Kodak BW400CN

I think it's a great film. I like it even better than XP2, but that's of course a matter of personal taste.
 
Its good film. It is different in that it has an orange base like color print film, so it prints well on color paper in minilabs, though thats no longer important since most minilabs are now using digital machines that scan the film. If you scan, it scans fine but it is hard to print on traditional BW paper because the base color acts like a safelight. Requires long exposures and it prints low in contrast because the color paper it was designed to print on is higher in contrast than grade 2 BW paper. Use a grade 3 or 3.5 filter on multigrade paper.

plaza-7-14-06-num5.jpg


plaza-7-14-06-num6.jpg


plaza-7-14-06-num14.jpg

All shot with the 35mm version of BW400CN (it used to be made in 120, not sure if it still is).
 
Also: slightly slower (about 1/3 stop), finer-grained, less sharp, and with a weird runaway top end to its characteristic curve. Still an excellent film, but I much prefer XP2.

Cheers,

R.
 
I find I get richer looking dark greys and blacks w/ this film, compared to XP2, which is one reason I prefer it.
 
I use it quite frequently in my Leica cameras. It is a shame that it is no longer being produced in 120 size. I loved using it with my MF cameras.

SG0002a.jpg

Anniversary Speed Graphic with Graphic 23 Roll Film holder. Kodak BW400CN

XP2 scanned a lot lighter on my ageing HP G4050. Needed more tweaking afterwards.

SR100616.jpg

Rolleicord Ia, Ilford XP2

Both films are very sharp in my opinion but BW400CN does have a nicer range of grays I feel.
 
Last edited:
Bingley said:
I find I get richer looking dark greys and blacks w/ this film, compared to XP2, which is one reason I prefer it.
Click to expand...

maggieo said:
I like it. Works well with the Nikon scanner, especially.

These were all shot on BW400CN.
Click to expand...
Interesting - my experiences are quite the opposite:

I use BW400 CN as 135mm film. BW400 CN - even if exposed at EI 250 produces nice, creamy highlights, but has definite weaknesses in the shadow tones. I frequently observe severe clipping in the darker shadow tonalities.

I scan my negs using a Coolscan V with maximum spatial & data resolution (i.e. 4000 dpi and 12 bits RGB color channel res.), and I frequently apply gradation curve changes to boost shadow tones for better richness. When I do that, I often observe fairly severe shadow clipping in the darker shadows.

I love BW400 CN for its absence of grain - but I much prefer Tri-X for its richness in shadow tones.

It seems your differing verdicts might be connected to the workflows you're using. I wonder if you could elaborate a little more on how you obtain these nice results.
 
Last edited:
I find it difficult to distinguish between 400CN and XP2.

The first two below were shot on 400CN (Nikon FE with 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.4)

and the third on XP2 (Hexar AF wide open @ f2)

There is something I like about the XP2, but then that may be down to the lens in the Hexar.
 
Last edited:
Surprised there's been no mention so far of Fuji Neopan 400CN?

Just started using it myself and quite like it, think I prefer it overall to BW400CN especially for scanning. I gather it's an XP2 derivative made for Fuji by Ilford, can anyone confirm and/or enlarge on this?

This one of Levi Roots was shot with Kodak BW400CN, I think it's great film:-

4598581059_0924bfa554_z.jpg






.
 
Last edited:
cidereye said:
Surprised there's been no mention so far of Fuji Neopan 400CN?

Just started using it myself and quite like it, think I prefer it overall to BW400CN especially for scanning. I gather it's an XP2 derivative made for Fuji by Ilford, can anyone confirm and/or enlarge on this?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's made for Fuji by Ilford. What follows is NOT the Ilford Party Line:

Do you think that Ilford is going to make a better film for Fuji than they would sell as their own?

Do you think Fuji is going to accept an inferior film from Ilford, as compared with the best Ilford can make?

My cynical suspicion is that this is a film for Japanese buyers who want a 'Japanese' film.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Yes, it's made for Fuji by Ilford. What follows is NOT the Ilford Party Line:

Do you think that Ilford is going to make a better film for Fuji than they would sell as their own?

Do you think Fuji is going to accept an inferior film from Ilford, as compared with the best Ilford can make?

My cynical suspicion is that this is a film for Japanese buyers who want a 'Japanese' film.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Thanks Roger!
 
The Kodak is not a bad film at all. Much better than I thought it would be. I primarily use it if I have a new camera/shutter/lens, just to see how it's exposing, and how the lens is rendering images. I can go out and shoot a roll, pop down to Walgreens and have them develop it and put the scans on a CD, and an hour later pull the images up on my monitor at home. Pretty neat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom