Response: T400CN

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Printing & Finishing : One Thread

Thanks to all the responses. I'm a small in home custom B&W lab and it's one of my clients who insists on using this "film". He also insists on high contrast which is where the higher filtration comes in. I'm curious if anyone else has noticed an increased amount of "dust balls" on these negatives? It's a spotting nightmare. Just one more reason in my opinion to use conventional B&W as this never happens. One suggestion is to increase my pricing which I am seriously considering. Well I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only person who can't stand printing this film. Thanks again for all your help. Debbie.

-- Debbie Hilaire (dhilaire@serix.com), August 11, 2000

Answers

excessive dust-ballage. hmm, i've never had that problem. are you using a condensor head?

and how is your client's TCN getting processed? if he's taking it to the fascist-mart 1-hr. photolab, then no wonder he has dust on his negs--he probably has giant scratches as well. i take all mine in to a custom lab, where the film is run through the C-41 machine, and that's it. i cut it up and everything else. i never have excessive dust trouble.

one thing, and i hope this doesn't sound condescending. you are aware that the grade 4 filter is about a full stop darker than grade 3. so if you go from, say, 20 seconds at grade 3 to 20 seconds at grade 4, you'll get a dull, low contrast, underexposed print. i assume you know this; i'm just trying to throw out ideas here as to why some people have so much trouble with this film and others just love it.

best of luck, brad daly

-- brad daly (bwdaly@hiwaay.net), August 11, 2000.


I'm still trying to figure out the "mask" issue.

This is how I understand it:

Kodak has two chromogenic film types: TMax400CN or TCN, and Kodak Select B/W film...any difference?

Ilford has one chromogenic film XP2 Super.

I used TCN 120 recently and there is a heavy mask. I used Select a few months ago and there is a heavy mask. I used XP2 recently and there is no mask. I used TCN 35mm about exactly 2 years ago, and there was no mask.

Has Kodak added a mask to TCN since it was first introduced? It seems very different now than when I first used it.

Are we also talking about the same film...are we mixing up TCN with Select?

I'm trying to locate the early TCN neg to verify this. This is crazy!

Also, Debbie, why not just tell them man that you no longer print TCN? I wouldn't want to go through that just to keep one customer.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 11, 2000.


todd,

TCN has had a mask as long as i've been using it--maybe three years now; i'm not entirely sure when i started. according to the kodak literature, TCN is intended to be processed in C-41 chemistry and to be printed on traditional silver gelatin paper in the traditional enlarger-and-trays method. "select B&W+" has a darker, redder mask that is intended to ease machine printing at 1-hour photo labs. in fact, i *think* the "select b&w+" emulsion was actually developed as a black and white APS emulsion, intended solely for machine printing, and kodak just decided to start offerring it as a consumer C-41 chromogenic. i've seen some of the APS black and white stuff, and it looks just like "select B&W+."

the heavy mask does indeed sometimes necessitate really long exposure times. its advantage, though, is that, because the mask is safelight-colored, it's not necessary for the highlights to completely block up. that is, highlights--negative highlights, what will be highlights on a positive print--aren't completely opaque on the film; but the are oqaque to nearly all blue and green light. this helps the film have such a long total range, because you can often burn some detail out of a highlight that would, on normal b&w film, be totally opaque.

so, i hope that helps to answer your questions, todd. *i'm* not mixing up TCN with "select b&w+." they're somewhat similar, but very different in the darkroom.

i'll have to try some XP2-super and see how i like it. it's cheaper than TCN.

best, brad daly

-- brad daly (bwdaly@hiwaay.net), August 11, 2000.


Brad,

I did locate some of the TCN I used a couple years ago and there IS a mask...though it doesn't seen too heavy or dark. XP2 has no mask. Try some. What I took a few weeks ago in 120 that caused me so much trouble was TCN by mistake...thought it was TMax 400 regular...it was darkish dawn and the film looked alike...I never bought the film...must have been mixed in at the store in error...learned my lesson...always check. I also think I overexposed it at 200 and that made it so much denser. I did not have problems printing the TCN I used two years ago when exposed properly. I tried one roll of Select once and couldn't print a thing...it was like trying to make a b/w print off a color neg. Thanks for the clarification.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 11, 2000.


Unless you're developing the T400CN yourself, the problem is certainly wherever it's developed.

The way negs are treated in many minilabs, especially the drugstore variety, would make most of us run away in horror.

Kodak chromogenic films are masked so that it's easier to print them with a neutral tone in a minilab printer on color paper; they can be printed on the "Gold" filtration channel rather than everyone having to make up a custom channel. XP-2 doesn't have a mask; minilab customers complain endlessly about weird-colored "b&w" prints.

A big problem is that VC paper sees that mask as a very low-contrast filter, same as if you printed with a #0 filter or cranked in max yellow on a dichro head. So you add lots of magenta filtration to get the printing contrast back to normal.

The stuff would probably print fine on graded paper.

At any rate, you need to have a heart-to-heart with this customer. He needs to switch to Ilford XP-2 _and_ get it developed somewhere else.

FWIW I shot and printed one roll of T400CN; that was enough of that for me.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), August 12, 2000.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