Just bought a roll of Kodak BW400cn. Need advice.

[gc1]

Greetings to all!! 🙂

I've just purchased a roll of Kodak BW400cn to try out. I've been using Ilford XP2 super 400 ever since i started to shoot with film. I'm wondering whether should i rate the Kodak at 200 or 400 and then develop it at 400.

Not that XP2 is bad, i've been having decent results with it. Just wanted to try a change since i saw it in the shops today and bought a roll.

 

[bmattock]

I am no expert with the chromogenic B&W films, but I've used them on occasion. I'd say to rate at EI 400 as indicated and process the same. 200 to 400 is only one stop anyway - well within the range of this film even if you guessed wrong.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[jan normandale]

what Bill said....

 

[sleepyhead]

Hi, I've experimented with this film in the past few months (120 size). I get the best results (at least from my developing lab) using these two possibilities:

(1) shoot at 320 and process at 400 (i.e., normal development)
(2) shoot at 800 and process at 1600 (i.e., push processing by two stops)

With a 30x magnifier I can't see much difference in grain between these two, but I don't have a medium format scanner, so I can't say anything about the grain on a print.

There is better shadow detail in the film shot at 320, not surprisingly, but the 800 ASA shots look good also.

'Hope this helps!

 

[gc1]

Alright, thanks Bill, Jan and Sleepyhead!

I was thinking of 200 cos i read that shooting it at 400 might turn out to be "muddy" and was hoping that by shooting at 200 and developing at 400, i might have better contrast.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I generally shoot Kodak C41 B&W rated at 200 and processed as normal, just hand it in and don't tell them what it was shot at. I will use it at 400 if I need the speed. It would be easy to test on the same roll by shooting the same scene at one speed and then the other. That would let you make up your own mind as to which is better for you.

Nikon Bob

 

[vha]

Been using the BW400CN for some time and the XP-2 as well. Still trying to learn the BW since i spend 7 years on the XP-2. . but this fare i´v been using the BW at 400 with leica glass without no problems, like especially that it handles low light settings a lot better than XP-2, indor shots without flash at 1/15 and 2,8, no problem, so for me it looks quite close to a 400 iso film.

XP-2 you have to rate as 200 iso, and preferable with a green-yellow filter, that take 2 f stops, and in real use that equals 50 iso .. , been using that combo together with Contax G and I love it.

But of course, it all came down to what you prefer and like.

If someone know how to get decent shots with XP-2 from 800 iso and beyond, please PM me.

vha

 

[yossarian]

I generally shoot Kodak C41 B&W rated at 200 and processed as normal, just hand it in and don't tell them what it was shot at. I will use it at 400 if I need the speed. It would be easy to test on the same roll by shooting the same scene at one speed and then the other. That would let you make up your own mind as to which is better for you.

Nikon Bob

Glenn, I never shoot chromgenic B&W at anywhere near the claimed speed--at EI
400 the negs are too thin. I usually use EI 160, but whenever I use it in a P&S
camera which is DX only I tape over the contacts, resulting in a default to EI 100.
It's nearly impossible to overexpose this stuff, but even slight underexposure causes
major inconsistencies in MACHINE printing (must stress that). If you print it your-
self, no prob.

Fred

 

[JoeFriday]

I shoot BW400CN at 320 and get very good results.. I think it's great film (and about the only Kodak product I use).. but I have never shot XP-2 Super to compare.. I would expect similar results based on what I've seen

 

[SalmanA]

I've only shot a couple of rolls of BW400CN which were both rated at box speed, and I was very pleased with the results (both scans and prints):

http://www.pbase.com/ssahmed/image/54303074
http://www.pbase.com/ssahmed/image/54310687
http://www.pbase.com/ssahmed/image/54297091

The scans above don't do justice to the prints which were very nice. Ignore the EXIF information shown in the links above, the film used was BW400CN and not T400CN.

I'd recommend shooting a roll at box speed, and varying some of the exposures from +1/3 to +1 over exposure to see how you like the results.

Overall, I really like this film even if its more expensive than XP2 (at least here in Canada).

Cheers,

 

[bmattock]

I would not take issue with people shooting film at whatever EI they like, but I have to wonder - ISO 400 shot at EI 320? That's like 1/2 to 1/3 of an f-stop. So far within the range of latitude for the film that I question anyone can see the difference unless they are commonly shooting near enough to one of the edges (light or dark) of the film latitude that this much adjustment would push it over the top.

I could see adjusting in 1/3 f-stop increments for slide film where you have so little room to play with, but with C-41 process film?

It seems odd and unneccessary, is all I'm saying. I would say that if it at all bothers you, go ahead and bracket in 1/3 increments and see if you find a difference in the resulting prints or scans. Could be I'm wrong, but from where I'm standing, it doesn't make much sense.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[kmack]

I would not take issue with people shooting film at whatever EI they like, but I have to wonder - ISO 400 shot at EI 320? That's like 1/2 to 1/3 of an f-stop. So far within the range of latitude for the film that I question anyone can see the difference unless they are commonly shooting near enough to one of the edges (light or dark) of the film latitude that this much adjustment would push it over the top.

I could see adjusting in 1/3 f-stop increments for slide film where you have so little room to play with, but with C-41 process film?

It seems odd and unneccessary, is all I'm saying. I would say that if it at all bothers you, go ahead and bracket in 1/3 increments and see if you find a difference in the resulting prints or scans. Could be I'm wrong, but from where I'm standing, it doesn't make much sense.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Long ago, when dinosaurs ruled the earth, my photography teacher at college was a crusty old ex-newpaper photog for the soon to be defunct (at the time) Washington Star. He once made the pronouncement that if you want to make a visable change to an exposure make it at least 2 stops, anything less is just "****ing off".

Man, what a character he was. SLR's were required for the class but he always used his M3 or Crown Graphlc for demonstrations.

 

[gc1]

Nikon Bob: i think i might just do that. Thanks for the suggestion. 😉 Hopefully i would be out bright and early later to take a few photos. I'll be doing some at 200 and 400 and developing them at 400 to see the difference.

vha: I'll see how it compares with the XP2 when i get the results. Nice to know someone else also uses XP2 and BW400CN.

Fred: It's good to hear from you!! 😀 Yeah, i'll see how the 200 when developed at 400 turns out. I'll do my best not to underexpose the shots. I usually send it to the lab guy who will do the developing for me. The lab guy does take some shots himself, he does weddings i think. But he uses a nikon D70. So i would trust him to know about film at least a little. His shop has been around since 1985. Film was very much in use at that point of time.

Brett: Yup, this film is the only kodak product that i use too.

Salman: I like your shots! If mine can turn out the same, i'll be happy. BW400cn is a little more expensive then XP2 in Singapore too. But not much. XP2 usually sells for about USD3.25 a roll. BW400cn is about USD3.37. The pain is that XP2 is usually sold in only 1 shop in Singapore. So one has to travel down just to get it. BW400cn is sold in a shop nearer to my home and with hours that are longer too!

Bill: I'm sure you do have a good point. It was informative for me to read your post.

kmack: 2 stops ay? I'll see about that. It would be nice if someone used an M3 to teach. Nowadays many of the people teaching use digital cameras.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Of the two films -- XP2 Super and Kodak's BW400cn- I prefer the Ilford grain characteristics.

But still, I manage to have fun with the Kodak. Both have great lattitude.

Experimentation with different ASA ratings will yield pleasant surprises.

 

[yossarian]

The XP2 is the better film, when printed by hand in the darkroom--higher acutance, along with finer grain. But its weird base color plays havoc with machine
printers. TMAX CN is best suited for one hour-type processing and prints far more
consistently under those conditions.

It's the only Kodak film I use as well. I had to give up HIE since I don't have darkroom access any more--nobody does IR better than Kodak.

Fred

 

[Nikon Bob]

gc1

I like less grain or what passes for grain in C41 film and overexposure seems to do that combined with my scanner and inkjet combo. I am trying that with colour C41 film and think the results are similar. If you like grain just shoot it at 400 or faster. Again it all can be done on the same roll. Shoot at 200/400/800/1600 and see. Have fun and let us know what the results were and what you decided for a rated speed.

Nikon Bob

 

[gc1]

Of the two films -- XP2 Super and Kodak's BW400cn- I prefer the Ilford grain characteristics.

But still, I manage to have fun with the Kodak. Both have great lattitude.

Experimentation with different ASA ratings will yield pleasant surprises.

I'll be experimenting with different ASA ratings later. All this talk of shooting while its still dark over here makes me wish for the sun to come up faster!

 

[gc1]

The XP2 is the better film, when printed by hand in the darkroom--higher acutance, along with finer grain. But its weird base color plays havoc with machine
printers. TMAX CN is best suited for one hour-type processing and prints far more
consistently under those conditions.

It's the only Kodak film I use as well. I had to give up HIE since I don't have darkroom access any more--nobody does IR better than Kodak.

Fred

I think that XP2 is a good film too. I would say if i have to do shoots like say for the RFF Book 2, i would likely use XP2. It has fine grain. I'm fortunate that my lab guy whom i go to can do my rolls of XP2 in an hour with standard charges. He might be surprised with my change in film. 😛

So now when you don't use HIE anymore, what films do you prefer to use?

 

[gc1]

gc1

I like less grain or what passes for grain in C41 film and overexposure seems to do that combined with my scanner and inkjet combo. I am trying that with colour C41 film and think the results are similar. If you like grain just shoot it at 400 or faster. Again it all can be done on the same roll. Shoot at 200/400/800/1600 and see. Have fun and let us know what the results were and what you decided for a rated speed.

Nikon Bob

I'll be happy to let the good folks here know how the results turned out and what i decided for a regular rated speed. 😉

 

[Doug]

Generally I think normal (no push or pull) C41 Process is the way to go, and you can vary the EI at which you shoot the film as it suits you and the subject. I started with Ilford's XP over 20 years ago and it's been my favorite B&W film due to the smooth rich creamy look. That's aided by a bit of overexposure, used also as a hedge against unintended underexposure. But if you like a grittier look then a higher EI might suit.

On some occasions I've re-set my meter from my usual 250 to 400 and asked the lab for a +1 push, and that pumps up contrast nicely when the lighting is very flat... but careful with any highlights.

Actually, I think the chromogenic B&W films are like most color C41 Process films in these respects, and I treat 'em all the same!

I have used Ilford XP1, Agfa Vario-XL, XP2, and Fuji Neopan 400CN, which have no orange mask, so are easier to print in the traditional wet darkroom. I've also used Kodak T400CN which I would say also has no mask but it does have a faint salmon base-tint, and the current Kodak BW400CN has a stronger orange mask that is well-suited to 1-hr lab machine printing on color papers. I believe Konica had a chromogenic but I've not seen or used it.