Anybody uses Kodak BW400CN?

N

next1

Established
Local time
4:33 PM
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
58
Location
San Francisco, CA
View My Gallery
I have been using this film for the last couple of weeks and developed at Costco (in US), C-41. Since I don't process film, what other place to develop and scan would you recommend? They do developing and CD scan for about $5.00 but results are limited by their scanner (300DPI). The results are here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sanscoulote/

What do you think? I don't have a meter and I use sunny 16 rule. How can I improve the quality of my images?
 
Sunny 16 is a nice guideline but not always dead on. You might want to close down a stop on the lense or choose a faster shutter speed. I like the results sans meter though, I bought a fairly accurate GE reflected meter off the bay for 6.00 shipped and more recently an older sekonic lc-28 which is great because it does incident readings. But at an rate you still managed to get good results using sunny 16. I used to shoot bw400cn until I started developing my own black and white. I got myself a scanner after I started that though.
If I were you I'd get a meter of some sort or print out the exposure chart for your pocket that Keith so graciously posted up. Either or will help you out. Take my advice with a grain of salt though Im no expert eiher, just kind of learning on the fly myself.
 
Last edited:
-doomed- said:
Sunny 16 is a nice guideline but not always dead on. You might want to close down a stop on the lense or choose a faster shutter speed. I like the results sans meter though, I bought a fairly accurate GE reflected meter off the bay for 6.00 shipped and more recently an older sekonic lc-28 which is great because it does incident readings. But at an rate you still managed to get good results using sunny 16. I used to shoot bw400cn until I started developing my own black and white. I got myself a scanner after I started that though.
Click to expand...

Nice B&W in your Flickr stream!!!!! What film do you use and what scanner, if you don't mind asking?
 
I have found that, depending on the camera/meter, i have had better luck rating this film as either 200 iso or 320 iso.
 
Merkin said:
I have found that, depending on the camera/meter, i have had better luck rating this film as either 200 iso or 320 iso.
Click to expand...

Well, then that is an overexposure, if I grade this film at a lower ISO. Everybody said that my images where overexposed... I am confused!
 
Last edited:
next1 said:
Nice B&W in your Flickr stream!!!!! What film do you use and what scanner, if you don't mind asking?
Click to expand...
thanks!
Some of the older ones are bw400cn. The rest are a mix of hp5,fp4,lucky 100 shd. Most have been souped in d-76 or rodinal. The scanner I was using was a $30 pile of junk primefilm 1800. The pf1800 committed suicide and has since been replaced by an epson v300, though I shouldve saved and got the v500 so I could scan MF negs, and finish up my bronica kit.
 
-doomed- said:
thanks!
Some of the older ones are bw400cn. The rest are a mix of hp5,fp4,lucky 100 shd. Most have been souped in d-76 or rodinal. The scanner I was using was a $30 pile of junk primefilm 1800. The pf1800 committed suicide and has since been replaced by an epson v300, though I shouldve saved and got the v500 so I could scan MF negs, and finish up my bronica kit.
Click to expand...

Aha! They are nice indeed. I guess I have to take that route also... scanning and processing my own.
 
I also tweak them a bit in ps but it's good fun to develop and scan your own, Id love to make prints in a darkroom but the scanner a ps will have to do at the moment. Give home development a shot there really is nothing quite like seeing your negatives come off the reel.
 
next1 said:
Everybody said that my images where overexposed... I am confused!
Click to expand...

I'll go on the record and say your exposure is fine. I think the mid-day sun wasn't too kind on some of the subjects. But for meterless and scanned at Costco, this looks good to me.

Still, I second the idea of getting at least an old GE meter. They're certainly not the most compact, but for literally $5 to $10, who's complaining.
 
batterytypehah! said:
I'll go on the record and say your exposure is fine. I think the mid-day sun wasn't too kind on some of the subjects. But for meterless and scanned at Costco, this looks good to me.

Still, I second the idea of getting at least an old GE meter. They're certainly not the most compact, but for literally $5 to $10, who's complaining.
Click to expand...

OK, now I understand. Also, I think that the range of this type of film saved me from ruining it (you can rate it from ISO100 to 400 that is).
I have a meter somewhere in my boxes, in a storage, I have to find it . It's a little Sekonic. Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Look like mine?

Look like mine?

Great work shooting with out a meter. I rarely have that much confidence (or courage?) Anyway, they look pretty much like mine turn out. I think some people call them"flat" looking. I just know that they are too gray. We do not have too much to choose from here in Forgottonia, just Walgreens and a local camera shop that does one hour processing. So does Walmart, but they change personnel so often I am afraid to use them. Anyway, back to your OP, they look good, but next time, I would try bracketing my shots by a full stop or more. Modern film is very forgiving and therefore hard to read by amateurs like me. You need to bracket by at least a full stop to see any change in exposure. That should let you know if you are overexposing or if it is just the harsh noonday light. I just scanned a "How-to" book about 25 photo projects and , as a means to determine how light is affecting your subject and its effect upon your pictures, it suggested taking the same subject in three different lights or taking the same subject from three different directions under the same light by walking around it and shooting from three different locations.

Learning from ones experiences is part of the fun of photography. Try again tomorrow and see if you are not more satisfied.
 
Last edited:
For posting on the internet the cosco scans are fine. Many feel that 200 or 320 is the normal rating for this film. Nice thing about this film is it's ability to shoot up to 2 stops either way with normal development times.
 
How can you improve the quality of your images? Buy a light meter. They are very inexpensive. $25 should get you a good, accurate one. The sunny 16 rule is for constant, stable light, which when you're shooting is seldom the case. If nothing else a meter can teach you a LOT about exposure. Ansel Adams used a meter. Edward Weston used a meter. They're not exactly optional. Buy a meter.
 
next1 said:
I don't have a meter and I use Sunny 16 rule. How can I improve the quality of my images?
Click to expand...

...well, the answer is simple: you have to get good quality light meter and have to learn how to use it properly!

Kodak BW400CN could be very beautiful and forgiving film to use if you treat it right. Another big plus of this film is that since it's C-41 processing film you can always use iSRD/dust and scratch removal option on your scanner (if you wanna scan your pics yourself).

Speaking of film development and scanning, go ahead and try this guys (assuming you're in USA):

http://www.northcoastphoto.com/film_developing_scans.html

Some people say that they are very good (you can check results of their services on Flickr.com) and deliver good combination of cost vs. quality,

in any case good luck w/your photography and please, upload some more pics!

p.s.: same film, scanned from the print. I know this is not perfect example (I'm still learning myself), but it gives you idea:

 
Last edited:
I always shoot the CN400 at wide open and 500 or 1000/ sec

WinterSpringBride21.jpg


This is CN400, shot at f1.5 or f1.9 (I don`t remember) with a 1936 Leitz Xenon f1.5/50 on one of my Leica IIIC K`s.
*here`s a little "hype" for the Xenon ~ lovely lens, perfect for boudoir and glamour photography ~ contrasty and dreamy*

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom