BW400CN - exposing correctly for subsequent scan

[Arjay]

I thought reverting back to film from digital would be easy - but it isn't:

I've shot several rolls of Kodak BW400CN chromogenic film at its nominal 400 ISO speed, had it developed in my local drugstore and scanned it - with abysmal results!

I like how this film behaves in the higher tonal ranges - very smooth, almost no grain and quite subtle.

BUT when it comes to shadow rendition, my results were very disappointing at first sight: The film is clipping shadows abruptly to deep black, and there is very little differentiation in shadow areas - something I have come to appreciate when I convert digital color pictures to BW. With digitally recorded image files, I can produce pictures with enormously smooth shadow detail - and that's what I would like to obtain using film as well.

BW400CN - by comparison acts very harsh, and it is barely possible to tweak scanned BW400CN pictures by way of scanner DEE algorithms or gradation curves with specific bumps in shadow regions.

Here is an example:

Notice how smooth the bright areas are (light gray floor).
Black clipping problem: Look at the man on the left. His trousers show abrupt black clipping. Note that I applied a gradation curve that is fairly steep in the deep gray to black area in the hope of obtaining a somewhat richer set of shadow tonality values. This is exactly what is troubling me.

Can anybody provide hints how to obtain more shadow detail right from the start?

Should I expose the film using a lower ISO value, or could this problem be due to my scanning workflow?

PS: I scanned using a Coolscan V ED and Nikon Scan software. The scan was performed with 14 bits of data resolution. I used the scanner's DEE function which boosts shadow detail - but that in itself isn't the problem. I get the same clipping behavior if I manipulate the gradation curve instead.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Check out this thread from a couple of months ago:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79900
A number of forum members said they rate BW400CN at 320 or even 250 for best results.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've found that Ilford XP2 Super scans (and wet prints) better than BW400CN. XP2 Super would have been called XP3 if it hadn't been for a couple of misguided marketing guys who thought customers couldn't count that high.

Cheers,

R.

 

[lewis44]

I SHOOT IT AT 320. Not a major change in the ASA, but I like the images better.

 

[TEZillman]

I've also been experimenting with BW400CN. This is from my first roll, shot at ISO 400 in a Nikon FA and scanned on a Minolta Dual Scan IV using vuescan set to the default for Ilford XP2 since viewscan doesn't have a profile for BW400CN. I've made no adjustments in post and it seems to have come out fine. I don't see any clipping in the shadows.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I shoot it at EI 200 for scanning. Works great! These were both shot in 35mm. The First with an Olympus OM-4T and 50mm f2 Zuiko Macro, the second with a Leica R4 and 50mm Summicron that I had borrowed from a friend a few yrs ago.

 

[Arjay]

Thank you all for your encouraging answers!

I SHOOT IT AT 320. Not a major change in the ASA, but I like the images better.

Indeed, the shadows inside the vertical tube look like I would expect that they should.

I've also been experimenting with BW400CN. This is from my first roll, shot at ISO 400 in a Nikon FA and scanned on a Minolta Dual Scan IV using vuescan set to the default for Ilford XP2 since viewscan doesn't have a profile for BW400CN. I've made no adjustments in post and it seems to have come out fine. I don't see any clipping in the shadows.

Could it be that this is due to the diffuse illumination (hazy day, mid/late afternoon) of this picture? Are you sure that you have never seen harsh shadows when exposing @ ISO 400?

Thanks for the tip with the replacement profile in Vuescan. Nikon Scan has the same problem, and Vuescan is my fallback software.

I shoot it at EI 200 for scanning. Works great! These were both shot in 35mm. The First with an Olympus OM-4T and 50mm f2 Zuiko Macro, the second with a Leica R4 and 50mm Summicron that I had borrowed from a friend a few yrs ago.

Thank you - this is the quality of results I am aiming at: Soft roll-off into full white & black at both ends of the density curve (that's one of the reasons why I came back to analog, as digital can't give you this behavior without substantial loss in latitude).

BTW: Great pictures!

Ok - then I'll go on testing, this time with lower ISO values.

