How do you rate Kodak BW400CN?

[cbretteville]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

As we're going on this little outing next week-end for the One challenge and I have to many unprocessed rolls in the fridge I figured I'd go lazy and shoot C41 film in Krakow. I've used XP2 in the past, but figured I'd give BW400CN a go this time as I have some.

 

Just wondering how people set their meters when using this film, 400, 320 or 200 ISO.

 

Thanks,

- Carl

[bill]

Carl, as I have said many times before I infinitely prefer the performance and behaviour of 400CN over XP2. I find it more contrasty, and "film-like" and particularly enjoy it's rendition of metallic surfaces. Exposure latitude is huge, but I tend to "rate" it at 400, and if in doubt err on the side of overexposure by a stop. I have used it almost exclusively for the past two and a half years and have learned to trust it implicitly to give me a usable negative. Bear in mind that I am largely a Sunny-16 shooter these days - although I carry a meter I probably haven't used it for more than three months.

 

Hope this helps - good luck to you and all the other One Challenge participants - In the inimitable words of Arnie, I'll be back!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[StS]

My advice would be to expose at least one test roll (and have it maybe developed in an one hour minilab, as time to Krakow is getting short) to get the feeling for the film, although the BW400CN might well be the most tolerant material available.

 

I agree with Bill - I did lots of rolls on XP2, but BW400CN won me over on the first roll.

 

Stefan

[tgray]

I shoot it at 400, but 200 looks nice too.

[Rona!d]

Agree with Bill, 100%

[cbretteville]

Thanks guys! Excellent information. I agree that a test roll would be preferable, but there isn't any time to get that done before the week end. I'm sorry you had to cancel Bill, but I hope you're OK and that we'll see you next year.

 

Cheers,

- Carl

[JBA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's a fantastic film. I use this almost exclusively for B&W, and my experience mirrors Bill's exactly.

[earleygallery]

Hmm I was going to use my trusty Konica colour film, which will give me the option of B&W or colour but the batch I bought are all 24 exposures so that's out!

 

Thinking of going down the B&W route too, but not tried this film yet.......

[innerimager]

I've been using and enjoying XP2, and I do find I often add contrast in my processing. This thread has pushed me into giving 400CN a good look! thanks....Peter

[Michael Hiles]

Hi,

As we're going on this little outing next week-end for the One challenge and I have to many unprocessed rolls in the fridge I figured I'd go lazy and shoot C41 film in Krakow. I've used XP2 in the past, but figured I'd give BW400CN a go this time as I have some.

 

Just wondering how people set their meters when using this film, 400, 320 or 200 ISO.

 

Thanks,

- Carl

 

I have used 400CN and XP2 - I like XP2 better, but the 400CN is also very nice indeed.

 

I did a film speed test with my meter and camera - and found them both to be 200 ISO. This gives me a density of .01 above film base + fog - just enought to start holding a little detail in Zone I. In practicle terms 200 ISO produces prints with rich, detailed shadows. With both films it is hard to blow out the highlights, so getting the shadows right is the main concern.

[masjah]

I have used 400CN and XP2 - I like XP2 better, but the 400CN is also very nice indeed.

 

I did a film speed test with my meter and camera - and found them both to be 200 ISO. This gives me a density of .01 above film base + fog - just enought to start holding a little detail in Zone I. In practicle terms 200 ISO produces prints with rich, detailed shadows. With both films it is hard to blow out the highlights, so getting the shadows right is the main concern.

 

I don't often shoot B&W, but when I do, I use the Kodak chromagenic. I agree 100% with Michael - highlights are difficult to blow, and you get a better shadow detail at 200. (Incidentally, this is consistent with the characteristic curve printed a while ago in an article by Geoffrey Crawley in the UK Amateur Photographer magazine - the lengths of the two "tails" of the curve are significantly different.) But I guess it depends on what sort of look you like. A quick test film set at 400 with half of the frames also shot one stop over?

[bill]

This is interesting...

 

It sounds like most of us who use 400CN are saying the same basic thing, it's just that some of us choose to raise the bridge, and some lower the river instead

 

It certainly seems to reward overexposure more than underexposure. Of course by overexposing for the shot I am doing pretty much the same as rating it at 200. The reason I stick with 400 is because, as I have already said, this is part of my Sunny-16 workflow and I find it easier - don't ask me why! - to think in terms of 400-500-16 than 200-250-16.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[martinb]

I've shot a couple of rolls and really liked the results at ISO 200. Good range both in shadows and highlights with that setting. If you need more speed use ISO 320-400.

I slightly prefer this film over XP2.

[rob_x2004]

...my trusty Konica colour film...

Do you get yours in Mongolia too?

[boilerdoc]

If you do your own printing in the darkroom I highly recommend the Ilford XP2. Much easier to print with the light purple base color. The Kodak chromogenics are very dark orange and need a LOT of high contrast filtration and time to print. That said, I use ISO 200 primarily but you can use any ISO from 100-400 on the same roll. They'll all print fine. And, also don't forget, that OVER exposure gives you smaller grain clouds. Try that with film!

Steve

[alifie]

Chromogenic BW films trade colour for exposure latitude, and they do it very well. Before I had an enlarger and lens that would resolve grain on 100ASA 'normal' film it was manna from heaven. Now I find it a bit soft, getting softer with more exposure. Super stuff at and below 5x7 (inch) enlargements but above that real silver halide IMHO is better.

 

Given all the above for taking pictures in all types of lighting handheld it can be rated 100 to 1600 without worry with good results. The same as a digicam with variable ISO without that knob twiddling.