Goodbye Kodak BW400CN

robhooley167

robhooley167

Sir, my fingers are stuck together
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,158
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
That is sad news. In the past I have used this film but not much recently, I did prefer it to XP2. As I moved back to doing my own mono developing, I pretty much stopped using chromogenic film, it will be a loss as it scans very well in my view. The demise of some great film stock rolls on!
 
Last edited:
It was already dead to me as they stopped making it in 120 format awhile ago. I prefer Fuji 400CN for my C41 monochrome film anyway.
 
skysh4rk said:
It was already dead to me as they stopped making it in 120 format awhile ago. I prefer Fuji 400CN for my C41 monochrome film anyway.
Click to expand...

Isn't that just XP2 made by Fuji?


I've never used it or any other chromogenic I went straigt to doing my own b&w but it is a shame when yet more film stocks are culled. But its a dwindling market so this should at least concentrate the remaining users on Illford and Fuji.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Isn't that just XP2 made by Fuji?


I've never used it or any other chromogenic I went straigt to doing my own b&w but it is a shame when yet more film stocks are culled. But its a dwindling market so this should at least concentrate the remaining users on Illford and Fuji.
Click to expand...

Fuji 400CN is produced by Ilford and it is very similar to XP2, but it's meant to be slightly different.

To my eyes, this is true, but I've never done any sort of scientific test to compare the two films. That said, when I was in Tenerife I used both films and did prefer the results from the Fuji film. It's also cheaper for me to buy as well.
 
I have used the Kodak film and for some reason unknown to me,it always produced to much grain,so I have been in the Fuji camp for a while now.

I will say that I only use about ten B&W 35mm per year so not a great recommendation,or critic.:)
 
skysh4rk said:
Fuji 400CN is produced by Ilford and it is very similar to XP2, but it's meant to be slightly different.

To my eyes, this is true, but I've never done any sort of scientific test to compare the two films. That said, when I was in Tenerife I used both films and did prefer the results from the Fuji film. It's also cheaper for me to buy as well.
Click to expand...

Ah okay. Actually now you mention it, I've read Illford won't rebrand its films but will produce other companies recipes.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Ah okay. Actually now you mention it, I've read Illford won't rebrand its films but will produce other companies recipes.
Click to expand...

They licensed the technology to Fuji, but Kodak decided to develop their own unique version. BW400CN would have been more useful in the past as it has a an orange mask like coventional colour negative, so you can print it on RA-4 colour paper (which is designed to be exposed with the orange mask) easily without the danger of colour shifts etc, whilst the Ilford/Fuji films have a clear mask so that they can be printed on conventional B&W paper. As obviously now 9.9999999....% of prints are produced by scanning and printing on RA-4, the advantage of having the orange mask is lost so you don't have to choose between one and the other.
I've never used it, but might now pick up a roll to see what it was like.
 
Strappy said:
Isn't Kentmere a rebranded Ilford film?
Click to expand...

Its made by Illford but Its not just FP4 or HP5 in a different box is how I understand it. Though I don't know where the Pan 100 and 400 sit in this statement...
 
Strappy said:
Isn't Kentmere a rebranded Ilford film?
Click to expand...

Ilford own Kentmere and they make/market their films as a budget alternative to Ilford films, their definitely not the same emulsions as all the examples I've seen are much grainer in comparison.
 
I've used BW400CN, as it was easily available in Boots. They also sell XP2, and I've come to prefer that. The other BW film that Boots sell is HP5, which I've not got good results for. It would be nice if they'd now stock some FP4! But as Rob said, losing any film is a sad thing, and this one was genuinely different.
 
It's a shame that BW400CN is disappearing, as I think it might have tempted many colour only C41 processing shooters to try their hand at home processing and use traditional B/W films like Tri-X. Anything that helps ensure the longevity of that must be a good thing.

As far as Kentmere is concerned, I've only tried the 400 version and it's nothing like HP5; it's much like Fomapan - horrible.
 
Agree it's a shame, but when I have used these films I too have always preferred the Fuji, so no great loss personally, just a loss for variety generally in the market. I suppose it wouldn't have been hard to imagine this coming. Will be a much bigger deal if any of their other films are discontinued, because I use all of them (except Portra 800 - and I expect that might be the next one to go because it doesn't seem too popular, especially given the performance/pushability of Portra 400).
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Agree it's a shame, but when I have used these films I too have always preferred the Fuji, so no great loss personally, just a loss for variety generally in the market. I suppose it wouldn't have been hard to imagine this coming. Will be a much bigger deal if any of their other films are discontinued, because I use all of them (except Portra 800 - and I expect that might be the next one to go because it doesn't seem too popular, especially given the performance/pushability of Portra 400).
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong regarding Portra 800, but I've never had the impression it was unpopular and see many US-based film photographers using it for weddings and other events.

I personally hope it doesn't go anywhere as it's the only remaining 800 speed colour negative film. I think it actually has a nicer colour palette than Portra 400 as well.
 
I can't remember the last time I processed any kodak c41 bw. See lots of portra 400 and 800 though, but I think 160 is most popular out of those.
 
skysh4rk said:
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong regarding Portra 800, but I've never had the impression it was unpopular and see many US-based film photographers using it for weddings and other events.

I personally hope it doesn't go anywhere as it's the only remaining 800 speed colour negative film. I think it actually has a nicer colour palette than Portra 400 as well.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're right, and perhaps my judgement is clouded by my personal (lack of) use of it. Just don't see too many people talking about it on here for instance, and then there's the price of course: AG photographic sell single rolls of 35mm for £10 and 120 pro-packs are £49 :eek:. Hence I reckon it might be next to go from the Kodak stable, though I agree it would be a shame as the only really fast colour neg film available.
 
I guess we all need to keep an eye on what happens with Alaris / Kodak. Whether you liked CN400 or not it probably won't be the last Kodak film slated for disposal!
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Maybe you're right, and perhaps my judgement is clouded by my personal (lack of) use of it. Just don't see too many people talking about it on here for instance, and then there's the price of course: AG photographic sell single rolls of 35mm for £10 and 120 pro-packs are £49 :eek:. Hence I reckon it might be next to go from the Kodak stable, though I agree it would be a shame as the only really fast colour neg film available.
Click to expand...

AG are VERY expensive for Portra 800. I bought it from a UK seller a few weeks ago for £36, which is still expensive to be fair, but much better than £50.

Because of the price, I don't buy as much as I otherwise would, but I will not hesitate to buy it for important occasions; it's a great film.

A few of the photos in my recent posts in the 'show us your film shots' thread haves used it (e.g., Commonwealth Games photos).
 
Everywhere is expensive for portra 800. It's even silly money on amazon.

I wonder if the new portra 400 is meant to be pushed to 1600 so there is no need for 800 at all?? This way they only have 2 speeds to manufacture. A few places don't seem to stock it any more and when they do it is silly money (SRP allegedly £18 for a 36 exp roll 35mm!)
 
srichards said:
Everywhere is expensive for portra 800. It's even silly money on amazon.
Click to expand...

I swear it was £5.00 a roll on Amazon a couple of days ago, now it's £9.50! I wouldn't be surprised to see it go given the latitude of 400 though.
 
Strappy said:
I swear it was £5.00 a roll on Amazon a couple of days ago, now it's £9.50! I wouldn't be surprised to see it go given the latitude of 400 though.
Click to expand...

For some reason the price has gone up sharply in the UK over the last few months, but a few places have it closer to previous prices if you hunt around.

Portra 800 seems to be a bit cheaper in both Germany and the USA (~£30 or so).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top