Kodak 400CN printable?

[dfoo]

I'm in Shanghai for a few weeks working, and doing lots of photography. I normally shoot traditional B&W, however, I cannot develop that film here and it'll have to wait until I get home. To get instant feedback, gratification, and for testing purposes I've shot a few rolls of Ilford XP2 super. I don't want to get home and discover my camera was broken for 100+ rolls of film!. I'm not really digging the tones on the prints (of course, that could be due to crappy printing). Since the XP2 super base is clear, I can do real prints when I get home. I want to try some Kodak 400CN, however, my understanding is that the film base has an orange mask. Is that film not printable on B&W paper using an enlarger?

 

[capitalK]

I've never tried it, but I'm bumping this because I'd like to know.

 

[ully]

Sure is, just use about cc40M filter and increase exposure 25%.

 

[MichaelW]

I've printed Kodak 400CN several times in a B&W darkroom with condenser enlarger, multi-grade paper & filters. I got good prints with no problems & was able to vary the contrast by changing filters. The film is very fine grained & has nice tonality. I've heard reports from several people who said they couldn't get a good print from it so I'm not sure what the explanation is for that.

 

[Pablito]

The Ilford is much easier to print in a conventional darkroom due to the clear base as you have noted. The amber base of the Kodak film is close to safelight color. You can print it but it's harder and certain papers respond better than others. Remember that these films give better results if overexposed. If you shoot at iso 400 the shadows can get muddy/grainy unless you specifically bias your light readings towards the shadows.

 

[dfoo]

Yeah, I noticed that the shadows tend to me very dark with the XP2 super when exposed at 400. I'm pretty sure my results would be better at ISO 200 or so. I have 4 more rolls of XP2 to shoot, after that I'll try a couple of rolls of 400 CN for comparison purposes.

 

[mh2000]

I personally find that BW400CN is perfectly fine shot at ISO 400, while XP-2 Super is much better at ISO 250. I think XP-2 looks sharper, but BW400CN has finer grain and smoother tonality. I prefer BW400CN for most of my subjects. I've never printed either in an enlarger.

 

[Roger Hicks]

XP2 is about 1/3 stop faster, and sharper, but coarser-grained. These assertions are sensitometrically verifiable -- this is not just a genrtal impression. Frances and I find XP2 easier to print, and much prefer the tonality, but we wouldn't hesitate to use 400CN if we couldn't get XP2. This is for wet printing -- the only sort of B+W we normally do.

Tashi delek,

Roger

 

[drewbarb]

My experience with older versions was that you could pull a pretty nice print, but that the dark orange mask did drag out print exposure times a bit. Dunno about the latest Kodak stuff.

 

[dfoo]

This is for wet printing -- the only sort of B+W we normally do.

Yes, I'm only interested in wet printing. As long as I can wet print it, I'm satisfied.

 

[dfoo]

^ the prints from the machine are terrible with XP2. The colors on the (so called) black and white range from green, to blue to sepia. What junk.

 

[Chris101]

BW400CN usually do better when printed small at the time of development. At Walgreens 1-hour for example. That's because they are set up to print color film, and the orange base of the Kodak chromogenic mimics color negative film. I've also had problems with the Ilford film at 1-hours.

 

[Roger Hicks]

😱

^ the prints from the machine are terrible with XP2. The colors on the (so called) black and white range from green, to blue to sepia. What junk.

Junk printing, not film. If the machine is set up for XP2, instead of just using a generic colour channel, they are a LOT more neutral. If you want happy-snaps on colour paper, then I'd back Kodak chromogenics instead.

For real printing (on silver halide paper, non-chromogenic), XP2 is however significantly superior in my experience. As far as I know I have tried all chromogenics since they came out (originally from Agfa and Ilford), though I have only ever shot a few rolls of some of the nastier and shorter-lived stuff. Konica sticks in my mind as especially nasty. Then there's Lucky China...

Basically, XP2 is B+W film with colour couplers added and Kodak's materials are colour films with the colour taken out -- which also explains the differences in sharpness and grain.

Tashi delek,

Roger

 

[marke]

Basically, XP2 is B+W film with colour couplers added and Kodak's materials are colour films with the colour taken out --
Roger

Roger, can you elaborate on this a bit more? Thank you.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

not sure about Kodak BW400CN but the XP-2 prints well, I agree with the shooting at 200 for better shadows, but this print is how I envisioned it. I'm no master printer but I like the results.

XP-2 at 400
Ilford RC Glossy

Todd

 

[dfoo]

😱

Junk printing, not film. If the machine is set up for XP2, instead of just using a generic colour channel, they are a LOT more neutral. If you want happy-snaps on colour paper, then I'd back Kodak chromogenics instead.
...

Yes, I should have been more precise. What I'm primarily interested in is real B&W prints on B&W paper from an enlarger (I normally shoot B&W silver, but as I said don't want to shoot 100 rolls of film only to discover my camera was screwed 🙂

 

[Vince Lupo]

This was printed from a colour neg using Panalure (which I'm assuming has been discontinued?).

As far as the whole XP2 / 400 CN machine printing goes, I've had stuff done at Costco and yes, the prints don't look that great (But for $ 4.50 a roll, what do you expect?). But, my local photo lab does beautiful work with the XP2/CN, and looks like a regular RC print. So, it probably depends on the lab.