Kodak T400CN query

[Mark_437]

I've been using 35mm Ilford XP-1 and XP-2 for years for editorial work (photos which will be published in magazines) because it's convenient as heck and its final destination is going to be fairly low-res anyway, but I don't use it in 4x5 for the following reasons:

1.) You can't control the contrast (this is a biggie). 2.) It's more expensive than Tri-X (not much) but... 3.) Processing (and proofing, if necessary) is MUCH more expensive than souping your own film. 4.) Local contrast seems low, and the overall look is a little mushy. Fine for portraits, especially women and children, unless you're into the Karsh-like "stark reality" thing (which I like for some subjects). I wouldn't use it for landscapes/architecture/etc. 5.) The film (especially when wet) seems physically softer than silver-based film. I've repeatedly had XP-2 scratched by various processing labs, much more so than conventional films.

For low contrast, fixed-illumination-level shots (i.e. studio portraits) where the extra $2 per sheet processing cost doesn't matter much compared to what you're getting for sitting fees & print sales, T400CN or XP-2 may be just the ticket, especially if you don't have a b&w darkroom set up. Otherwise I'd recommend Tri-X in HC-110 or something similar.

Best wishes, Mark Parsons

[Patrick Chase]

Hi Mark;

One thing to watch out for with chromogenic films such as T400CN is grain structure.

While the amount of grain produced by chromogenic emulsions is low, the pattern that it forms (the "structure") tends to look a bit muddy, particularly when significantly enlarging the image. Traditional B&W emulsions give a cleaner, harder-edged grain structure, which may actually contribute to the presentation of certain subjects (something I've never heard anybody say that about the grain from any C-41 emulsion, B&W or otherwise ;-)

Chromogenic emulsions are just another tool in the photographer's emulsions. I wouldn't describe them as either better or worse across the board than conventional B&W emulsions. They are probably the right answer for somebody who can't do their own processing.

-- Patrick

[John Hicks]

Well...I'll go a bit against the flow. Because of T400CN's fairly low acutance it can be nice for "pleasing portrait subjects," while otoh you might not want a film that just doesn't look very shar p. Actually it does have rather high resolution, just low acutance, so may need to be printed with what would otherwise be excessive contrast just to get a shar p-looking print. If you want very fine grain and aren't too concerned about acutance, develop H P5+ or TX in D-25; it'll have a very similar look. It's said that T400CN doesn't block up, but in fact that's exactly what it doe s. HP5+ in D-76 1:1 or Xtol 1:1 produces a very straight-line curve shape of at least 15 steps (all I ever measure); the fact that such a range can't be gotten onto the paper is what's seen as blocking although in fact the neg isn't blocked at all. T400CN has a pronounced shoulder, so highlight densities aren't near as high a s with a conventional film; in fact it does block at a _much_ lower exposure lev el than a conventional film. Many take advantage of this characteristic of chrmo genic films with portrait subjects by exposing at EI 25 or 50, which gives cream y blemish-free skin tones. You can vary the CI of chromogenic films by changing the development time, as with conventional films, but of course this means you must process it yourself o r pay a lab excessive dollars to process your film at plus or minus times. The acutance of chromogenic films can be significantly improved by diluting th e developer. The old XP-1 developer was essentially C-41 developer diluted to ab out 1:1, which resulted in much better acutance and a longer development time su itable for small-tank processing (and the errors involved with that). Another concern with chromogenic films is their long-term stability, since the negs are dye images. At any rate, to answer your question, I really doubt any significant sharpness differences would be apparent in 16x20s from 4x5 negs; that's just not enough e nlargement for that to be a factor.

[Kenny Dunn]

The only way you are going to know if youi like it or not is try it. I would venture to guess that these answers have confused more than helped (I know they confused me and I have used it before, and I liked it fine).