Anybody uses Kodak BW400CN?

[next1]

Shoot wide open... I see;-)
Tom and Arthur, thank you!

 

[LeicaTom]

Shoot wide open... I see;-)
Tom and Arthur, thank you!

Well, yes, WIDE OPEN, but only in shade and on a overcast day.......bright sunshine, then i need a meter!!!!!!! I use my M6 as a walking meter for my IIIC`s.

I`m using stuff like these:

Canon f1.5/50 ~ Nikkor SC f1.4/50 #5005 ~ Summarit f1.5/50 ~ Xenon f1.5/50 etc.

Tom

 

[OurManInTangier]

I really like Kodaks BW CN400, though I also tend to rate it at 320 ISO.

I think your images look pretty good considering you aren't using a meter. If you start using your Sekonic and can stump up the cash for a film scanner I think you'll see some images with a bit less flatness to them. You'll also be in more control than simply leaving it to the lab...when I get the obligatory prints from the CN400 I just dump them as they're always badly printed ( by machine.) Then I take them home and scan them giving far better results.

I also shoot Delta 100 and TriX but have so many rolls to dev that the CN400 is a nice quick 'cheat' for me.

This was taken with CN400...

At the time I didn't like the CN400 but its really grown on me and can take an awful lot of abuse. It also isn't very grainy whilst my dev technique seems to make even the finest of grain emulsions turn into a blotchy mess!

With a meter and a scanner you'll be able to tune the images to your vision and leave the processor with very little to do...and very little to mess up. You'll also be halfway there if and when you want to dev your own.

Good luck hunting down that Sekonic meter!

 

[Roger Hicks]

More exposure = finer grain but reduced sharpness, and besides, a lot depends on how you meter and under what lighting conditions (subject brightness range): http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps subject brightness range.html Often, with reflected-area meters ad a long brightness range, you're underexposing by a stop as compared with a spot reading of the shadows. Halving the ISO speed restores the balance.

I prefer the tonality of XP2 to its Kodak rival but they're both excellent films and far better for scanning, in my experience, than conventional non-chromogenic silver halide.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tuolumne]

I really like Kodaks BW CN400, though I also tend to rate it at 320 ISO.

I think your images look pretty good considering you aren't using a meter. If you start using your Sekonic and can stump up the cash for a film scanner I think you'll see some images with a bit less flatness to them. You'll also be in more control than simply leaving it to the lab...when I get the obligatory prints from the CN400 I just dump them as they're always badly printed ( by machine.) Then I take them home and scan them giving far better results.

I also shoot Delta 100 and TriX but have so many rolls to dev that the CN400 is a nice quick 'cheat' for me.

This was taken with CN400...

At the time I didn't like the CN400 but its really grown on me and can take an awful lot of abuse. It also isn't very grainy whilst my dev technique seems to make even the finest of grain emulsions turn into a blotchy mess!

With a meter and a scanner you'll be able to tune the images to your vision and leave the processor with very little to do...and very little to mess up. You'll also be halfway there if and when you want to dev your own.

Good luck hunting down that Sekonic meter!

I like this photo very much. But how is it that the street on the right is out of focus due to depth of field, but the pavement on the left, at the same distance, is sharp?

/T

 

[next1]

More exposure = finer grain but reduced sharpness, and besides, a lot depends on how you meter and under what lighting conditions (subject brightness range): http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps subject brightness range.html Often, with reflected-area meters ad a long brightness range, you're underexposing by a stop as compared with a spot reading of the shadows. Halving the ISO speed restores the balance.

I prefer the tonality of XP2 to its Kodak rival but they're both excellent films and far better for scanning, in my experience, than conventional non-chromogenic silver halide.

Cheers,

R.

Thank you guys, as a matter of fact, right off the CD, the images where terrible. I put them through Flickr's own PP program to adjust the sharpness and exposure... you give me to much credit with sunny 16 as being good. Thank you OMT and Roger!

 

[Mr_Flibble]

I like using BW400CN a lot, recently shot 5 rolls through my Leica IIIa and IIIc.

Unfortunatly my scanner is rubbish 😉

90mm Elmar at f/8 if I recall correctly.

Gonna give Tom's 'Wide Open' advice a try one of these days.

 

[David_Manning]

I think the automated scanner/printers at minilabs tend to lighten...they don't like black areas. As a result, a lot of properly exposed, contrasty shots (ie. middle of the day, bright sun) get "lightened" to open the shadows. It's not your negatives, it's the machine.

Try pulling down the exposure a tad in the scans in your favorite software editor. My BW400CN shots looked really good after I did that.

BW400CN, processed/scanned at Walgreens:

 

[rogue_designer]

I use this film quite a lot actually. TriX will always be my first love, but I have such a backlog of film that needs to be processed, I have been shooting BW400CN here and there just to get a few new things out. 🙂

Like some of the others, I tend to rate it at 250-320. I find the overexposure evens out the grain/clouds in the lower mid tones. And I find that it holds the highlights pretty well (which can be retrieved in scanning, if needed).

 

[OurManInTangier]

I like this photo very much. But how is it that the street on the right is out of focus due to depth of field, but the pavement on the left, at the same distance, is sharp?

/T

A few people have asked me that. The chap walking toward the camera was on top of the sea wall, the camera was resting on the wall so that the foreground shows the OOF wall and then a five foot or so drop down to the concrete below which is, pretty much, in focus. The shadow area running along the wall is the bevelled edge of the wall.

Hope that helps!?

Liam - You sound like me, using the CN400 so that you can keep shooting without having to spend ages catching up with the developing...maybe once the summer is over I'll do some 'bathroom time'😀

 

[BillP]

All the film black and white stuff in my photostream is 400CN. Most of it has been fed through my M2, IIIc and II without the aid of a meter. Some of it (a little of the Seville stuff) has passed through my M7. When shooting Sunny-16 I tend to actually use Sunny-11-ish (I live in the UK). I prefer the results to XP2, finding it renders metallic surfaces particularly well and generally gives a less "creamy" result that I prefer.

Links are in my signature if you want to have a look.

Regards,

Bill

 

[next1]

When would you grade BW400CN at ISO 250 and/or 320?

 

[OurManInTangier]

I always rate it at 320, in the same way that I always rate Fuji Neopan 1600 at ISO 1250. I like the result and has been said before, I think by Liam (RogueDesigner) the highlights can take it whilst the shadows get a little more detail.

I've never tried ISO250 personally.

 

[next1]

I always rate it at 320, in the same way that I always rate Fuji Neopan 1600 at ISO 1250. I like the result and has been said before, I think by Liam (RogueDesigner) the highlights can take it whilst the shadows get a little more detail.

I've never tried ISO250 personally.

Thanx OMT, I'll do that too and pull my old meter!

 

[batterytypehah!]

You know, I think this BW400CN stuff is growing on me. I tried it once years ago and made the mistake of judging it by the drugstore-quality prints I got. Went back recently and scanned the negs and liked it. Of course, the drugstore monkey did cut right through the one "keeper" frame on that roll.

So that's one risk, although -- if I remember to ask -- my drugstore will return them uncut.

On the other hand, I am lucky that it's only 2 miles away and charges $2.30 per roll. I don't particularly enjoy DIY developing, and I put a value on my own free time. So, all things considered, a 4 mile round trip (usually combined with other errands) plus $2.30 is probably cheaper for me.

My bigger issue is that I don't particularly like 400 speed. Except for the Contax, all of my cameras top out at 1/500 or even 1/300, and I shoot mostly outdoors. Juggling with ND filters is too much of a hassle. Some examples of BW400CN rated at 250, anyone?

 

[Allan Reade]

I've been using BW400CN in my Mamiya C3 TLR lately. It's relatively cheap and easy to get developed here in NZ. I rate it at 250 and use an old Sekonic L398 with the incident attachment. At 400ASA I was underexposing, maybe that was the Sekonic. I scan the negatives on a high end drum scanner at work then open the files in Camera Raw to boost the contrast a bit. My photography is what limits my results, if I get to the stage that I want more control maybe I will get real BW film and develop it myself.

Mamiya C3 65mm lens.

 

[David_Manning]

After "enjoying" souping many Tri-X rolls, the excitement is wearing off and it feels more like work, especially when I have to print the contact sheets and look at thumbnails under a loupe.

I know it's sacrilege, but I really liked the BW400CN scans I got from the local Walgreens...they needed to be slightly "fixed," but I thought it looked really good (basic black-point stuff). So, for the time savings spent on 10 rolls/month, I think I'll just begin paying the premium to have someone else develop and scan.

I'll be able to upload quickly, and even low-res scans are easier to see and enjoy than tiny contact images.

Why not just shoot digitally, you might ask? Because I enjoy shooting my M6 (lots cheaper than an M9 AND full-frame).

 

[robklurfield]

Having got rid of all my film cameras in April, I got bitten by a film bug this week and got myself an M2. The only film I have in the house is four rolls of CN400. Note sure if they're from this century or last, but if Costco can develop and scan for $5.00 per roll, I'll take my chances on far past expiration these are.

next1, the scans on your flickr site look really nice to me. Good work.

 

[next1]

Having got rid of all my film cameras in April, I got bitten by a film bug this week and got myself an M2. The only film I have in the house is four rolls of CN400. Note sure if they're from this century or last, but if Costco can develop and scan for $5.00 per roll, I'll take my chances on far past expiration these are.

next1, the scans on your flickr site look really nice to me. Good work.

Thank you robklurfield... I need some more time to get out of suburbia for some street photo-shooting.

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

Allan,
I like the rendering of the flower. Just think what it would look like in digital...perfectly sharp and boring. I also like CN400 in MF, and have gotten great results.

Hope the attached is big enough: Bronica S2/50 2.8, orange filter, BW400CN. Scanned on V500