Question about BW400CN

[stephen_lumsden]

Hi

Fairly new to the forum so have patience if my question seems a bit dumb. Got a Canonet QL17-G3 and put a couple of rolls through it, good so far, namely using Kodak BW400CN with it.

It is C41, I know, but when it came out I read it is suitable for processing on colour paper, as opposed to XP2 which requires B/W paper for optimum results. When I went to get it processed in Jessops in the UK , I was told I would have to pay an extra £1 if I wanted the prints in B/W as they had to adjust their machine, otherwise the shots would be in Sepia ( I am not sure what change they had to make, but I felt I should not have to pay extra for waht I thought I had bought in the first place). I thought this was the problem that XP2 sometimes had but BW400CN was supposed to fix.

Can anyone shed some light on this as I would initially like to use this film to keep costs (seems a bit better than XP2 IMHO) down as I do some more initial shots on the Canonet and a newly acquired Kiev 4a.

BTW thanks for all the good advice that I have already read on the forum.

 

[matu]

Hi Stephen, this has been greatly discussed on this forum, you may search and read for a similar thread.
Shortly I can tell you that some developing labs use different paper it isn't the film fault, in some cases you'll get black prints on other you´ll have sepia prints. If you don't want to pay more find a lab that can manage your film's without extra fee.

Pablo

 

[wlewisiii]

I use BW400CN quite a bit and haven't had that problem with it. The local drugstore 1 hour does the usual schtick with it and prints it on the Fuji paper they use for everyone else. It is much closer to the correct tone than the older Kodak films or, in my experiance, the Ilford. If you have shots you want to be more careful of on this roll, do a test roll and tell them to just dev & print and see what comes out of the machine.

The only hassle I have with the film is that it's fairly high contrast and this can cause filter effects to be different than expected.

William

 

[Richard Black]

I second William's opinion that the film has higher contrast than usual. I shot some with an orange filter and was shocked at the contrast level. I had to work it over in PS to get it close to what I wanted. If you use filters try a yellow one first. See the best version I could get below. :bang:

 

[Goodyear]

Shortly I can tell you that some developing labs use different paper it isn't the film fault, in some cases you'll get black prints on other you´ll have sepia prints.

Or, if you're in a hurry and head to the local Tesco, you may get back prints that are shades of a wonderful tourquoise colour! I thoguht about giving them a colour roll, to see just how badly out of whack their minilab was...

 

[Bertram2]

Stephen,
I used this film since 3 years almost exvlusively, not because i think it's the best choice for B&W but because it had been the only B&W film i could get cheap and fine scan for. All my RFF gallery B&Ws are Kodak C41.
Printed on color paper you always get a sepia tone from the orange mask of the film, the tone can differ from neg to neg.
True B&W prints you can get only on B&W paper but as it was said already the prints can get pretty contrasty.
If your lab offers to print on color paper without toning this could look maybe better, just try out.
The film is nicely working at coverd skies (also with yellow filter) but critical in bright sunlight with deep black shadows
Best,
Bertram

 

[stephen_lumsden]

Thanks guys, especially about the contrast levels. I am a big fan of orange filters, so I guess I should get a yellow one also for this film.

 

[Bertram2]

Orange filter on BW400CN

Orange filter on BW400CN

Thanks guys, especially about the contrast levels. I am a big fan of orange filters, so I guess I should get a yellow one also for this film.

Orange works fine with BW400CN too:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/2621/sort/1/cat/500/page/5
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/2931/sort/1/cat/500/page/5

Just be careful with highlights and shadows.

Best,
Bertram