Pros and cons of 400CN

mesh · Nov 15, 2009

I have been a lover of 400CN for sometime... I shoot a lot in 120 and a bit in 35mm - have always been impressed by it's 'quality' and ease of use.

Now I know this has been discussed many, many times before, but I am thinking of going back to TMAX. It's almost as though my scans using 400CN look 'digital' in a way.

I am right in making these generalised assumptions about the pros and cons of 400CN?...

Advantages:

Excellent grain (well there practically isn't any!)
Easy to scan
Easy to process (assuming you live near a lab or do C41 yourself)
Punchy results

Disadvantages:

Can look almost 'digital' at times
Doesn't 'look' like B&W - no 'special' aesthetic
Can't process at home easily
Not quite the same DR as most 'real' B&W

In a hybrid workflow, have people had success with TMAX 400 generally? Do you find it OK to scan? At the moment I am just using a V700. How about the emulsion itself... is it actually a bit more durable than C41? It's been a long time wince I shot real B&W In a way it's almost a backward step in terms of what many of us perceive as 'quality' but the character of TMAX and other films seems missing in 400CN... maybe I am being too sentimental

Thanks for any insights and opinions,

David

sanking · Nov 18, 2009

mesh said:
I have been a lover of 400CN for sometime... I shoot a lot in 120 and a bit in 35mm - have always been impressed by it's 'quality' and ease of use.

Now I know this has been discussed many, many times before, but I am thinking of going back to TMAX. It's almost as though my scans using 400CN look 'digital' in a way.

I am right in making these generalised assumptions about the pros and cons of 400CN?...

Advantages:

Excellent grain (well there practically isn't any!)
Easy to scan
Easy to process (assuming you live near a lab or do C41 yourself)
Punchy results

Disadvantages:

Can look almost 'digital' at times
Doesn't 'look' like B&W - no 'special' aesthetic
Can't process at home easily
Not quite the same DR as most 'real' B&W

In a hybrid workflow, have people had success with TMAX 400 generally? Do you find it OK to scan? At the moment I am just using a V700. How about the emulsion itself... is it actually a bit more durable than C41? It's been a long time wince I shot real B&W In a way it's almost a backward step in terms of what many of us perceive as 'quality' but the character of TMAX and other films seems missing in 400CN... maybe I am being too sentimental

Thanks for any insights and opinions,

David

I don't see anything digital about the look from Kodak 400 CN. The film is very fine grained, and not as sharp as a fine grained film like Fuji Acros but otherwise it gives good results that don't look very different to me from other B&W films.

My major objection to the film is that I generally prefer to develop my own B&W film for maximum flexibility.

Sandy King

mesh · Nov 18, 2009

It's interesting though... I have put up three images of 400CN and three of TMAX and people can easily pick which is which, and certainly tend to gravitate to the TMAX. I have always liked 400CN but it looks far closer to digital B&W (although admittedly with far better DR and 'texture').

I thought it was just grain that people were 'seeing' but a few people commented that the 400CN had a colour cast when on-screen they were all greyscale in the same RGB colour space with the same profiles.... I thought that was interesting.

sanking · Nov 18, 2009

mesh said:
It's interesting though... I have put up three images of 400CN and three of TMAX and people can easily pick which is which, and certainly tend to gravitate to the TMAX. I have always liked 400CN but it looks far closer to digital B&W (although admittedly with far better DR and 'texture').

I thought it was just grain that people were 'seeing' but a few people commented that the 400CN had a colour cast when on-screen they were all greyscale in the same RGB colour space with the same profiles.... I thought that was interesting.

OK, but even if people can pick your TMAX scans from your 400 CN scans the reason might simply be in the method of scanning and processing you used. I have personally made many B&W prints from scans of color negative fillm, C41 type B&W films, and regular B&W films and I sure can not tell from the prints what type of film was used, unless I just happen to remember this detail.

Sandy

mesh · Nov 18, 2009

Thanks Sandy. So I assume you prefer using 400CN when scanning? In a hybrid environment would your preference be for C41 B&W?

sanking · Nov 18, 2009

mesh said:
Thanks Sandy. So I assume you prefer using 400CN when scanning? In a hybrid environment would your preference be for C41 B&W?

No, sorry if I gave that impression. I prefer fine grain slow speed films like Tmax-100 and Fuji Acros. The C41 B&W films have very fine grain but don't have as much sharpness as I like.

Sandy

cupcake_ham · Nov 25, 2009

Mesh,

I've found the same as Sandy. The C41 B&W films like 400CN and Ilford XP2 are especially fine grained. You can even make the grain appear finer by overexposing somewhat, assuming your scanner can handle the extra density. If you want the best sharpness though, you'll have to look elsewhere as fine grain and the highest sharpness are rarely linked.

Good luck!

Russ - SVP · Dec 31, 2009

I really like the Fuji Neopan 400CN film. Very fine grain, scans very well and wonderful flesh tones when overexposed a bit. The following snaps were made on it. No post-processing or tweaking of any kind. Straight scans from the negs.

Kiron Kid

SilverGlow · Feb 22, 2010

Kiron Kid said:
I really like the Fuji Neopan 400CN film. Very fine grain, scans very well and wonderful flesh tones when overexposed a bit. The following snaps were made on it. No post-processing or tweaking of any kind. Straight scans from the negs.

Kiron Kid

The quality one gets from B&W film photography, like the quality of your pictures, is the reason I shoot mostly B&W film. Your pictures are fantastic and are representative of what a film shooter can get from film. Very nice!

Russ - SVP · Feb 22, 2010

SilverGlow said:
The quality one gets from B&W film photography, like the quality of your pictures, is the reason I shoot mostly B&W film. Your pictures are fantastic and are representative of what a film shooter can get from film. Very nice!

SilverGlow

Thanks. I love burning B/W film. You're in Orange County, California? That's where I grew up. Silverado Canyon. El Modena High on Chapman Blvd.

Kiron Kid

Kiron Kid

SilverGlow · Feb 22, 2010

Kiron, fantastic pictures! Thanks for posting them!

My official residence is OC, but I live in Bend, OR most of the time; while on a temporary project up here. What type of camera do you use? I love CN but I prefer the more "traditional look" of Tri-X and Plus-X, as I love to develop my own film. Still, your CN work is exceptional.

Russ - SVP · Feb 22, 2010

SilverGlow said:
Kiron, fantastic pictures! Thanks for posting them!

My official residence is OC, but I live in Bend, OR most of the time; while on a temporary project up here. What type of camera do you use? I love CN but I prefer the more "traditional look" of Tri-X and Plus-X, as I love to develop my own film. Still, your CN work is exceptional.

SilverGlow

I am in the Portland, Oregon area now. Yes, I prefer to burn traditional B/W film. But sometimes I need the speed and convenience of C-41 B/W. And ever since I discovered Fuji Neopan 400, I no longer burn Tri-X of HP-5. The Fuji B/W films are fantastic. I really like Ilford's Delta line too.

Neopan 400 snap

Neopan 1600 snap

Neopan 400CN snap

Portra 800 snap

Kiron Kid

SilverGlow · Feb 23, 2010

More nice ones...thanks for posting them.

Pros and cons of 400CN

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency