Kodak 400 B &W film

[lamemoria]

Hello, can any of you tell me your experience with this film. It notes that you can print it at a regular photostore with color processing. What is the quality of such film?

Thanks

JM-Rivera

 

[schow]

If you're talking about the 400CN BW. I've had good experiences with it. Granted, I'm a mere amatuer's amatuer so my opinion might not be worth much. I'm sure there are better black and white film out there. One that I keep hearing about is Ilford, though I don't know too much about that. Maybe a search or a kind soul can illuminate more.

Well, anyway, see for yourself. Here's some pics taken with my Yashica GSN asa 400.

 

[ErnestoJL]

I´ve tried it several times and besides a light magenta (instead of grey) dominant, is excellent, and tack sharp.
Grey tones are right (exposed @ ISO 400) and picture quality is good.
It´s right, any photostore can handle it (it´s a C41 process film) and of course can also be prientd in colour paper.
However, even being really good, I still prefer HP5. I think this is film to be used when your´e far away from your darkroom or don´t have one.

Ernesto

 

[remrf]

Some folks here have gotten what I would call excellent results with it. My personal experience is a little more confusing. It depends a lot on the quality of the processor and how fresh(or not) the chemicals are when the film is processed. And in my case how well the processor then scans the film for the cd. below are a few examples of Kodak C-41 B&W. The first was shot with a Leica IIIa and Summar f-2 50mm. The second was shot with a Yashica Electro 35 GS. I think the processing was a little off on the second example but in the shot it turned out okay. I like the film and will continue to use it (until I get my darkroom set up anyway). 🙄

 

[peter_n]

Its good film, but results do seem to depend on the lab. I've used its predecessor T400CN quite a bit as well as XP-2 from Ilford (also a chromogenic C-41 film) and using the same lab on the same day got great results from the Kodak film and the Ilford film didn't fare well. In another lab the reverse happened. All of the films were reasonably well exposed. I've never had the Kodak chromogenic printed at the lab but I've scanned it and it scans beautifully.

 

[RayPA]

My experience is that the highlights, and high-midtones can sometimes get a little "muddy" looking. That was probaby due to the processing. I imagine it's rectifyable with a little work in PS. I prefer the Ilford version, XP2, but usually don't use either film. The films scan pretty well, IIRC, and work with ICE.


🙂

 

[rbiemer]

The C-41 Kodak black and white film is almost the only B&W film I use anymore. I like the results but will echo the concerns raised above: find a good processor.
All the black and white photos in my gallery were taken with that film.
Rob

 

[John Camp]

What's the difference between shooting 400CN and shooting regular Kodak color film and then shifting to grey scale in Photoshop?

JC

 

[ywenz]

How does the Kodak one compare to Iford Super XP2?

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

What's the difference between shooting 400CN and shooting regular Kodak color film and then shifting to grey scale in Photoshop?

JC

Hi- that would be difficult to answer without actually performing comparisons tests. Also, there are quite a few ways to convert to B/W in Photoshop. Each method would likely impose different characteristics on the resultant conversion.

Ive found that shooting with films like Kodak Gold 100 (hard to find now) or Gold 200 then converting the scanned frames to B/W, the results look something like Tri-X shot at a slower asa then pull processed. Theres grain there but it has an interesting quality. Sort like a fine lithograph.

I use Kodak BW400cn and enjoy it. But definitley enjoy Ilfords XP2 Super more. I think XP2 has a disinct edge over Kodak's chromogenic B/W offering. Especially when it comes to scanning. I think if you search the galleries here you will see lots of stunning examples of both films in use. But, I think the XP2 examples stand out. It, XP2, seems to show less grain and an apparently sharper image.

It's worth making a comparison of the two for yourself.

 

[VinceC]

>>What's the difference between shooting 400CN and shooting regular Kodak color film and then shifting to grey scale in Photoshop?<<

I don't know the technical differences, but I do tend to shoot very differently when black and white is loaded in the camera instead of color. With B&W, I look for contrasts and shading am aware of which parts of the image will fall into deep gray and black. With color film, I'm much more aware of managing the balance of colors within the scene.

 

[JoeFriday]

I keep meaning to try XP2, but I never get around to buying any.. so no direct comparison here

but I really like shooting BW400CN.. very little grain.. nice midtones, but still enough contrast.. and I appreciate the fact that most photo labs will develop the negs for about $2 a roll in under an hour

I never have prints made.. I use a film scanner, and get excellent results.. but one time I did have a lab make prints, and they had a horrible green cast.. it was a test roll, before I had the film scanner, so no harm done.. but depending on the lab, print quality will vary widely

 

[JoeFriday]

great photos!

 

[schow]

HI Brett,
thank you very much. My best stuff is always with my Muse.

Take care,
Sherm

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Off topic, Robert White's website says:

"Neopan 400CN Fuji's second venture in to monochrome…this time with Ilford holding their hand to produce a C41 compatible film as a result of pressure from the wedding/portrait market. The opposite of the gritty TriX feel… get the exposure right and it's a good multipurpose film that displays the fine grain and smooth tone properties typical of a dye image neg."

But I've never seen this B&W C41 Fuji film anywhere else. Has anybody used it?

 

[Graham Line]

I've shot a few rolls of Fuji's Neopan 400CN but don't have any examples handy to post. In brief: smooth tones, full 400 speed, very sharp with more contrast than Ilford XP2 Super. Very nice film. It is available in the UK and Japan, but not on the US market. You could probably mail order from the UK if you can't get it locally.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I've shot a few rolls of Fuji's Neopan 400CN but don't have any examples handy to post. In brief: smooth tones, full 400 speed, very sharp with more contrast than Ilford XP2 Super. Very nice film. It is available in the UK and Japan, but not on the US market. You could probably mail order from the UK if you can't get it locally.

Thanks for the tip!

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Thank you Joe.

 

[amateriat]

Both Kodak's and Ilford's chromgenic offerings are very, very good. I shoot XP2 because, aside from its overall quality, it pushes and pulls fairly easily (from EI 800 down to EI 50; I've pulled it as low as 200). In addition, unlike Kodak's current offering, XP2 prints well in the conventional b/w darkroom without a lot of fuss (a few have mentioned having to dig deep into their contrast-filter box for ideal results), whereas Kodak's film, still retaining a color-neg-style orange mask, won't work too well in the enlarger. (Kodak did briefly have a b/w chromogenic sans orange mask, sold alongside the original T400 CN, but apparently got scrapped during one of Rochester's "house-cleaning" sessions.)

Most of the b/w work in my linked portfolio was done with XP2.


- Barrett

 

[schow]

Thanks Daniel *bowing*!