Pros and cons of 400CN

[2F/2F]

The pictures are just like color neg pictures, with all the advantages and disadvantages thereof, but with no color. The prints have the character of color neg prints to me. In short, the "grain" and contrast are different. If that is what you want your black and white pix to look like, then use this film. If not, then don't. It doesn't look anything like a "traditional" black and white film to me. That does not mean that it has no use...just that it looks totally different. I'd try to choose the tool that gives you the look that suits your desires for the pix at hand. Rather than always using either C-41 b/w or traditional b/w, why not figure out what each is good for, and use both?

 

[tony lockerbie]

The c41 B&W is good for wedding and similar shots, as it holds the blacks and whites well without any special treatment. This is really only true if the photos are printed on colour paper, and as mentioned elsewhere, this stuff is a right pain in the butt to print on normal B&W paper.
The early 400CN didn't have that orange mask like the current version, only a light pink tinge, and printed quite well on traditional paper. Obviously Kodak never meant the current version to be printed in the darkroom on traditional paper, just 6x4's on colour paper from the local 1 hour.