BTW - can anyone suggest other film (also silver halide) types that also offer soft roll-off at both ends, but with higher sensitivity of ISO 400 and above?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

There are only three faster BW films in existence:

Fuji Neopan 1600: I don't like it. It has a true speed of about 640; developed for 1600 it is very contrasty and still lack's shadow detail. Shot at its true speed, it isn't fast enough to justify its cost over a 400 film like Tri-X.

Kodak Tmax 3200 and Ilford Delta 3200: Both excellent films, both give best results Developed for and exposed at 1600. They are both contrasty, the Ilford more so than the Kodak I think, but they both hold shadow detail pretty well. Highlights are a little harsh with both. These films are slower than the box speed, but are designed for pushing so they hold shadow detail better when pushed than most films. The Kodak film has a true speed of 800 and the Ilford 1000. Tmax Developer is best for them in my experience, having tried Rodinal, D-76, and Tmax Developer.

Tmax 3200, EI 1600

Tmax 3200, EI 1600

Tmax 3200, EI 1600

Delta 3200, EI 1600

Delta 3200, EI 1600 This was shot in a Hasselblad, all the other examples I've shown were from 35mm film. Delta 3200 is the only one of the three films faster than 400 that is made in 120 size.

 

[daveywaugh]

Arjay - I would second/third rating it at 200. Weird scan though... a shame because it's a really nice shot otherwise. I can't see this problem being simply underexposing - surely must be something to do with the scan but can't put my finger on it.

Chris... your images are friggin awesome mate!

 

[40oz]

the scan in the first post was horrible. Did the prints look like that?

The issue isn't that the film is having a hard time capturing shadow detail. The issue is the scan is dropping everything below a certain value. Either it's scanner settings or post-processing. And I'd bet it's post processing. The scanner doesn't know what is "clear" on the negative but it can easily tell the parts that block light. So you need to control in Photoshop or whatever how the tones are distributed among the recorded values. It's a Levels adjustment in Photoshop. You're fine on the highlight end, but the blacks encompass too wide a range of values. It needs to move left so you get some range of shadows.

I don't think it's an issue of film exposure but I suppose it's possible.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

the scan in the first post was horrible. Did the prints look like that?

The issue isn't that the film is having a hard time capturing shadow detail. The issue is the scan is dropping everything below a certain value. Either it's scanner settings or post-processing. And I'd bet it's post processing. The scanner doesn't know what is "clear" on the negative but it can easily tell the parts that block light. So you need to control in Photoshop or whatever how the tones are distributed among the recorded values. It's a Levels adjustment in Photoshop. You're fine on the highlight end, but the blacks encompass too wide a range of values. It needs to move left so you get some range of shadows.

I don't think it's an issue of film exposure but I suppose it's possible.

Its exposure, you can tell. The dark tones have no detail but you can see a grain pattern in them...classic sign of underexposure coupled with lightening the image to make the midtones and lights lok ok despite the poor exposure.

 

[mfogiel]

I suggest 3 sure ways of improving the results:
1 - if you have to shoot any C41 film, expose at half the box speed
2- if you do not have to shoot C41 film, go directly to Tri X (or Arista Premium 400)
3- buy a dedicated film scanner and scan yourself - cheaper and much better

 

[TEZillman]

Could it be that this is due to the diffuse illumination (hazy day, mid/late afternoon) of this picture? Are you sure that you have never seen harsh shadows when exposing @ ISO 400?

Thanks for the tip with the replacement profile in Vuescan. Nikon Scan has the same problem, and Vuescan is my fallback software.
Arjay,

I'm not familiar enough with the film yet to give you a definitive answer. The shot below is in direct sunlight and is probably a better example. At least I'm satisfied with the results. I've read numerous threads on how to expose this film both here and on other forums and there does not seem to be any consensus. I've seen some examples that were shot at 800 that didn't really have an enormous loss of tonal range. I'm thinking that I'll shoot the next roll at 320 to see if I can detect any difference. I think the bottom line is that your issues are somewhere in your scanning or post processing. That's my two cents anyway, with far too little experience with the specific film.

I can't really take credit for the profile tip, I read it in another thread.

 

[not_in_good_order]

This was shot in very contrasty summer afternoon lighting at 320:






The shot you posted to my eyes looks a little underexposed because the shadows clip to black and have a clumpy, grainy look which is characteristic of underexposed c-41. Edit to add that I scan using nikonscan with a coolscan 5000.