The loss BW400CN and my understanding of a replacement

[filmamigo]

I really like BW400CN. I shoot a lot of it, in 120 rollfim, for portraits. I love it for a number of reasons.

• Convenience - same lab, same process, same turnaround as for my Portra color films.
• Sharp and grain free, makes for nice scans and easy enlarging.
• Beautiful tonality. Highlights are lovely, holding lots of detail all the way from middle gray to pure white. Blacks are crisp, but dark greys hold detail until they hit the black point without blocking up.
• Grain-free in lighter areas. This is great for skies, faces, etc. I get grain in the gritty shadows, no grain in the lighter areas of interest.

Unfortunately, Kodak has discontinued BW400CN in 120. (I confirmed it myself by calling the pro film desk at Kodak.) I am running out of BW400CN, and need a replacement.

I am familiar with most of the popular BW replacements available. Nothing seems like an obvious replacement to me. But I want to understand some things more, before embarking on testing new films. Hence I am here asking.

I have never been a big film nerd. I have relied on personal experience with films to see what I like, and not bothered reading the Technical Pubs. But now that I want to replace a specific film, I have taken a closer look at the Tech Pubs and the characteristic curves of the potential candidates. Someone please correct me if what I say is wrong. I am trying to learn and make informed choices based on the data of the film and my personal aesthetic sense.

It seems to me that the characteristic curve of BW400CN has a short, sharp toe. I expect this is why the blacks are contrasty, but dark tones hold detail and transition cleanly to middle gray? Past the short toe, the curve rises completely linearly, and shallowly. The top of the curve is still straight when the chart ends... it hasn't even hit the shoulder yet. So, no highlights are being compressed? Lots of flat, even highlight detail all the way out?

If my characterisation is correct, then let me apply this understanding to the two films I am most considering as a replacement for BW400CN.

Ilford XP2
This seems like the obvious replacement for BW400CN. But I never really liked the look of it when I tried it. Examining the characteristic curve, it seems to have a really long, curving toe and shoulder. Like a gentle S all the way up. I read this as delivering enhanced contrast in both the shadows and highlights? My aesthetic sense sees XP2 as often being blocked up in either the shadows or the highlights, depending on exposure. Not the effect I want when shooting portraits, where I would like to see crisp blacks that transition to a smooth grey that holds detail all the way up into the highlights.

If my understanding of XP2 is correct, is there a way to alter it's response? It seems like I can't just rate the film lower and overexpose, because the shoulder slopes so early that I will be losing highlight detail and have no curve in the toe for black contrast. Maybe I could underexpose it to crisp up the blacks and hold contrast in the highlights. But at the risk of increased grain, and blocking up my shadows.

If I abandon the C41 films, and look at other options, one film seems to deliver the same tonality that I love in BW400CN.

That is Ilford HP5. By my eye, it has nice blacks that open up quickly into well defined greys and beautiful highlight retention all the way to white. It is, however, grainy.

The characteristic curve of HP5 looks very similar to BW400CN. Sharp toe, shallow rise, straight line all the way up, no shoulder curve. Based on my feeble understanding (as I expressed above) I shouldn't be surprised it has a similar tonality to BW400CN, right?

But what to do about the grain? Grain in skies and faces is not what I hope for. Is there a strategy to maintain the contrast and tonality I like, while minimizing the grain, especially in highlights? And scanning. I know this isn't the right forum, but... will HP5 scan OK?

In conclusion, I hope you folks can tell me if I am understanding this stuff right or wrong. And I would love to hear suggestions for films and strategies of exposure that will help me replace BW400CN.

 

[Tim Gray]

BW400CN definitely has a look. Very fine grained with the 'convenience' of C-41 (which is debatable nowadays). XP2 is the obvious suggestion, but if it's not to your liking, then maybe not If you've tried it at box speed and various levels of overexposure, and still don't like, look elsewhere.

Anyway, you might want to try out T-Max 400 if you are willing to do your own development. I've gotten good results in XTOL 1:1. Very fine grained for a 400 speed film, and if the contrast isn't to your liking, you can always cut or extend development, whichever is needed. It's very sharp, has a very linear characteristic curve. Great stuff in my book.

