EI of kodak bw400cn

[jorisbens]

I've read on RFF that XP2 is best used used at an EI of 250 or 320, and then not asking to adapt the development at the lab. Should I handle kodak bw400cn in the same way?

Joris Bens 😎

 

[Bertram2]

I've read on RFF that XP2 is best used used at an EI of 250 or 320, and then not asking to adapt the development at the lab. Should I handle kodak bw400cn in the same way?

Joris Bens 😎

At least I myself never did so but shot it always at 400. Some recommend to shoot it a 200 better " to open the shadows", best try that yourself, I did not find it convincing.
Take care for the highlights in bright sunlight (sometimes pol filter an help) and for black closed shadows too in contrasty environments.
All advice cannot repalce your own experience, you must shoot it to understand it.
🙂
In general this is a perfect film for covered sky and bright but diffuse light, for brightsunlight I prefer Tri-X
Best,
bertram

 

[Nikon Bob]

I like it re-rated to 200 but Bertrams suggestion to try it both ways and decide yourself is a good one. Especially since you can do the experiment on one roll because the film is processed normally with no changes.

Bob

 

[Richard Black]

I use both of these films frequently and rate them at 400. I guess I do the same thing when I choose to open up 1 to 2 fstops when shooting some scenes or portraits. Test a roll for yourself and decide if it covers your goals. I like both of these films; but be careful if you choose to use a red or orange filters. The BW400CN can become really contrasty. Start with a yellow and move to a dark yellow, if you use colored filters.

 

[Pherdinand]

I have used only one single roll so far, but i used it at ei400 and worked fine both indoors in a cave with 1s -style exposure time and outdoors in bright sunshine.

 

[peter_n]

Joris the above advice is good. I shot a fair amount of its predecessor T400CN inside and I ended up rating it at 320 but to be honest 1/3 of a stop is pretty negligable especially with a high latitude film like a chromogenic. As Bob points out, experiment with a single roll and find out what works for you in the environment you work in. I loved T400CN for available light inside work and I was pretty upset when Kodak discontinued it.

 

[Bertram2]

Especially since you can do the experiment on one roll because the film is processed normally with no changes.
Bob

Exactly, and if one shoots a roll for tests one can add some shots at 800 too to get a feeling for it. But in general underexposed C41 can get very ugly.
The old T400CN could be pushed with step1 for 800 and step 2 for 1600, did not find any information if the later BW400CN can do this too.
This film scans fine too but, as I said , tends to lose all structure in very bright or highlighted areas. Reflections of leaves for example (pol) or roofs of all kinds.
Looks a bit like digital B&W then, but only a bit 😉

Best,
Bertram

 

[Roger Hicks]

A lot depends on how you meter, and on the subject brightness range. Spot meter for the shadows and you can use the full 400 (500 with XP2); use an unsophisticated TTL meter on a bright sunny day and 200 may be nearer the mark. That's one of the reasons I wrote the book Perfect Exposure -- more details on wwww.rogerandfrances.com -- and you'll also find useful information in the Photo School on the same site (much of it free).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Pherdinand]

I agree w roger.
I have even seen articles over the Net stating that the writer meters INCIDENT light differently, pointing the meter dome towards the light source instead of the camera position, because that's what he thinks it is normal, of course in many cases this means even 1 stop difference in the reading.

 

[Socke]

I used it with good results as rated in a Contax TVS and a G2 in Cuba last year.

 

[jorisbens]

I'll bracket some shots with the bw400cn myself, and then i can decide what's best and post the results here 🙂

Thank you all

Joris Bens 😎

 

[alansoon]

I'd go for 250. I rate all of my 400 negs at 250 and they're stunning.

 

[alansoon]

I should elaborate: you'd always want to err on the side of overexposure than underexposure with negs. T400CN or XP2 (which I used to use exclusively until prices rose) get very muddy even with 1 1/2 stops of underexposure.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd certainly agree with Alansoon about erring on the side of over- rather than under-exposure, but that's as true for conventional films as for C41. But more exposure ALWAYS means less sharpness, so exposure is always a compromise. With conventional films it means coarser grain but with chromogenics (and plain colour) it means finer grain.

Cheers,

Roger