BW400CN sharper than traditional 400 film?

Sharpness in this film is great. But my experience is that it has a higher level of contrast, which could give you the sense that it is sharper. I used some with an orange/red filter and had to work very hard to get it to reasonable contrast levels. Since then, I have used only an UV filter. Yesterday, I used a yellow filter on a Jupiter 3 on the Bessa R I have. I'll report as soon as I get the film back. But, I do like it.
 
It's a lot LESS sharp if you try it on critical targets -- and Ilford XP2 is sharper than the equivalent Kodak products. It's because dyes can never be as sharp as metallic silver (think about it). But they are still sharp enough that it's not worth worrying about.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
 
Roger,

I don't understand... what is critical targets to you? Did you check out the shot? I can upload a 100% crop of the scan tonight to better illustrate what I mean.
 
Resolution targets -- the only repeatable subjects with constant contrast and sharpness. Sure, not real-life subjects, but if you are talking about comparing maximum sharpness you are pretty much out of the realms of the artistic and into the realms of the scientific. Then, microscopic examination (50x and 100x) of the images. Bear in mind that with a scanner there is usually a high Callier coefficient while with chromogenics there is little or none: this may also affect our differing opinions.

With a conventional film the silver itself forms the image. With a chromogenic, it's dye clouds formed around the silver -- hence an inherent loss of sharpness. Ilford will tell you -- and my own tests bear it out -- that Delta 400 is sharper than XP2. Delta 100 is sharper than either, which is logical given that it's slower and high-tech.

It may be possible to extract lower sharpness from a halide film than from a chromogenic of the same speed, but if I did, I'd question my developer or development technique or both. I'd also co,pare microscopic examination and scanning, which I haven't tried: an interesting point.

Even so, with the right cameras and lenses I seem to recall 80-90 lp/mm on XP2, at which point there's not a lot of point in looking for more resolution and sharpness. To my astonishment the 75/2 Summicron delivered 125 lp/mm on both Delta 100 and Pan F, but this is exceptional.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger,
Thanks for the explanation. I haven't had problems with sharpness with this film, but I seem to have a contrast problem with a red/orange filter. It seems harsh compared to one that is not filtered. I've experienced this with the Color Skopar 28 3.5 lens specifically.
 
Ok, Roger! I understand you have lots of knowledge in this department. I trust your word!

Actually I wasn't really trying to tell people that BW400CN is sharper than traditional BW film in a scientific way. I just told people what I saw. I found the BW400CN to be sharper than my scans of many other films like Neopan 400, HP5+, Tri-X, Ektachrome 400. This may be because of my scanner, my camera, my technique etc. Maybe I just got lucky with that shot and nailed the focus perfectly. I don't know. But I like the BW400CN, I get nice results. I'll attach one 100% crop of BW400CN and one from a HP5+. Different cameras, different lenses, different subjects -- maybe not a good way to compare... :)
 
dear timeUnit,

You are absolutely right. What looks best, is best. And as I said, the sharpness of XP2 is so high that there's not a lot of point in looking for more. T400CN isn't quite as sharp but it is finer grained. Have you tried XP2? I prefer it tonally to Kodak's films -- but of course that's personal preference. It may also be the nature of scanning: as I say, I've not tried that.

And Richard, yes; as I understand it, all tabular-grain films (which of course includes T400CN) have surprisingly low blue sensitivity and boosted orange/red sensitivity, so red filtration has a disproportionate effect and more speed loss than non-T-grain -- but this is not something I have tested because I don't like T-grain tonality (personal taste again). As Ilford said to me of their epitaxial technology, "It's not necessarily better than T-grain, but it is better-behaved."

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- and the Photo School is now up and running)
 
T400CN isn't quite as sharp but it is finer grained.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's what I'm seeing: the fine grain fools me to believe that it's sharper. Anyway, I really llike that I can have such a fine grain and high speed in one. :)

I'll definetely try the XP2.

Thanks!

h
 
timeUnit,
Roger has some experience with XP2 Super. Check out the British magazine, Black and White sometime. He has had some of his pics printed there as in other places.
Roger,
I blame you for my attraction to the Bessa R. Read an review and saw some work and I had to have one. And I am NOT disappointed. Great camera, thanks. BTW, I read your wife's discussion about tonality and tried the new TRI X, and I have to agree that it is a most pleasing film. XP-5 is quite nice too, but I tilt toward the X.
 
timeUnit said:
Maybe that's what I'm seeing: the fine grain fools me to believe that it's sharper. Anyway, I really llike that I can have such a fine grain and high speed in one. :)
I'll definetely try the XP2.
h
Click to expand...

Hi timeunit,

Since about three years I use mostly BW 400 CN (former T400CN) just because it is still the only way to get some scans for web from my lab , which scans only C41 for a reasonable price.
Your perception of sharpness has something to do with the almost grainless look of the chromogenic film, no wonder normaly we always find less grainy films to look sharper. And C41 scans better than silver. I beleieve Roger Hicks, he's got much more expertise than I have about this issue, nevertheless Kodak has a smooth and silky precision which is surprising for a 400 ISO fim.
The other thing is contrast, which contributes too to that impression of sharpnes but can get annoying in bright sunlight.
Best this film works under conditions of of a diffuse and not too bright light (almost no shadows) .

