Is anyone out there printing Kodak T400CN on black and white paper?? I can't seem to get a decent print. I'm using 4 1/2 to 5 filter, anything lower than that and the print looks really flat. With such high filters my ability to manipulate the image is virtually non-existent. Is anyone else having this problem? The orange mask inherent to the film is obviously the problem. Is it better to have a lab print on colour paper? Is there more latitude on colour paper? I'm so frustrated, help!!!

-- Debbie Hilaire (dhilaire@serix.com), August 09, 2000

Answers

i print TCN on ilford multigrade papers *all* the time. it gives me fantastic results. in fact, i think machine prints on color paper usually look like crap. i have used regular tone RC, cold tone RC, regular tone FB, and warm tone FB, all with great results.

grade 3 is my standard for TCN. sometimes i drop to 2 1/2, and i have gone up to 4. i have never used anything higher than 4 or lower than 2 with TCN. (these grade numbers are approximate, as i use a colorhead and usually tweak a little from the paper's dichro guidlines.)

ftr, i use either ilford multigrade developer or edwal's ultra-black developer.

best of luck, brad daly

-- brad daly (bwdaly@hiwaay.net), August 09, 2000.

For me, filtration on Ilford MG paper seems to center around 3 1/2. The prints do look different; very smooth but somewhat lacking in "punch." I am still more comfortable with FP4+ and Tri-X.

-- Paul Harris (pharris@neosoft.com), August 09, 2000.

The guys at the custom lab call this stuff "The Devil's Film" so I've never touched it. Dean

-- Dean Lastoria (dvlastor@sfu.ca), August 09, 2000.

Everything I have seen of this stuff is flat! There should be no reason to go all the way to 4 or 5. I would try Ilford XP2+. It is quite a bit more snappy than the Kodak. Cheers

-- Scott Walton (scotlynn@shore.net), August 10, 2000.

I've been printing on both T400CN and XP2 for some time with great results on both a dichroic head, and a cold light head using multigrade filters. My typical filtration ranges anywhere from 1/2 to 2 1/2. Filtration varies on exposure, which ranges from 320 to 800. My prints have good contrast and excellent tonal range. These are great films, and I get frustrated by the nay sayers who trash these films as difficult. They have great exposure latitude, fine grain, excellent tonality. The only difficulty that I have in the darkroom with these films is a slight difficulty in focusing the image on the easel. I'm not sure why you are having trouble without having more information. Offhand, I have to wonder if your negatives are on the thin side if you are having to print at such high contrast grades. In addition to exposure, good processing is important. In any case, I just wanted to chime in, YES, you should be able to get great results with this film.

-- Paul Swenson (paulphoto@humboldt1.com), August 10, 2000.

Because the orange mask is very close to a safelight, the printing times are excessively long. While decent prints are obtainable with enough effort, I have to ask 'why bother?' Real B&W films are FAR superior, less expensive, and MUCH easier to print! I no longer accept ANY chromogenic negatives in my custom B&W lab. Even the local print mills are charging as much as 200% surcharge for prints from this crap.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), August 10, 2000.

just to follow-up to some of the posts. T400CN has a rather straight curve, like TMX or Delta 100, whereas XP2 has a toe-shoulder curve, like tri-x and FP4+. if you're used to printing the latter types of film, TCN could give you some problems.

the reaction to this film has been interesting to watch. when it was first introduced, people *raved* about its printing characteristics on B&W paper, its lack of grain, its long tonal range, its huge latitude, its fantastic skin-tones. now there seems to have developed a bit of a backlash, with lots of people posting highly negative comments.

this, as with everything else, comes down to personal preference. i happen to like the look of TCN, and i get great results. others don't like the look and get terrible results. i know people who swear by TMX, for instance, and people who curse at TMX.

best of luck, brad daly

-- brad daly (bwdaly@hiwaay.net), August 10, 2000.

I asked this once before but no one knew the answer...perhaps here:

I used TCN when it first came out and the negs looked close to normal B/W negs, as I recall. Later on I tried some of the Kodak "Select" B/W film and I couldn't print it on conventional B/W paper due to the heavy mask...I was getting 60 plus second exposures when I am used to 5 or 10 sec exposures with conventional B/W film and very flat contrast...adding a filter only extended the print time and then I got film buckling. I then tried some TNC labled film and had the same problem I had with the Select...this was just last week.

Question: Did kodak add a mask to TCN that wasn't there when it was first introduced and is TCN now identical (or close) to the "Select" labeled film?

XP2 is a much easier film to use, and the results are more pleasing, in my opinion.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 10, 2000.