 

[filmamigo]

Here's an example of what I like in BW400CN. (It's not a great shot, but it shows how much detail get held over a huge range, but still showing crisp blacks.)

 

[CGW]

I happily shot miles of the 35mm version and a fair amount of 120. Sad news. I do, however, like the look of XP2. For portraits it's not far off CN when rated at ISO100-200. The new Kodak TMY-2 is really worth a look, too. BTW, what labs do you use?

 

[Lanline]

I would urge you to shoot some XP-2. Back in the 1980's XP-1 was rated at 400,the salesman told me "...you could shoot it at 100/200/400/800/1000 all on the same roll - without changing the development!" If you over exposed it you got finer grain and underexposed it more grain. My experience with Kodak's was it was a copy of Ilford's XP-1 and current XP-2.

I loved XP-1 at 400 and I like the results from XP-2 as well. But I am not a fan of labs. I shoot primarily Fujifilm Neopan 400 in 120 & 35mm (they have discontinued it a few months ago in 120). Now I adjusting to HP-5 which is a solid film.

 

[jp498]

Whatever you try, you'll need to use several rolls (5-10) to get a feel for it. If you are scanning, it's really not much of an inconvenience to B&W process your own film. In the 45 minutes it takes me, that's less time than two round trips to the drugstore/bigbox photolab in the next town.

You might like the fuji neopan 400 stuff. It's not discontinued AFAIK, just available in 5-packs instead of individual or something like that. I like tmax400 in xtol 1+1. It's nice to print and scan. When scanning, it has a long dynamic range and you can do a curve afterwards if you want to emphasize certain tone ranges. Both films offer extremely fine grain.

 

[Lanline]

Whatever you try, you'll need to use several rolls (5-10) to get a feel for it. If you are scanning, it's really not much of an inconvenience to B&W process your own film. In the 45 minutes it takes me, that's less time than two round trips to the drugstore/bigbox photolab in the next town.

You might like the fuji neopan 400 stuff. It's not discontinued AFAIK, just available in 5-packs instead of individual or something like that. I like tmax400 in xtol 1+1. It's nice to print and scan. When scanning, it has a long dynamic range and you can do a curve afterwards if you want to emphasize certain tone ranges. Both films offer extremely fine grain.

It was discontinued this past winter in 120. I spent a few months buying up stocks whenever I could.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=fujifilm+neopan&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

 

[jp498]

You're right! Only the ISO 100 is in available, and that's what is available in 5-packs. I can't keep track of all this because I'm not a big film nerd either.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/c403-Black-and-White-Film-120-127-and-220-size

The 100 has characteristics like the OP wanted, but it might not be fast enough.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Go out there and buy up all the BW400CN that you can find! It is you sacred duty to keep this film [in your freezer] from the hoarders! What are you waiting for? Go! Go! Go!!

Steve

 

[bblhed]

You can still get BW400CN in 35mm, they still make that. If you want a C-41 Black and White film try Ilford XP2. I love Kodak film and when I used up the last of my BW400CN 120 I gave the XP2 a shot. the only problem with XP2 is that it has a clear base not an orange base like BW400CN, other than that Ilford XP2 is a really great film and produces similar results to Kodak BW400CN, not bad, just different.

 

[filmamigo]

I happily shot miles of the 35mm version and a fair amount of 120. Sad news. I do, however, like the look of XP2. For portraits it's not far off CN when rated at ISO100-200. The new Kodak TMY-2 is really worth a look, too. BTW, what labs do you use?

The 35mm is still available. I suspect they sell a reasonable amount of it to consumers, as basically the only black & white that you can buy and have processed at the local drug store.

I use Downtown Camera. They are very reliable and reasonably priced too.

 

[j-dogg]

I shot some CN in the 35mm format. My first black and white photos, one of my favorites for portraits.

 

[filmamigo]

Thanks everyone. I shot my last roll of BW400CN on a gig today.

Time to start testing films...

 

[fschifano]

See, I don't know what you're doing with the film. My experience with XP2 Super has been very good. Scans well AND prints well on conventional B&W paper. Can't do both with BW400CN. It scans well, but won't print worth a damn on conventional B&W paper. Does ok on RA4 paper though, if you get the filtration right.

 

[clayne]

Have you considered just shooting a roll of tri-x?

 

[filmamigo]

Yes, I will likely be testing:

HP5, XP2 and Tri-x, all at 400, 320 and 200. I will probably also try BW400CN in 35mm out of curiosity.

I've used them all before, but not necessarily for the same purposes. I have liked the look of HP5 and Tri-X, and they both seem to have the characteristic curve that's closest to BW400CN. (Especially Tri-X developed for 8 minutes.)

I look forward to seeing what I get.

 

[Tim Gray]

I would really recommend throwing T-Max 400 in there too...

 

[sepiareverb]

If you're scanning film I'd give a try to a wide range of emulsions. The C-41 films are made for scanning, the traditional films are more made to print.

 

[filmamigo]

Yes, I should be open minded. I've not been a fan of the tabular-grain films before. But I will add:

T-Max 400
Delta 400

to the list for testing. I like how grainless the Delta 100 is, but was put off by how the highlights block up. Might have better luck with the 400.

 

[filmamigo]

I know it's late to broaden the discussion, but I should probably also consider what developers to use.

I have processed a bit of my own B&W, nothing exotic. Mostly AGFA APX 400 using Ilfosol 3. Decent results.

But in the interest of producing a nice, flat, linear result with good contrast control, what would you suggest? I am attracted to trying Diafine, for both repeatability and scannability. I like some of the results I've seen with Caffenol-C, but have never tried it and am concerned about repeatability.

 

[Tim Gray]

I've used Diafine a decent amount with Tri-X. Not that I've ever measured the results, but I don't think it would give linear results. It's a compensating developer, so the tones you end up with are determined by exposure and scene contrast. You kind of lose the ability to affect things in the developing stage.

I've been very happy with Tri-X in XTOL 1:1. I've been shooting more T-Max 400 recently, and have also been very happy with the results in XTOL 1:1. If 'highlights blocking up' means them shouldering off, I don't think you'll have that problem with T-Max 400. If it means them getting too dense to print/scan, then just reduce your dev time some.

I used to be of the "I don't prefer tabular grain films" camp. Then I realized that's because I just listened to what everyone else was saying and I hadn't actually formed my own opinion yet. After trying out T-Max 400, I have to say I was very impressed. Different, but not bad. Not that I'm saying you have to like it - if you've tried them and don't like them, then that's perfectly acceptable. I do personally think though that T-Max 400 is closer to Tri-X than BW400CN is to either of them.

 

[Casey Kidwell]

Why not scan your color film and convert it to black and white? You obviously like the latitude offered by the heavy base of the BW400. I don't think the results you will get converting a color portrait film will differ greatly. You're not going to get the dark blacks and bright whites you would get from traditional black and white films but you weren't getting them anyway with the BW400. Might be worth a try.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As pointed out by others, there are a number of good ISO 400 black & white films, each with a slightly different flavor and all easy to process in XTOL full strength. You only need a tank, a thermometer, a changing bag, film clips for drying and chemicals. It takes about 15 to 20 minutes to process and hang up. That is less time than it takes to drive to take color film to the lab and you do not need to make a return trip to pick up the film.

Steve

 

[nickrapak]

I don't know how averse you are to a lower-speed film, but I would take a look at Plus-X. It has finer grain than Tri-X, and I find it to be very good for portraits.

 

[nworth]

You might look at XP2+ again. It behaves differently from BW400CN, but it is capable of very high quality. XP2 handles a lot more like a black and white film. One problem that you may be experiencing is that most color labs can't print it properly. XP2 prints like a black and white film, while BW400CN is designed to be printed on color paper. Although most scanning color printers can be adjusted to give satisfactory (if not good) results, printing XP2 on color paper often results in off colors and high contrast. But if you scan your negatives or do your own darkroom printing, XP2 is outstanding.