Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Seth: I grew really fond of T400CN, and it became *almost* a universal B&W film for me. More on the "almost" in a moment. I still haven't forgiven Kodak for discontinuing it. But why should today be different? Kodak's marketing strategy seems to be that every time I like one of their films, they either discontinue it, rename it, or tag it for "export only." Fortunately the replacements are close in quality. The CN B&W films have a wonderful tonal scale and can be exposed at various speeds successfully, even mixed in the same roll. They scan easily, and can be processed anywhere that does color negs. If you scan them yourself, digital ICE and other Infrared dust and scratch elimination methods work, unlike with silver B&W negs. The bad news is that at IE 400, T400CN and its brethren are better, tend to get muddy and grainy in the shadows. The other problem is that the negatives get scratched if you so much as *look* at them harshly. If you want a B&W film that approaches medium format in tonal scale and clarity, expose CN B&W film at EI 200, and life is good: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/california/JoshTree35.htm At IE 400, you can do available light if the important stuff is in the highlights and midtones, and you don't mind doing a bit of extra work to make the shadows black to hide the noise. This next photo is a nightime shot from the same roll as the above Joshua Tree scene. There is some shadow grain/noise on an 8x10, but it's quite usable. Tri-X would have been slightly more grainy in the lighter parts, but better in the shadows: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/california/2-09BlondGirlStFair.htm Here's a couple of B&W400CN shots from a family wedding this past summer: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/family/5-20NaomiEliZzz.htm http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/family/2-34Antionette.htm (wish I'd opened up a half stop more on this one, as I just lose detail on her left side). Bottom line: For available darkness, Tri-X or Neopan 400/1600 is better. But for good light or a mix of light, T400CN and its brethren can be very nice, indeed. For best results, shoot it at 200, dropping to 400 when you need it. At 400, if the shadows are important, give it an extra half to full stop when you can. You can always overexpose and you'll probably be OK. Underexpose, and you may get mud. Handle with care, and use a good lab. --Peter Seth Rosner asked Graham: >I'm curious about your choice of film; it appears that most often you use >the Kodak 400TCN or however they denominate it today, and occasionally, as >here, Tri-X. The chromogenic certainly scans more easily.