've never used it before, and I plan to scan the negs with my Epson 4990 flatbed, then output the results to a photo printer after PP.

If you want to comment on your experiences, by all means.

it looks funny...

when developed in t-max

haven't tried to print the oops!

I love 400CN although it's obviously a very different beast to any 'real' B&W film. In a hybrid workflow, it really shines. It scans great and for a 400 speed it's incredibly fine-grained, sharp, and renders tone beautifully. It looks different to any other B&W film scanned and doesn't have the same latitude but I really enjoy it. Probably a contentious statement, but even in 35mm, the results are superior in every way to digital that I have seen or used. I also MUCH prefer to use 400CN than shoot say Portra 400 and convert to B&W.

I've tried it as a straight minilab film. I'm not overly keen on the rendition as it looks a little too soft for me, and certainly softer than XP2super.

If you be scanning, that shouldn't be a problem if the scanner scans standard orange masked C41 OK. I prefer XP2 as not being masked it works as both normal and hybrid source material.

Yes, the image is dye clouds, not silver grains, so it's got a soft look -- it's not high-acutance. Smoooth.

Hi

I've shot two or three 35mm rolls so far, and quite like it. I think I like the results better than XP2.

It's very smooth and creamy, with little "grain", & works well in a hybrid process.