Sometimes Kodak BW400CN looks pretty good - samples from Mississippi

[Kodachromeguy]

Hi Everyone, on a recent day trip through rural Mississippi, I grabbed a roll of Kodak BW400CN. I have had mixed results in the past. Sometimes it looks muddy, sometimes I like the tonality. Could there be differences in the C-41 chemistry? Regardless, here are a few samples exposed through a Leica M2 and 50mm Summicron-DR (Type 2 Sum) or a 35mm Summicron (Type 4). I was surprised how the film renders green as quite light, but only for long exposures in settings such as dense underbrush. The BW is pretty grainy, but I don't mind the effect.

Abandoned farm south of Brandon, MS. 50mm DR Summicron, polarizer

Main Street, Mendenhall, MS. 50mm DR Summicron, polarizer

Abandoned farm in Pinola. 35mm Summicron.

Abandoned house, Jack Road south of Utica. 35mm Summicron.

 

[BMbikerider]

I used to like that film which in my opinion is miles better than Ilfords XP2. Why oh why did they have to stop making it. So much easier to print in RA4 chemicals than XP2 as well!

 

[bvy]

I used to like that film which in my opinion is miles better than Ilfords XP2. Why oh why did they have to stop making it. So much easier to print in RA4 chemicals that XP2 as well!

As I understood it, BW400CN was designed to print easily to RA-4 paper; XP2 was designed for black and white paper. The films have different color masks which has something to do with it. I've only ever printed XP2 and it was to black and white paper. I liked the results.

To the OP, the images look great! I have to remind myself every now and then why I don't make XP2 my main black and white film in 120. With Acros gone, there's one less reason.

Maybe Kodak can revive BW400CN next. I've only shot one roll of it ever.

 

[albada]

Agree with what bvy said above. I found BW400CN to look great for a civil war re-enactment that I shot, and the OP's images look great, with fine grain and good tonality. I loved it, and wish I had stocked up on it in the freezer.

Mark Overton

 

[OzJohn]

Kodak's earlier RA4 film, known as TCN400, was also designed for printing on B&W paper. It had a much lighter integral mask than BW440CN and was one of the few Kodak films I ever really missed when it was discontinued after a relatively short time on the market. For printing on either halide or RA4 paper it was better than BW440CN or XP4 but BW440CN scanned better IMO.

 

[BMbikerider]

As I understood it, BW400CN was designed to print easily to RA-4 paper; XP2 was designed for black and white paper. The films have different color masks which has something to do with it. I've only ever printed XP2 and it was to black and white paper. I liked the results.

To the OP, the images look great! I have to remind myself every now and then why I don't make XP2 my main black and white film in 120. With Acros gone, there's one less reason.

Maybe Kodak can revive BW400CN next. I've only shot one roll of it ever.

XP1 when sold on the market was advertised as being designed for use in mini-labs who of course all used RA4 so it was not as far as I am aware specifically designed for normal B&W printing. I know that there was a lot of grumbling by users that the B&W was actually more of a magenta or reddish tone. After they sorted out the filtration on the processors then it was more like B&W as we know it.