ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Has anybody got any tips about this film?
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I think it's the Kodak stock, just rebadged. Wide latitude if you're willing to put up with some compromises. Best results are _usually_ shot at 200-250, perhaps with a yellow filter (now you're at 100-125). This will give you the shadow detail and, with the yellow filter, the contrast that you're likely after. However, there is nothing wrong with shooting it at 400, just that you might get some noise in the shadows.
alan
alan
Graham Line
Well-known
My experience differs from Kaiyen's.
Neopan 400CN doesn't look like Kodak's product. It is very close to an honest 400 ISO, and has stronger contrast than either Kodak's chromogenic or Ilford XP2 Super. The film has very good resolution for a 400 speed film.
Fuji doesn't list 400CN on its US web site. The half dozen rolls I shot were shipped from the UK.
It's hard to picture a scenario that would involve Fuji marketing a relabeled Kodak product.
Neopan 400CN doesn't look like Kodak's product. It is very close to an honest 400 ISO, and has stronger contrast than either Kodak's chromogenic or Ilford XP2 Super. The film has very good resolution for a 400 speed film.
Fuji doesn't list 400CN on its US web site. The half dozen rolls I shot were shipped from the UK.
It's hard to picture a scenario that would involve Fuji marketing a relabeled Kodak product.
venchka
Veteran
This topic comes up from time to time. Some folks say the Fuji film is rebadged Ilford. Who knows for sure?
I have used a few rolls of Kodak BW400CN and one roll of Ilford XP2 Super. I'm no expert on either. My limited results indicate that the Kodak film is creamy smooth and virutally grainless. Great for people and skin tones. The Ilford film looks more like B&W film, Tri-X to my eye. Both are good. They just have slightly different style.
I have used a few rolls of Kodak BW400CN and one roll of Ilford XP2 Super. I'm no expert on either. My limited results indicate that the Kodak film is creamy smooth and virutally grainless. Great for people and skin tones. The Ilford film looks more like B&W film, Tri-X to my eye. Both are good. They just have slightly different style.
Burkey
Well-known
I've had excellent results with Kodak 400CN but realize that the particular lab processing the film also makes a big difference.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Is the Fuji black or is it plum?
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I've found that the kodak BW400CN (c-41) performs best for me and my local minilab when I meter at 250. Much less grain and easier for them to balance the basic prints and scans. It's generally pretty contasty as is - but i'll sometimes bump with filters.
It's not a real replacement for silver emulsions to my eye, but the convenience is enough for me to keep several rolls in my bag for shooting when I know I won't have time for darkroom work.
It's not a real replacement for silver emulsions to my eye, but the convenience is enough for me to keep several rolls in my bag for shooting when I know I won't have time for darkroom work.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I apologize if I got the film stock wrong - I just didn't think Fuji actually made their own. If the base is colored, then it's kodak. If it's clear/grey, then it's ilford. Or, maybe, they do make their own.
and the lab matters because of the paper it's being printed on, not the actual processing. At least, it shouldn't - c41 is about as standardized as you can get.
allan
and the lab matters because of the paper it's being printed on, not the actual processing. At least, it shouldn't - c41 is about as standardized as you can get.
allan
peter_n
Veteran
NP400CN was English wedding photog Jeff Ascough's film of choice before he went to digital. He probably knows a lot about the film but he did send it out to be processed. He's a nice bloke so if you drop him an email he'll almost certainly respond to it.
Graham Line
Well-known
Here's what Fuji says about it. As I remember, the film base in neutral, certainly not orange. It's nice film; I just can't walk into a store in the USofA and buy it.
http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/film/films/blackwhite_neopan400cn.html
http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/film/films/blackwhite_neopan400cn.html
Russ
Well-known
It's made by Ilford, for Fuji. It's my favorite B/W C-41 film. Treat it just as you would Ilfords XP-2. I think it's a hair sharper, with just a little more contrast. I use it all the time. I'll post more on it later. I'm on the POS work PC right now. I burn it @ 320.
Russ
Russ
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Joe Brugger said:
Grr... why on earth wouldn't they distribute it here. I am constantly befuddled by some of the decisions film companies are making these days. (Guess I should be glad they are still around tho).
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Peter_n: Thank you for that possible contact. I'll use one roll and mail Jeff Ascough if the results look in any way odd.
venchka
Veteran
Burkey said:
AMEN! The lab makes a huge difference.
Correction & explanation: The lab makes all the difference in the scans and prints. Green to purple has been my experience. Yes, B&W C-41 scans can have a decided magenta cast to them. Not to worry. Adobe's Lightroom greyscale conversion cures the problem instantly. However, prints would be a different story.
I've attached the direct output & a quick greyscale conversion. The film is Ilford XP2 Super shot at 400.
Attachments
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Yeah, it's the stuff _after_ the processing that is the problem.
So is the theory that it's made by Ilford, with a different emulsion than XP2? If not, then how can it be sharper or in any way different than XP2?
allan
So is the theory that it's made by Ilford, with a different emulsion than XP2? If not, then how can it be sharper or in any way different than XP2?
allan
Russ
Well-known
kaiyen said:
Kaiyen
I prefer the Neopan CN, over the excellent Ilford XP-2. I'm not bashing the XP-2, it's quite good. But it seems to me, when comparing them, that the Fuji version is a bit better. It's made by Ilford, per Fuji specs. I use it quite a bit. Here's a scan I made from a photo mag on it.
Russ
Attachments
Russ
Well-known
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
Kodak's BW400CN film is a good, convenient b&w alternative.
I personally prefer XP2 Super if I have the choice as the XP2 appears to be sharper and has very fine grain.
BW400CN write-up: http://silfver.blogspot.com/2006/09/kodak-bw400cn-other-blackwhite-film.html
XP2 Super write-up: http://silfver.blogspot.com/2006/10/ilford-xp2-super.html
Note: All photos above were given a duo-tone in Photoshop.
I personally prefer XP2 Super if I have the choice as the XP2 appears to be sharper and has very fine grain.
Some BW400CN samples:
Leica III (F), Elmar 50/3.5 with NOOKY attachment
Leica III (F), Elmar 50/3.5 with NOOKY attachment
Leica M3, Summicron 50/2
Some XP2 Super samples:
Olympus ECR
Olympus ECR
Leica III (F), Elmar 50/3.5 with NOOKY attachment
Leica III (F), Elmar 50/3.5 with NOOKY attachment
Leica M3, Summicron 50/2
Some XP2 Super samples:
Olympus ECR
Olympus ECR
BW400CN write-up: http://silfver.blogspot.com/2006/09/kodak-bw400cn-other-blackwhite-film.html
XP2 Super write-up: http://silfver.blogspot.com/2006/10/ilford-xp2-super.html
Note: All photos above were given a duo-tone in Photoshop.
Last edited by a moderator:
bellyface
Registered Nice Guy
I'd love to see some results with this film, despite the fact it's chromogenic and won't live so long archived.
Dougg
Seasoned Member
I'm of the same opinion about this film and its use as Alan, except that a well-connected source told me it's essentially identical to XP-2 Super, and that fits my observations as well. I ordered-in some from Robert White and used it. Here are some samples... (Contax G2, 35mm f/2.0 Zeiss Planar with Contax UV filter & GG-2 hood.)kaiyen said:
