Black and white film for the non-developer (Kodak BW 400CN)

[Bertram2]

Our home in Japan is far too small to set up a darkroom without risking the ire of my better half but I want to work more with black and white film. My local lab usually takes one week to process black and white film so I'm thinking about using Kodak BW 400CN instead and would appreciate your opinions of this film.

Almost my complete B&W porfolio posted at RFF is made by C41, from similar reasons, first of all because may lab used to make a CD with decent scans only for C41
I started with T400CN, changed to XP2 and went back to BW400CN which I like better than XP2.
If you do not like the orange mask which gives the prints a sepia toning you can let develop the film first and then let it print on B&W paper.
My XP2 often came back with a greenish tone which was worse than the sepia tone of Kodak. Sometimes I leave it uncorrected because it fits well to am style of shooting.

T400CN needed push 1 for 800 and push2 for 1600, don't know what BW400CN needs, I nver pushed it. Careful with underexposeing, causes ugly results. And be careful in bright sunlight, highlights tend to burn out. For reflecting surfaces as leafs of roofs I torture myself with a polfilter because of that.
Works well also at 200., scans easier with cheap scanners than silver based film does. Almost grain free at 400, best at covered skies. It then achieves a soft an creamy tonality which is unique.

 

[Richard Black]

I just received a roll of the BW400 taken in an SLR without any filters. My first experience with it was not good. I used a orange filter on a CV Color-Skopar 28mm and found similar results as did Bertram. The highlight were exagerated severely. I tried this second roll without and I am impressed. I shot pictures of my grandsons in the park and the pictures are sharp and quite acceptable. Do I like it better than Ilford XP2 Super...it is close but, and this is important, my lab here does great with Iford...so at present that is my preferred film. Both are good and you should try them and find a lab that will develop and print them the way you want. I have an Epson 3170 and I can scan both without problems. Little adjustment here or there and they are fine. 😎
The photo below took a long time to improve to this point, and I am not pleased with that. Without a filter, BW400 is nice.

 

[Russ]

Our home in Japan is far too small to set up a darkroom without risking the ire of my better half but I want to work more with black and white film. My local lab usually takes one week to process black and white film so I'm thinking about using Kodak BW 400CN instead and would appreciate your opinions of this film.

I prefer the Fuji Neopan CN, with ilfords XP-2 a close second.

Russ

 

[Russ]

i use a western canadian chain store called 'london drugs'.
it's a new store and the lab is in a seperate area that is glass walled and has a decent air filtration system. i have had no problems with dust or scratches. my negs & scans look like b&w negs and photos. i don't get prints made.

joe

Joe

Contact me off-group. My PC died, and I no longer have your E addy. Have to speak with you. The fate of your photography future hinges on this....

Russ

 

[Indrek]

I use to a Epson 3170 scanner and had problems with scannind T400CN. I thought it has to be BW not sepia or what ever. i gues I need just more exersise in scanning BW. When playing with the White point I got it nearly BW.
off topic: Richar have you tried to make prints of the Epson scans? I`m satisfied with the 10x15 cm print(i mean the resolution) they are supringli good, but I´m not sure about the 15x20cm once I resived yesterday. I will ask the lab to make prints of the same negatives, then we will see, but what to you experiences say?

 

[nwcanonman]

My favorite is also XP2, sharp and great contrast. But for some portrait work the Kodak B&W is prefered, as females don't like too much "detail" in their close-ups ~ ; - )
BTW- Always remind the lab that the film is C41 B&W, to use the correct machine settings and the correct B&W paper. Other-wise you can get the sepia-green cast prints.

 

[Richard Black]

Indrek,
Yes I have made prints but I copied them to a CD and had them printed at a lab. There seems to be no difference this way. I found that I scanned them in color settings and then converted them to black and white and found I could remove most of the sepia that way. Play around with the scanner and then in the software convert to b&w and then try your histograms to finalize the whites. I am pleased this results. 🙂

 

[yankeedoll]

BTW- Always remind the lab that the film is C41 B&W, to use the correct machine settings and the correct B&W paper. Other-wise you can get the sepia-green cast prints.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I learned this the hard way recently. Walmart has been doing a good job on the color prints. They even correctly processed a roll of Kodak C 41 B&W for Dave without special instructions. But I took a roll of Ilford XP2 in, was told they would know what to do with it & they came back sepia-orange! They also had what looked like water spots on every print. 😡

Took them back to re-process with instructions for B&W prints. This time they came back in B&W but still showing the spots. The store personnel told me that it was a problem with the Ilford film.

Moral of the story - take the Ilford somewhere else!

The novice is still learning! 😱

 

[wlewisiii]

Yes, I have had issues at Walgreens with the Ilford film as well. OTOH, they always do a good job for me with the Konica and Kodak chromagenics, so perhaps its the color of the film base that Ilford uses? Perhaps the Fuji mini-labs that Walgreens uses just doesn't like it?

I just picked up a three pack of Kodak BWC there for $12 as well. I don't think it's as good as the BW400CN, but I do find it as good as the old T400CN was. I am going to try to remember to shoot at least one roll at EI200 to see how that works as well.

William

 

[bigdog]

I have shot alot of Kodak T400CN in the past. I could never get prints to come out without some kind of color cast. They always came back sepia toned until I found a place that printed on black and white papers and then I got more neutral toned prints. I think the film is best suited for portrait work. It has a creamy quality that I like for skin. I don't like it as much as traditional films for everything else I shoot.

 

[Indrek]

Richard thats actualli exacli what I did, I scand the neg. in 48 bit colour depth and selected in photoshops channel mixer the grey button, but there comes up the question why to use B&W film when I use the same tehnique to make a colour negs B&W?
Now i`m risking with being unpopular but whats, in this case, the point of using B&W?

 

[Nikon Bob]

Indrek

Did you check this thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4376 ? It might answer your question on converting colour negs to B&W.

Bob

 

[Richard Black]

Indarek,
This is a personal choice issue. I suggest that you take two cameras with lenses your like, one loaded with C-41 film, the other with TRI X or your personal favorite traditional b&w, and expose both on the same subjects. If you have 3 cameras, use color film in it. Have them processed normally at the labs you have available. When you get them back, look at them carefully. I find traditional b&w film has a characteristic style to it that C-41 film or color coverted does not. I find C-41 prints to be closer to traditional black and white than color converted prints, but that may only be the labs I use. I prefer the new Tri X and Ilford's HP5 over TMAX or Delta. Graininess or something, but those two create the images I see. I hope this makes some sense. 😕

 

[Nikon Bob]

Richard

That is one of the most sensible answers to that question I have seen. You are right it is a personal choice just as what camera you use is etc. There are several ways of getting there and they all work to a degree.

Bob

 

[Richard Black]

While attending collage, I began deciphering the cryptoquotes between classes. My favorite was an old Chinese proverb, the way to the top of the mountain is many, but the view is all the same. Great advice for photographers as well as just in plain life.

 

[pukupi]

You really should not give up on processing B&W on your own. It takes very little space, time and investment and is well worth it.

I like Tri-X but not the one week development time at my local film lab so I've taken your advice and ordered some diafine from Adorama. From what I've read, diafine seems to be made for Tri-X. I've never developed my own film before though so it should be interesting 😉

 

[wlewisiii]

Diafine and Tri-X screams... 😀 EI1600 baby!

William

 

[pukupi]

Diafine and Tri-X screams... 😀 EI1600 baby!

I've read 1250 is the magic number for shooting Tri-X with Diafine. Is 1600 better?

 

[Bertram2]

I use to a Epson 3170 scanner and had problems with scannind T400CN. I thought it has to be BW not sepia or what ever. i gues I need just more exersise in scanning BW. When playing with the White point I got it nearly BW.?

Leaving aside that the Epson flatbed is not the best choice for 35mm film scanning why did'nt you scan colour and converted it later to greyscales with PS ? My negs are all scanned as colour and it works fine..
Bertram

 

[wlewisiii]

1600 is what the box suggests, so that's where I've shot it. Sweet enough for me - but try a roll at both and see which you find more pleasing. That is what this game is all about.

William