|
See my other comment. Sorry to hear you can't use chemicals at home - that's half the fun! Not so much the developing but certainly the printing. Never mind, we'll look forward to seeing your stuff.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Junkmale [deleted] says:
Ilford's is called XP2, Kodaks T400CN is thought to be superior. Ilford have just gone down the tubes and have been taken over. It remains to be seen wether they will go on producing bw film. T400CN or XP2 are better for scanning than the traditional silver halide films.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Last I heard Ilford are supposed to be continuing the production of film and processing products, although I believe they are subcontracting the production of chemicals. We can only hope! However there are a few good alternatives as you say. Personally I am a Fuji fan.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm far too addicted to grain to use the c41 B&W films, even though they'd scan easier.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What, do C-41 films not have grain? That's... weird. I tried using an Ilford C-41 several years back and noticed that my negatives were very brittle (I was printing them in the darkroom). After one big scratch on a precious frame I never tried a C-41 again. It's been about 9 years so perhaps the technology has improved...
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You absolutely can develop them at home, I've done both emulsions in Diafine. Without bleach, you get a neg with the silver still in, but it does work.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I really like some of the results I've gotten with Kodak Portra 400 B&W C41, enough that I've used it a fair amount over the last couple years. The only other two black and white films I have a lot of experience with are TMAX 100 and Tri-X 400, and the portra certainly looks different than those. It's not nearly as contrasty as the TriX, and I like it better on overcast days. Also, yes, it has no real grain to speak of. I love grain too, but sometimes it's nice to get photos without it.
I took this photo of my dad with the Kodak Portra, he was sitting in some shade on a sunny morning:
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, I've been trying to shoot cheaper of late and gave bw400 a shot. I can get it developed for cheap at a one-hour lab and I can get the film itself for cheap.
I'm going to have to start developing reciprocity compensation tables for it, however. The pro-variant of it claims in the data sheet to be good out to 120 seconds, but think it may be more like "at 120 seconds, you will be 2 stops underexposed but still printable"
I did get this, however:
Posted 77 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Kodak BW400CN Scanned with a Nikon Coolscan V-ED, Sepia with PhotoKit plugin for PS. Please check out high rez version,TNX, Leroy 
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I doubt I'd continue with photography if I had to give up developing my own B&W.
There's just too many variables involved with doing B&W to trust it to a lab or go with the "one way only" of C41.
It's a bit of a chore sometimes, but I believe the attention it demands makes you a more careful and attentive photographer.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am one of those snappers who likes taking pictures and like seeing results, but is totally bored by all the processing (digital or chemical) in between.
I have tried 3 C-41 B&W films: Konica VX400, Ilford XP2, and Kodak BW400CN. The Konica seemed too soft, the XP2 variable, while the Kodak is quite nice. I'm sticking with the Kodak.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@junkmale.. I think you are refering to Agfa, Ilford are still in business.
@UncaMikey.. your experience matches mine. I'm liking the Kodak BW, I had hoped Ilford's XP2 would be better.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Perhaps the only problem with the C-41 films is the lack of pushability? What if 800 or 1600 ISO needed?
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just a word of warning...
I scanned a couple of old negatives this week. Both stored in the same way (in the same negative album)
One was an old HP5 and was absolutely fine.
The other was an XP1 (the chromogenic forerunner of XP2) and it was badly crazed.
(you need to view it large to see the damage)
OK they were 25 years old but the c41 processed film isn't lasting
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I use mostly Kodak Tri-X, but when I want fine grain in b&w and high Iso then I go for Kodak 400CN. Its like having the benefit of 400 Iso and fine grain of 25 Iso film. I use Kodak Portra too, even if they come out a little git overall grey for b&w, for colour they are great, fine grain.
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I like it. Definitely doesn't look like, say, TMax, Tri-X or Ilford B&W film, but rather more like digital black-and-white, to my eye, but I've seen some really nice work with it and it's convenient, processing-wise, if, like me, you don't have easy access to b&w film processing.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
scribeoflight [deleted] says:
I was surprised by how much I liked the look of the C41 black and white film I shot. I had to tweak the scans a bit (they'd scanned them in very flatly, thankfully, so there was a lot of data there), but not excessively.
I'd shoot it again.
But I do want to develop by hand, as well.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i love it...i only hope kodak doesn't drop it as a product.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I don't like that I can't develop it at home! I like the look of XP2 over any Kodak stuff. But I like that these films looks very ungrainy for the given speed (400 iso).
I've seen several amazing shots on C41 BW films.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Matthew Wilburn [deleted] says:
There is most definitely a tint with Ilford's XP-2 400 developed with C-41. Usually it's kind of lavender in color, but depending on how light the exposure is, sometimes a pinkish or pastel blue is noticable.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
C41 b/w films can be processed in black and white chemicals for some amazing results. for example (can't find link to picture) when the film is processed as a black and white film the contrast is strong and if you photograph your scenes carefully with processing in black and white chemicals in mind, you can get some striking photos.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Matt Double U - that's the labs' fault, NOT a fault of the film. I don't usually have mine printed, but when I have, the prints have been fine. It definitely looks even better printed properly on B&W paper, though.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
vrot [deleted] says:
I did some experimenting with Kodak bw400cn, and I like it.
scanner: Nikoncoolscan. Also tried the Ilford's XP2 and did not like it.