This pic is not my best one but it demonstrates what I want to explain:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/cpg/displayimage.php?album=234&pos=86

I once experimented with XP2 too because I was promised the highlights were not blown out so often in bright sunlight , I could not find that really reliably confirmed.
XP2:
http://www.pgallery.net/image-download/bertram/26-51218.jpg?view
Her it works and the dynamic range seems to be larger than at the old T400CN.
BW400CN got better at this point.

Maybe XP2 film is sharper but since BW400CN is available I am back on Kodak again, because I like it's look better.
A matter of taste more than the question of the right or the wrong film. I swear on BW400CN, others swear on Xp2.

Sharpness is not everything as we all know.
It is a " bourgeois concept" HCB once said to Helmut Newton when they met the last time before they both died. He wasn't serious of course, only self defending.
Newton had made fun of some blurred photos HCB had shot with his more tha 90yo shaky hands at a shooting they had together.
For me the best joke of all photo related jokes I ever heard !! Superb ! :D

Best regards,
Bertram
 
I've been using a lot of chromagenic bw film of late due to not being able to print or scan at home. Of them, I've liked the Kodak films look, especially that of the BW400CN, better. It may be any of the things mentioned in this thread, but it simply works better for me and my eyes, especially at EI200.

Now though, I'm trading my Fed 5 to a RFFer for a scanner that can do negatives so I hope to get back to good old 120 rolls of Tri-X at 1600 w/Diafine... :D

William
 
It's notable that all the various chromogenic B&W films from Ilford, Agfa, Kodak, Konica, Fuji, etc, have been rated at ISO 400, while there is a full range of slow and fast color C41 films up to ISO 1600.

Yeah, I know they CLAIM acceptable use for the chromogenics up to 800: "When higher speed is needed, XP2 SUPER can be rated at up to EI 800/30." sez Ilford. But I guess it's what you consider acceptable, and maybe your metering technique. I don't even get decent shadows at EI 500, while Fuji NPZ 800 at EI 500 delivers glorious rich shadows.

So... why isn't there a "real" ISO 800 and 1600 choice in this type of film?
 
Doug, there are two answers. One is that no-one thinks the market is big enough for a range of chromogenics: you already have ISO 100 grain at ISO 400 speed with the existing films, and it's disputable whether there are enough people who want ISO 25 grain at ISO 100 speed. The other is that still faster chromogenics apparently pose technical manufacturing problems. Yes, I know you can make fast colour films but B+W users often have different requirements for grain & sharpness.

If you use a spot meter, you should find good shadow detail at 500 with XP2 but with any other approach you have to 'aim off' to allow for the brightness range: there's a free module about brightness range in the Photo School at www.rogerandfrances.com.

And of course you lose shadow detail beyond about 400 or 500. If you didn't, it would be a faster film... Results at 800 are 'acceptable' compared with no results.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger Hicks said:
And of course you lose shadow detail beyond about 400 or 500. If you didn't, it would be a faster film...
Click to expand...
Exactly my point in comparing it with NPZ. :D Thanks for your response. What seems curious is that ALL the chromogenics ever produced have been ISO 400. No maker has distinguished his chromogenic product from the competition by offering a different film speed. Even Fuji's new one seems indistinguishable from Ilford's; just a different color box... I'd think there's more room on the market for a new ISO 800 chromogenic than yet another 400 speed one! (Or an extremely sharp/fime-grain one at ISO 50 without the heavy densities of XP2 at that speed).
 
Doug said:
.. I'd think there's more room on the market for a new ISO 800 chromogenic than yet another 400 speed one! (Or an extremely sharp/fime-grain one at ISO 50 without the heavy densities of XP2 at that speed).
Click to expand...

Doug,
I do not know if Ilford recommends pushing, Kodak did so for T400CN and it is to assume that this still works for BW400CN too.
There was a push step 1 for 800 and a push step 2 for 1600, forgot the times but let it once do by a specialized lab for 1600 and the results were very pleasing, for me on par with a Fuji 1600 at least.
Soley trusting in the latitude of this emulsion never worked for me, it's a wrong promise " in my eyes" , to use an adaequate term. :)

Best,
Bertram
 
No, Roger, perhaps naively I haven't. News was that Fuji had contracted with Ilford for developmental assistance and/or technology licensing. That could explain a close product resemblance. If that was all "PR fog" and the film is actually made by Ilford, if so then good for them! Is it so?
 
Hi Bertram, interesting point about pushing. The XP films tend toward slightly low contrast in my experience, and this is very welcome in high-contrast situations. But in flat lighting it can benefit from a little development push, I've found. This just seems to perk up the highlights without adding noticeable density in the shadows, but in these conditions it can give the effect of higher ISO.

But these days I don't mind somewhat lower contrast, since at least that means a wide range of scene values has been recorded. A digital scan then can have a lot of info to work with, and contrast can be selectively adjusted later.

The film-makers' choice of ISO 400 was probably a good one, if there's to be only one available speed. That's very versatile for 35mm, though for indoor shooting with medium format with slower lenses 800 would suit me better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom