Kodak B+W Porta and R3A/CV 75mm

[Burkey]

Well, I'm sold. On a whim I tried a roll of the Kodak B+W Porta. The tonal range and minimal grain I see from a test roll far surpasses what I was getting from XP2. The attached picture of my son tolarating Dad doing yet anohter film test has what I consider to be a really nice set of tones. My original reason for shooting the roll was to see how the recently purchased CV 75mm looked. The conbination is one I'll definitely use again. Hopefully the new Kodak B+W film that replaces this type will work as well.

 

[Socke]

I wasn't too impressed by BW400CN, it doesn't scan well on my Canon FS2710 and the prints from the lab on colour paper aren't better than those from XP2 Super.

 

[Burkey]

Socke - is the BW400CN the new B+W version or the one Kodak call(ed) "Portra"?

 

[krnt]

I can´t se mutch of a diffrence betveen those two.
To me it das not metter whits one I use.
No one of them are like Tri-X or FP4.
Just an opinion.
/Thomas,

 

[Socke]

BW400CN is the only chromogenic C-41 film Kodak sells today, IMHO since autumn 2004. I had four rolls when I went to Cuba in october 04.

 

[anandi]

If it's the BW400CN stuff here in North America, I like it as an inexpensive alternative to getting my B/W prints developed at a lab (I don't do my own). I ran a roll through my local el-cheapo grocery store photolab, and was really pleased with the results. Yup, it's no HP5 and I don't have a good alternative to Delta3200 yet, but it keeps the costs of using film down for me at a quality that I'm happy with.

 

[Socke]

Thomas, I too shoot "real" B/W now.

Chromogenic is too expensive for me and the wait for the lab is too long, one hour labs only add to the expenses. The prints mostly have an ugly colour cast and even the lab scans are all over the place from sepia to cyan.

DIY developing classic B/W is easy, cheaper and gives one more controll over the image.
Last but not least, it is fun!

 

[back alley]

i generally stay away from kodak products but that shot looks pretty good.

for chromogenics i prefer the xp2.

 

[Burkey]

My first rolls through the R3A/Nokton MC were with XP2. Quite frankly, the images looked harsh and the tonal range wasn't, well, quite right. The same local lab did the devoping and the scanning on the Portra for me, as did the first rounds with the XP2 Maybe it's the combination - Portra, this particular lab, CV75, the position of the moon, 😉 etc. but the tonal range this time around is much better. I just printed out an 11X14 this afternoon on an Epson 2200 and the results were excellent.

 

[Nikon Bob]

The photo looks good to me and you can't complain about the performance of the 75 CV lens. I use the BW400CN for much the same reasons as anandi and am happy with it. It scans well and prints up fine on my HP 7960. The XP2 is more expensive and rare to find locally. All in all I have had better luck with the Kodak product.

Nikon Bob

 

[back alley]

i usually shot xp2 at 200 or 250 and had it processed normally.
it looked better than at 400.

 

[rxmd]

I like XP2 better because it's easier to do B/W prints from its violet base than from the Kodak's orange base. With multigrade paper it's a hassle to get proper contrast, with single grade paper it's not sensitive enough to orange light.

 

[Socke]

XP2 is made to be printed on B/W paper and BW400CN to be printed on colour paper. But the most labs don't get BW400CN printed without ugly colour cast.

These are small res scans from the lab from BW400CN in a Contax TVS

It's the same roll!

 

[Nikon Bob]

The big problem with BW400CN is the variable results that different labs put out in both their scans and prints. That is why I find it better to just get it developed at a 1hr. lab and scan/print at home. I have had equally bad results from labs printing XP2 on colour paper. I do not think that BW400CN is the problem. You can get the same bad results with B&W silver based films if you have to send them out for devoloping and printing. In both cases you need to find a good lab, which can be very difficult, or do all or part of the process yourself.

Nikon Bob

 

[Burkey]

So far the developing and scans from the photo processor where we live, (small rural Vermont town), have been well done. The tones appear to be pretty neutral when I've brought them into Photoshop. And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, prints from the Epson 2200 have been very good.

 

[Dougg]

The care taken by the lab operator is crucial to the quality of the results... So whatever works for you is best!

I have used Ilford XP for decades and like it a lot. I've also tried the three Kodak chromogenics back when they offered three, with two (with stronger orange mask) possibly just packaged and named differently, while the third (T400CN) had a very pale orange tinted base. One of the two similar ones was called "Portra" and offered in 36 exp rolls and the other masked one was a more entry-level and offered with 24 exp. You might have picked up some of the last available "Portra" labeled film.

As Volker mentioned, there's only one Kodak chromogenic on the market now, and I believe it's the one formerly named Portra BW. The canister is imprinted "BW400CN" and here's B&H's listing page for it: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...85&is=USAW&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

 

[Nikon Bob]

So far the developing and scans from the photo processor where we live, (small rural Vermont town), have been well done. The tones appear to be pretty neutral when I've brought them into Photoshop. And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, prints from the Epson 2200 have been very good.

You are a lucky person to have found a lab first time out that gives good/proper results with this film. It is good film but just needs the right lab to make it so. I am glad you have had good results with it as it gets panned alot.

Nikon Bob

 

[Burkey]

Hi Bob - The shop I've been using here is run by a photographer so maybe the quality control is a bit better than the drugstore variety. I used to develop my own and actually taught photography for a number of years before undergoing a major shift in my role as a college faculty member. (I now teach photojournalism for broacast news. (Same stuff, still dealing with exposure and compostion, just bigger cameras.) I recently ordered a bunch of the BW400 from B+H. A roll in the camera right now should be at the lab the middle of next week. I'm anxious about the results and will post more later.
*AN UPDATE - The film I just got from B+H isn't the one you list the link for, it's called "Kodak Black & White" (C-41). Interesting. Will post after this film is back from the lab.

 

[wrenhunter]

I have had Kodak C41 rolls back with terrible casts, too, so I'm sticking with Tri-X. That shot of your son is a good one, though.

 

[amateriat]

I've used both Kodak's original chromogenic film (T400CN) and the most recent version. Good film, as long as you're doing your own scanning/printing, since labs can be all over the place printing from the stuff. I've long perferred Ilford XP2, not so much because of any qualitative difference, but because XP2 leaves open to me the option of conventional darkroom printing without jumping through a lot of technical hoops; only one of the three chromogenic films Kodak made offered this ability, and Big Yellow killed it after about a year or two on the market.


- Barrett