Kodak 400CN - what am I missing?

[ferider]

I agree it's a nice film but it lacks real character IMO ... the look borders on digital at times.

It doesn't shout ... "Hey ... this is film!"

Looks like film to me, Keith:

Sometimes I want min. scanning effort (e.g., ICE) - that's when I use it.

Roland.

 

[Steve M.]

It does look a little (sometimes a lot) like digital converted to B&W, but it's a remarkably good film at times for portraits. I learned something on this thread. From now on I'll shoot it at 200 and see how it goes. One other problem w/ turning the film over to any lab like Walgreens. Costco, Walmart etc is that their scanners tend to be set up w/ way too much sharpening. Not sure how you get around that in post processing. Maybe a little Gaussian Blur perhaps.

I like it for indoor shots too where you don't have to worry about it doing odd things w/ the highlights.

 

[Keith]

Looks like film to me, Keith:

Sometimes I want min. scanning effort (e.g., ICE) - that's when I use it.

Roland.

They are nice ... and there actually seems to be some grain there!

I shot a lot of 400CN when first starting out and was quite content until the local one hour started leaving tramlines on my negatives and telling me my cameras were faulty.

I just don't want anyone else developing my film these days ... no way! If I botch it ... it's my fault!

 

[fortynine]

this film became my staple after i tried tri-x, t-max, hp5, fp4 etc. i like its tonality for general purpose shooting. Thanks to David & Arjay, will try shooting at ISO 200 for greater shadow details

BW400CN, Hexanon UC 35mm f2

 

[fortynine]

I agree that using BW 400 CN at box speed isn't such a good idea because at this speed, the film exhibits severe clipping in the deeper shadows.

I scanned these pictures on my Coolpix V ED as a 16-bit RGB TIF file (whi
Summary: I think this film delivers best results at EI 200. If you're looking for smooth tone reproduction in the shadows, then there are other, better films. If you're looking for a film to make stunning high-key shots - then this is the right choice.

I agree. But what wud be other better films for smooth tone reproduction in the shadows, similar low-grain types I mean ? I believe T-MAX 400 gives even higher contrast without extra shadow detail

 

[shadowfox]

This film is great when I don't want to see grain.
And this film when scanned produces the widest dynamic range I've ever seen. Meaning you can make it to look like however you want.

This film is *not* great when you want to print in the darkroom. Or if you ever want to pursue that in the future. For me personally, I stopped using this film precisely because of this.

Ilford XP2 may be an option, a tad bit more grainy but same wide tone range.