I happened to stumble across this thread. What is this business about TCN400 being junk? It has a number of advantages over conventional film including fineness of grain and length or printable tonal range. Two years ago I had an exhibition in London entitled Twice in a Lifetime. The pictures were of 55 people taken 20 years before and contemporary pictures of the same people. All the late 70s stuff was shot on HP5 - all the modern stuff was shot on T400CN. The pictures were hung side-by-side. I would like to think the contemporary pictures were better but certainly there was no difference as a result of the film stock. If you want to do more due diligence you can buy the book through Amazon (Twice in a Lifetime by Mark Eban). It is a very high quality print run on Gardapat paper and if TCN400 were really junk, you should be able to see the differences even in reproduction.(posted 8617 days ago)Having said all that, I no longer use TCN400 since I prefer the sharpness of XP2 super.