[womble]

I was very fond of this film and shot quite a bit of it. Clearly not enough, as Kodak discontinued it. Before it all vanished I bought a brick of it and have been using it up. I didn't put it in the freezer as I expected to use it up quickly, but as it happened I didn't get through it as fast as I thought. It is dated March 2016.

The last few films I have had developed haven't been as good as I am used to. It may be that the lab isn't doing as good a job as it should, but the photos look very grainy, as if under-exposed. Normally I shoot it at the box speed of 400, sometimes a touch under at 320. It should, however, be good anywhere between 100 and 1600 (which is one of the reasons I use it with some of my older cameras with unreliable shutter speeds).

It doesn't seem that out of date, especially compared to many examples of old films one comes across on the net.

Any thoughts? Should I shoot the remaining rolls at 200?

Thanks, Kris.

[spinno]

Isn't the recommendation an extra stop for films(colour) 10 years out of date- assuming optimal non-freezing storage. I shot a colour roll at 100 instead of 200 that was 9 years out of date.
I would have thought the same applies to this film although being chromogenic b/w might make things a bit different. I suppose 200 would be ok.
Is your lab busy and not using old chemicals?
Like you I liked this film, I thought it just shaded (pardon the pun) XP2 and was better than the Fuji offering.

[timw4mail]

Isn't the recommendation an extra stop for films(colour) 10 years out of date- assuming optimal non-freezing storage. I shot a colour roll at 100 instead of 200 that was 9 years out of date.
I would have thought the same applies to this film although being chromogenic b/w might make things a bit different. I suppose 200 would be ok.
Is your lab busy and not using old chemicals?
Like you I liked this film, I thought it just shaded (pardon the pun) XP2 and was better than the Fuji offering.

I thought the Ilford and Fuji product were the same?

[womble]

I've used two different labs, both quite busy ones that have a big internet presence. One lab I have used without problems until the penultimate batch so the last batch I sent to a different lab. Still looks a bit dodgy, and the scans had a terrible line down one edge of them which isn't on the negatives (and beside the line was on all five films from three different camera bodies!). They've offered to re-scan them so I have going to send the negs back, but it doesn't help with the dodgy exposure.

I had used the original XP film back in the 80s and loved it, but thought that the newer offering was not as good as the original, and the Kodak was better. I was very sad when it was discontinued (although not as sad as the passing of Kodachrome).

I guess I'll have to use up the last of the brick ASAP, apart from one roll which can join my film graveyard.

Thanks, Kris.

[Alex645]

It may be that the lab isn't doing as good a job as it should, but the photos look very grainy, as if under-exposed. Normally I shoot it at the box speed of 400, sometimes a touch under at 320.
Should I shoot the remaining rolls at 200?

Kris, I would shoot it at ISO 320. If you still had some, let's say 3-5 year from now, then ISO 200.

The very grainy results sounds more of a lab issue with exhausted or cold developer or possibly over-sharpening if scanned.

[womble]

Kris, I would shoot it at ISO 320. If you still had some, let's say 3-5 year from now, then ISO 200.

The very grainy results sounds more of a lab issue with exhausted or cold developer or possibly over-sharpening if scanned.

That was my thought when I got them back from Lab A, but when I had a similar issue from Lab B it has made me wonder. I've rescanned a few frames myself and although better, they are still not as good as I would expect.

Thanks for your thoughts. K.

[Swift1]

Have you compared the film base density from the more recently shot film with the older rolls? That might show you a bit about how much the expiration has affected the film.
I've shot this film a bit, and I generally like it more than XP2 Super. Both are superb films, and both work quite well when shot at 200.

[Alex645]

That was my thought when I got them back from Lab A, but when I had a similar issue from Lab B it has made me wonder. I've rescanned a few frames myself and although better, they are still not as good as I would expect.

Unlike Ilford XP2, Kodak BW400CN has an orange stain so that it really should be scanned as a color negative, even though you will only get monochromatic results. If scanned as a B&W neg, the orange stain will cause the scanner to think the image is over exposed and in compensating, may create unwanted artifacts.

With your own scanner, I would experiment with different profiles and settings, as both XP2 and BW400CN uses a tabular dye coupler emulsion which shouldn't give a grainy look like one would see with traditional cubic silver grain.

[womble]

I'll dig some out. I have plenty. I think I am going to start developing my own BW films (not this stuff, obviously). I'm getting a bit fed up of poor scans and so on.

---------- Post added 09-12-18 at 07:42 PM ----------

Unlike Ilford XP2, Kodak BW400CN has an orange stain so that it really should be scanned as a color negative, even though you will only get monochromatic results. If scanned as a B&W neg, the orange stain will cause the scanner to think the image is over exposed and in compensating, may create unwanted artifacts.

With your own scanner, I would experiment with different profiles and settings, as both XP2 and BW400CN uses a tabular dye coupler emulsion which shouldn't give a grainy look like one would see with traditional cubic silver grain.

I've used the Ilford XP2 profile in Vuescan and then converted the colour negative to BW in Photoshop. My scans are not that different (bar the funny artefact along one edge) to those from the lab.

Thanks all. K.

[Alex645]

I think I am going to start developing my own BW films (not this stuff, obviously). I'm getting a bit fed up of poor scans and so on.

---------- Post added 09-12-18 at 07:42 PM ----------



I've used the Ilford XP2 profile in Vuescan and then converted the colour negative to BW in Photoshop.

Well you've done everything I would have, so IDK. For sure, there is no substitution in terms of care and satisfaction when you develop the film yourself.

[Ben Hunt]

I too have a few rolls of BW400CN sitting in the fridge (2010-2014 EXP), I've been sitting on them like golden eggs and only bring out a roll of special occasions. the latest special occasions were to break in my new MZ-S when I got the film back from the lab (3 rolls of BW400 and 1 roll of Portra800) I was shocked to see how grainy the BW400 looked. arguably I should have pushed it but I wanted to see what shooting it at the box speed looked like. I'm not sure how the lab developed it but the next rolls I'm thinking of doing the developing myself or finding a lab that's able to do a stand development for an old film with a +1 stop push. hopefully, this will keep the grain size down. the Portra800, came out perfectly, so I think the chems weren't too bad and maybe the results are just from the old BW400

the scans they provided were unusable. incredibly grainy (looks more like sharpening artefacts) and density was off. after scanning it myself they have come up better but not great.

this all being said it's still a magical film that holds a special place in my heart.

the photo was from a roll of BW400CN that had developed a few weeks ago that also went through a few airport x-ray machines

[abruzzi]

I'm not sure how the lab developed it but the next rolls I'm thinking of doing the developing myself or finding a lab that's able to do a stand development for an old film with a +1 stop push.

Unlike processing for standard B&W films, C41 has a standard chemical and standard processing times. To my knowledge there is no “stand processing” for C41. Have you seen the negatives yet, or just the scans? If you haven’t seen the negatives yet, check them. They may look underexposed (“thin”), then the lab scanning software tries to compensate resulting in a very grainy scan. The solution would be to overexpose then use standard developing. Shooting it at 200 or 100, might get it back to normal.

It is possible to process it as B&W, not C41, and that may work. I’ve seen people develope XP2 and B&W and it came out nice. But it will arguably look very different from BW400CN normally since you’re retaining the silver and not activating the dyes.

EDIT: I forgot to add that there are labs that do push or pull processing for C41. thedarkroom.com is one. But it’s different from stand development.

[womble]

That sounds like what my films came out like. I would say I had underexposed it but five rolls from three different cameras and two labs make me think its the film. I'm going to shoot a roll at 200 and see if it helps.

[johnha]

I haven't used BW400CN (but probably have a long expired roll somewhere). I understand your reasoning about multiple bodies and the film being the common factor, but I'm struggling to see how the film could have gone off so quickly. I've shot stacks of much older expired film with very few problems - I've had far more problems with film left in a camera for years where minuscule light leaks have affected the portion of film across the gate. Unless the film is 5-6 years expired, I don't bother re-rating it. I don't know how it compares to XP2 (which is reported to be bullet-proof and it supposedly has a huge range of latitude).

John.

[womble]

When it was fresh it was pretty amazing right up to ISO 1600 and I used it a great deal with older cameras in which I didn't have much faith in the accuracy of the shutter speeds. I'll try and dig out some example images to show what I mean.

K.