But that can be your personal “taste”.
But noting, realy nothing beat's the old tri-x
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Going back a few...wirehead....
I've gotten some extrremely grainy prints from pushing the T400CN to 800. Very contrasty too.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I should add though...
Most one hour labs can't/won't push theT400CN, even thouth it is a C41 process, so you gotta find and make the traverse to a commercial lab. Personally, I'm not minding that one bit.
I have some shots I've done this way and am really happy with.
Unless it's just me though, it does seem a littla hit and miss as the contrast is very high. Obviously I haven't posted the ones I think are misses here.
Conversely, running it through at 100 (down from 400) gives very smooth results.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i have a roll in my trip35 right now..i may try a couple of shots of abandoned stripbars set at 100 and post the results for all to see and remark on. Its around 7 bucks a roll at Zellers.
Posted 69 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i was speaking to the woman at the photo store today,and she said that kodaks c41 b&w 400 cn was being discontinued. She also had trouble during the printmaking stage,(the machine kept saying too much cyan) so some of the photos came out with sepia tones.
taken with an olympus trip 35 and kodak bw 400 cn.
Originally posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
cool-baby edited this topic 68 months ago.
|
|
I always liked Tri-X or Plus-X, but at the moment I can't develop film at home and, since I live in a rural area, have to send any non-C41 film out. That's a bit spendy! Forced into using the C41 B&W film by expediency, I found I rather like it, especially the lovely silver tone and the rich blacks. I prefer the Kodak to the Ilford XP which I found to be flat and too contrasty.
Posted 68 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The one-hour lab at Wal-Mart seems to do just fine with the Kodak 400CN.. meaning, they come back black and white. Well, some very very slight tinting. But CVS one-hour photo always spits 'em out green and white, startlingly green. So I always end up doing a greyscale conversion to them on the computer. Imagine that, a doing a greyscale conversion to black and white film!
It's fine for its convenience and low cost to have processed, but I've since taken a 35mm B&W course at the college here, and could never go back to using the fake B&W, as I like to call the C-41 B&W. I haven't tried it, but can't imagine it would give great results in pushing and pulling as real B&W films designed for that can, like Ilford's Delta line, which I've had great results with extreme pushing using the Microphen developer..
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It has it's hi points but in my point of view they dont out number it's low points, worst of being the sepia-ish (i dont know if im right with this term) tone and second the whole C-41 thing, good for someone who dont process themselves mut a nightmare for a small darkroom. The best thing i have noticed about is its sharp almost stark contrast which can be handy/fun.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i use ilford xp2 around 90% of the time these days and i find it a fantastic film . i print all my own work and i get some superb results with the stuff.
i'm not too keen on the kodak tcn version though , i just don't seem to be able to get on with it , especially in the darkroom .
so its xp2 all the way for me :-)
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I much prefer developing at home but if I am traveling by air, this may be my go to film of choice because I can get Ilford XP2 processed at any colour lab on the planet and not have it zapped by an MRI machine at the airport.
Bill
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I dono, I gave up on chromagenic B&W films lately because now I do my own real B&W in the bathroom and the edge cases where it beats out the real stuff aren't too interesting to me.
Generally one-hour places are not capable of pushing with their roller transport machines, even if they wanted to.
Also, chromagenic B&W stuff scans great. You can use Digital ICE.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I just uploaded a bunch of shots with Kodak B&W C41 stuff. Not the Professional CN type, some other non-professional Kodak stuff. Very intesne stark contrast in some of the shots that had more sunlight coming in. And a bit of the sepia, too. I converted them all to greyscale, though, as I didn't find the sepia that fitting for the subject. The shots in lower light didn't have the sepia as much, but still slightly detectable.
But yeah, until I get a darkroom together.. I'll just have to stick with this for now. Yeah, try to tell Wal-Mart or some one-hour shop about pushing and pulling. At least it's relatively inexpensive. I don't even get prints, just have 'em develop and scan the negatives straight to disc, and it's only $4.50 per roll then. But I had some colour rolls that were only 12 exposures each.. and guess what? Any cheaper? No, still $4.50 like the 36 exposure rolls.. bloody bastards..
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am definitely another xp2 fan. I like the tones, and how easy to use it is. It is very tolerant (can be exposed from 50 to 400 ASA), and the results, either scanned or printed (b&w paper) gives excellent results. I do not find either flat or too contrasty. Have a look at my XP2 pictures:
www.flickr.com/search/?w=76451464@N00&q=xp2&m=tags
You can also check the C41 B&W Flickr group:
www.flickr.com/groups/blackandwhitec41/
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
Clopin clopant edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
So.. I came upon a roll of the Kodak BW C-41 400 lying around, and decided to do a little experimenting. I shot it pushed a stop to 800ISO, and am planning to develop it with traditional BW chemistry. I have both ID-11 and Microphen on hand.
Any suggestions?
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hello
Does anyone know if it's possible to develop kodak 400 C41 at home?
with just developer and fixer?
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have never tried it myself, but I have encountered a poster on the Rangefinder Forum boards that claimed to have processed Kodak BW400CN in traditional B&W chemicals and posted a scan. It looked remarkably normal.
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i've developed bn400cn in regular b&w chemicals--diafine & kodafix to be exact. it came out ok. i didn't love it, but it was ok. i could have sworn i scanned at least one or two photos, but if i did, i didn't tag them well enough to ever find them again. i really like ilford's xp2 (also C41 b&w) in diafine. that stuff turns out really nice.
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I tried a roll of BW400CN once, got it developped at the next minilab, and was very happy with the result. Very fine grain, lots of exposure latitude, maybe the future of b/w?
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The results on film are not bad, but its hard to print this film, as copies tend to green or orange, depending on the lab used. I don't like the color cast on it, I prefer "true B&W".
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I recently shot a roll of kodak bw400cn that was past expiry date by a couple months,and got some nice grain in low light...
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i too prefer silver b/w film but i have printed some old c-41 negs (kodak's version) that turned out quite well. its unfortunate that the negs are scratched (probably because of the quick turnaround dev and scan times at minilabs) but the orange cast can be used like a contrast filter or added through the contrast filter to give good results on VC paper.
d.
Posted 52 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Johnny ©ontax [deleted] says:
I tend to use Kodak Profoto 400 in my Leica as opposed to the tons of cheapo Shanghai I use for my toy cams.
In general I am pretty happy with the results, I generally process my own film at home, but this I have done in 10 minutes at the mini lab.
It seems very tolerant of low light situations and, here in Russia at least, is very cheap...
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i perfer tmax but they charge an arm and a leg to develop and scan to disk so the c-41 by kodak works in a pitch.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I know this is old, but I had to respond since I've now used both.
Personally I prefer the look of Tri-x, but it is good film. It seems to have really fine grain and is really sharp. It's a matter of personal preference I guess.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've had good results with Ilford XP2 Super 400. But, I may have to agree with UncaMikey in that this film can be variable. It seems great under certain conditions and so - so in other conditions. I've come to the conclusion that the latitude of exposure is probably not as wide as a true Black and White like Tri X or TMax. It's probably more like the latitude of color print film. I'm assuming this from the varying results that I've had. Even so, I'll still use it because of the convenience of being able to take it to a one hour lab when I need the film developed quickly.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Aar☆n [deleted] says:
I love them:
XP2 is great, a less is more kind of film,
BW400CN is also great, a more is more kind of film, :-D
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
wintergarden - hibernating [deleted] says:
I use bw400cn a great deal and love the contrasts. It is not the only one I use but love it. (Darkroom stuff got distributed to family at some point and now I want it back!) So it is easier too. It does have grain but the grain is quite fine.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
BW400CN=<3
[http://flickr.com/photos/mathewm/2971473838/]
[http://flickr.com/photos/mathewm/2595077924/]
AFAIK, color casts from C41 B&W film come from the lab using color paper instead of B&W, which can be used but needs more time to make a print than normal B&W film.
Kodak discontinued the Portra T400CN, and now it's called Professional BW400CN, but I'm pretty sure it's the same emulsion more or less.
Posted 43 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
imho is kinda faint low cost bw....because developing real bw is really cheap, i'm not saying is impossible to develop c-41 but i don't have the chemicals and a fine temperature tank ^^
so if one roll io ilford cost 5 euros + 0,10 euro home developing...is surely less than 3 + 4-5 of developing
but i'm talking for myself only ^^
Originally posted 42 months ago.
(permalink)
GiuGiu_ edited this topic 42 months ago.
|
|
I shot a roll of Ilford XP2, didn't like it, too much. I haven't tried Kodak's, but I haven't heard too many good things about it.
But the tones on the XP2 were just... I dunno, not what I saw looking for.
Posted 42 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Tri-X, Ilford FP, Fuji Neopan, or others...
Use "real" B&W and develop at home.
Way better. Way more fun.
Posted 42 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I recently started using BW400CN and I love the stuff. Currently, I'm working on getting my darkroom setup so I can go back to traditional B+W. But the lack of a dust free envnironment was driving me crazy and was ruining my negs. In the meantime, I'll gladly use BW400CN without hesitation.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i looks junky coming out of my canon rebel k2 but out it looks pretty good when I'm using my old 1968 Sears camera - i've gotten some nice grain out of it - does have a bit of a tint to it - usually doesn't have that pure black and white look.
I guess like everything else it has is uses - I wouldn't shoot a wedding on it or anything.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi
I like the Kodak BW T400CN: Excellente grain and definition:
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
EdmilsonFeldmann edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
Kodak BW400CN
Processed and scanned by Walgreens.
Wide latitude, great detail in both highlights and shadows, fine grain. I only wish for a bit more contrast and richer blacks, other than that I'm quite happy with it:
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
35mm blackandwhite /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to 35mm blackandwhite discussion threads
