New Poster

[Richard Black]

I've been using a variety of rangefinders, a Leica IIIc and a new Bessa R. I recently received a Color Skopar 28mm f3.5 and am impressed with this little lens. I do have a question to the gurus of this forum. Have any of you used the new Kodak BW400CN? I just received some from the lab and many the contrast is over the top. The lens did find with Tri X and Ilford HP5, so is it an exception or the rule with this film. I hope to post an example of the Tri X. Thoughts?

[back alley]

calling all gurus!

welcome richard. sorry i cannot comment as i have not used the kodak film or that particular lens either.
ilford's xp2 is a very nice film though, not too contrasty.

joe

[peter_n]

Richard welcome to the forum! :) I understand that BW400CN is not similar to its predecessor T400CN in terms of the look of the film and is rather like Portra 400BW which was also a low contrast film like most chromogenics.

I have used T400CN (loved it) and also XP2 and both are on the low contrast side. I would think that if you have a high contrast processing result with a C-41 B&W film then something went wrong in the processing. :(

[SolaresLarrave]

Good to know! I just got a roll of that film, and haven't shot it yet simply because the snow out there makes for kinda excessively contrasty scenes.

How's the grain on that film? Did you use it under very bright sunlight? That may do it. IIRC, that happened to me with a roll of the old T400CN (which I really liked!).

BTW, Richard, welcome to the "Guru" forum!! :D

[wlewisiii]

My most recent 9 shots in my gallery were shot with my new 35/2.5 SC Skopar and the BW400CN film. Perhaps looking at them will help answer some of your questions? I'll say that I was quite happy with the results.

My gallery is here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/511

William

[peter_n]

Very nice William! They show both the lens and the film off very well! :)

[wlewisiii]

Thank you Peter. I haven't used it much yet, but I have a sneaking feeling that the BW400CN is going to be my chromagenic of choice. I never tried the Portra one, but have used a lot of T400CN and a bit of XP2. This just feels more like "real" black and white film to me. Considering how well the clouds showed up, I do wonder what it would be like with the traditional filters (not that I have any in 43mm but you know what I mean).

William

[peter_n]

Well I have only used T400CN and XP2 in chromogenics. I think it was a difference in processing labs but the T400CN always came back nicer with less grain. Of course now its no longer made... :rolleyes: I've switched over to using regular B&W film and I really like Neopan 400. I get it developed in a pro lab in LA for $6.50/roll. They do a good job, they're called A&I Labs.

[Doug]

Welcome, Richard! Your experience sounds unusual; perhaps your lab "pushed' the development a bit. In my experience, a 1-stop push mainly boosts the highlight densities, and is mainly useful it putting some pep in negs shot under very low-contrast light.

It's also true that underexposing C-41 films raises contrast, and giving it a generous exposure moderates the contrast... and also gives a smoother look especially in the shadows, and richer shadow tonality.

For a 400 ISO C-41 process film, either color or the chromogenic B&W, I just set my light meter to EI 250, and in doing this for 20 years I've been very pleased at the outcome.

As Peter mentioned, the chromogenic B&W films tend toward low contrast, and your lab machine prints should look somewhat on the dull side usually, unless it was in very contrasty light. But this low contrast is actually a benefit, recording a very wide range of tones. In the darkroom or in digital scanning, the contrast can be boosted in the print or scan, and in doing this you can choose what data is discarded.

[Jochan]

Originally posted by Doug
For a 400 ISO C-41 process film, either color or the chromogenic B&W, I just set my light meter to EI 250, and in doing this for 20 years I've been very pleased at the outcome.

You mean doing this in normal processing? Or pulling? Over exposed to get more details in the negatives?:confused:

[Richard Black]

Asked about the grain of the new Kodak BW400CN. I find it acceptable. It has a smooth character, but I haven't used it enough to determine if I like it as much as Ilford's XP2Super. I really like the consumer version the old Kodak Black and White C41 processed film. T400CN is good to but I think it a bit sepia versus blue gray.

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jochan
You mean doing this in normal processing? Or pulling? Over exposed to get more details in the negatives?:confused: Sorry, Jochan, I should have specified no adjustment to processing. And I'd keep mum about that exposure tactic when speaking with the lab folks, to keep them from unnecessary confusion too!

What you're looking for in the "generously exposed" negs is a bit more over-all density, especially in the shadows. These films typically have almost no under-exposure latitude, and shadowed areas (low density areas of the neg) often look muddy and grainy. On the other hand, the C41 negative films have a great tolerance for overexposure, rather difficult to totally block up the details in the highlights. They may be blocked up in a scan or print, but the data is there in the neg!

So, setting the ISO value on your meter to give 2/3-stop more exposure (or a full stop if you wish) doesn't torpedo the highlights, but does give richer shadow detail and contrast and smooths the overall look by crowding the dye clumps together a bit more.

Does that make sense?

[Jochan]

Originally posted by Doug
So, setting the ISO value on your meter to give 2/3-stop more exposure (or a full stop if you wish) doesn't torpedo the highlights, but does give richer shadow detail and contrast and smooths the overall look by crowding the dye clumps together a bit more.

Does that make sense?

Thanks Doug. That's very make sense to me. I've only applied the concept on B/W films but never tried on C-41 color films. I will try this later. :)