SHOOT WITH KODAK 400 CN

[photoworks68]

 

[Trask]

Nice images -- are you proposing a discussion of 400CN, or just sharing your photographs? If the latter, I'd suggest you put these in the Gallery. If the former -- what are your thoughts?

 

[MattKrull]

I'm hoping this becomes a discussion with samples.I was gifted several expired rolls of BW400CN, but gave them to friends to try film out (complete with loaner film cameras - one of the joys of a collection of cameras is sharing that collection). I find the idea of paying for B&W development uncomfortable because I have all the stuff to develop regular B&W myself (let's not forget: I'm cheap). I also assumed that because it was C41 processed, it would be lower quality. I was surprised to learn that Kodak considered the 400CN to be part of their professional film portfolio. Although I haven't seen any prints from the 400CN yet, I was rather impressed with how the 400CN filter in DxO Filmpack 3 renders images. I'm now much more interested seeing 400CN images. And I'd love to hear people's thoughts on using it vs using other ISO 400 B&W.Does it have the tolerance for over exposure that so many colour negative films have?

 

[SWphoto]

There probably is a BW400 stream in Flickr to see some examples, as well.

I'm hoping this becomes a discussion with samples.I was gifted several expired rolls of BW400CN, but gave them to friends to try film out (complete with loaner film cameras - one of the joys of a collection of cameras is sharing that collection). I find the idea of paying for B&W development uncomfortable because I have all the stuff to develop regular B&W myself (let's not forget: I'm cheap). I also assumed that because it was C41 processed, it would be lower quality. I was surprised to learn that Kodak considered the 400CN to be part of their professional film portfolio. Although I haven't seen any prints from the 400CN yet, I was rather impressed with how the 400CN filter in DxO Filmpack 3 renders images. I'm now much more interested seeing 400CN images. And I'd love to hear people's thoughts on using it vs using other ISO 400 B&W.Does it have the tolerance for over exposure that so many colour negative films have?

 

[edcculus]

Right before switching to digital, my aunt (professional portrait/wedding photographer) started shooting BW400CN instead of traditional B&W film. She apparently hated developing film, so she shot the C-41 film and then actually printed in her enlarger on regular silver gelatin VC (RC and Fibre) paper. I have her enlarger now since shes long since gone to digital. She told me all that she really needed to do was print at 1 or 2 grades harder to deal with the orange color of the film base.

 

[Fixcinater]

I'm hoping this becomes a discussion with samples.I was gifted several expired rolls of BW400CN, but gave them to friends to try film out (complete with loaner film cameras - one of the joys of a collection of cameras is sharing that collection). I find the idea of paying for B&W development uncomfortable because I have all the stuff to develop regular B&W myself (let's not forget: I'm cheap). I also assumed that because it was C41 processed, it would be lower quality. I was surprised to learn that Kodak considered the 400CN to be part of their professional film portfolio. Although I haven't seen any prints from the 400CN yet, I was rather impressed with how the 400CN filter in DxO Filmpack 3 renders images. I'm now much more interested seeing 400CN images. And I'd love to hear people's thoughts on using it vs using other ISO 400 B&W.Does it have the tolerance for over exposure that so many colour negative films have?

Compared to traditional 400 ASA films, I'd say the grain is finer and not as rough/sharp. I've shot it at 3200 all the way down to 100 with a yellow filter, and the grain seems to get better with more exposure. Some people don't like the fact that it shows grain the opposite of most traditional b&w films: grain in the shadows vs. grain in the high tones.

Well worth trying a few rolls, at least.

 

[Vonder]

I love the stuff but it's a real pain to print. You either need some rapidly-disappearing Panalure paper (or have fun trying to color balance it on RA-4 paper) or you have VERY long exposures on regular B&W paper. The good news is that when scanned, this B&W film can use digital dust and scratch removal (not available for traditional B&W film) to produce gorgeous prints, either digitally or via an inkjet-generated negative.

 

[DanielStone]

Ilford makes XP2, which is C-41 b+w film, and when processed, it comes out with a light "purple"(similar to Tri-X in d-76 type look) tinge.
Great for printing to traditional b+w rc/fiber papers like normal b+w negatives. Kodak BW400CN has the orange base

35mm
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/153916-REG/Ilford_1839575_XP_2_Super_135_36_B_W.html
120
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/153927-REG/Ilford_1839649_XP_2_Super_120_Black.html

Haven't shot any in a few years, but they also make it in 120, which is nice for those of us who don't use 35mm anymore. Just an option.
IIRC, Kodak BW400CN used to be cut to 120 as well?

 

[Paul Glover]

I've tried a few rolls (got it at a good price locally) and it's quite impressive for a 400 speed film. I've only made prints from one negative so far but was pretty happy with the result.



It printed well at grade 3 on Adorama RC paper. This is a so-so scan from an 8x10 print (before spotting). The actual print has better blacks than the scan does. What impressed me most was the negative is at least a stop underexposed (oops!) and I cropped in severely as this was a grab shot across the room with a 50mm, so much so that a full-frame print would have been a bit larger than 16x20!

That said, I found it a real bugger to focus properly when enlarging, and even though I use a good lab for my C41 developing, it's never, ever, as clean and crud free as I can get with my home-developed black and white, so I had a whole lot more spotting to contend with.

 

[Xmas]

The Kodak film was/is designed for printing on a mini lab machine set up for colour using colour paper.

It does produce nice mono tones on a mini lab or close to nice.

But I only know of one mini lab in London that is real careful and has not damaged one of my films yet...

The Ilford film produces strange colours on mini lab machines unless they set up their white balance...

The Ilford film will wet print as a normal mono neg on multi grade with a normal colour head or filter tray setting only dependent on contrast of scenes and scan with IR auto dust removal like it was a normal C41 image. (The Kodak will also do this but the mask colour will decrease the effective dynamic range of your scanner.)

If you process your own or wetprint the Ilford film is easier unless you send finished negatives to mini lab for a proof.

 

[mauro35]

Right before switching to digital, my aunt (professional portrait/wedding photographer) started shooting BW400CN instead of traditional B&W film. She apparently hated developing film, so she shot the C-41 film and then actually printed in her enlarger on regular silver gelatin VC (RC and Fibre) paper. I have her enlarger now since shes long since gone to digital. She told me all that she really needed to do was print at 1 or 2 grades harder to deal with the orange color of the film base.

Well, I love to develop film instead, so much that I decided to develop BW400CN in Rodinal 1+100 stand...quite a wrong choice, as you all can imagine, the orange mask is a pita, but I was surprised the contrast came out really high.