A black and white film that uses C-41 processing: that means in can be developed anywhere that takes regular color film (Ritz Camera, your local supermarket, Costco, etc.)

Depending on who does the processing, you might get a sepia or cyan tint (which is not necessarily a bad thing...)

Reasonable sharpness, decent contrast. Great film from Kodak if you want to shoot black and white film but don't want to wait a long time for processing or are on a budget.

Similar Products Used:

None

Ease of Processing
Good grain pattern

Cannot compare to a true Black and White film

This is a better film, in my opinion than the XP2. If you only shoot black and white once in a while, you can probably fake it pretty well with this stuff.

If you are a black and white shooter, leave the stuff on the shelves. It has a market, and it may be a success. The tonality of this film is very lackluster. I shot a couple of test rolls and the results were disappointing. I may be a lot more demanding, as black and white is my bread and butter, but please shoot some test rolls before using this film for a paying job!!

Similar Products Used:

Ilford XP2

Color-film (C-41) to obtain black and white prints on color paper.

PRINTS VERY DIFFICULT on B&W paper. Needs grade 5 to produce normal contrast. This doesn't leave you any space to modify contrast. Because of the orange support, printing times go up to 2 minutes where a B&W negative needs 20 seconds.

I print B&W for 15 years now, so I'm very exigent towards B&W negatives. T400 CN has its use for the amateur photographer who wants to try B&W occasionally. But he/she risks to be disappointed as results cannot match real B&W film. Grain seems very fine because it isn't sharp; it's woolly. This can be pleasing for portraits, but lacks the microcontrast needed for sharp landscapes or fine detail pictures. When you want a mediocre B&W print T400 CN can be a fast and easy choice. When you want Fine Art B&W prints, leave it on the shelves.

Similar Products Used:

XP2 and normal B&W 400 ASA films.

Fine grain. Lots of contrast.

C-41 process makes b&w more accessible.

Highlights seem to blow out, much like T-Max.

Doesn't respond well to pushing, which seems to be a characteristic of chromogenic films.

T 400 CN is okay, but in chromogenic films I prefer Ilford XP-2 Super for its finer grain and smoother gradations. The argument that if you like b&w you should use b&w films has merit; however, these films offer a set of characteristics that b&w films do not have.

Similar Products Used:

Ilford XP-2 Super (lower contrast, smoother tones)

-It works really well in contrasty light.

-The warm sepia tone is great.

-Makes for very romantic wedding photographs, and outdoor.

Works well with close up portrates.

The ability to make it sepia or Black and white.

Produces great punchy contrasts.....

After going on a holiday, I bought 24 rolls of this stuff and it hurt paying for it! V. Pricy.
It's also expensive developing it....

Overall ......to buy 24 rolls you have to do more than just think it's okay... I've had great results.... but it doesn't mean I've stopped looking to try new film.

Customer Service

I'v had some labs, look at me as if they diddn't know what they were supposed to do with it!

Similar Products Used:

Regular 200, 100, 400 true black and white film.....

Super fine grain. That is waht attracted me to the product. It enlarges to 11 x 14 with no visible grain whatsoever. I have a pro lab develop & print it on b&w paper to avoid color casts. Can prodice great portraits with sufficient light.

Can get too grey & flat. But not always.

If you need a 400 speed film & a fine grain try it. If you are looking for fine details & lots of contrast it probably isn't right for you. But overall I think it's a decent film & great for practice because you can take to a mini 1 hour lab.

Similar Products Used:

TMAX, FP4, TRI X

affordable. Easy to process.

Quality of prints Suck!

I shot several rolls of this under different enviornments and situations. It's great that you're able to process this C-41, but I was just so dissapointed with the quality of both the negatives and prints. In some of the prints, there were little annoying hints of shades underneath the greys (I saw a bluish tint in one, and then a sort of sepia tint in another). The contrast is good, but the overall true tonality doesn't seem up to Kodak standards. I also noticed that the film tends to capture natural scenes better than people. If you're looking for a better film in this market, try Ilford's Super XP2. The difference will amaze you.

Similar Products Used:

Ilford XP2
Kodak Tri-X 400

C-41 processing means you can get your prints back in an hour

No noticeable grain

Mediocre contrast

Definite sepia tint on many prints

Very poor sharpness

An interesting experiment, but overall this is a really poor B&W film. I'd recommend everyone who shoots B&W to try a roll to see its results though, but only as an experiment. I shot two rolls, and a lot of the prints have a blue or sepia cast to them. It produces an interesting effect, but appears to be totally random. Two pictures taken in rapid succession don't produce the same results. I might try for this effect again someday, as you might if you try it.

Now, the skinny...

Aside from the blue/sepia effect that is somewhat interesting, albeit accidental, this is pretty bad film. The sharpness is really bad. The grain isn't noticeable at all, but for landscape images this film doesn't have the sharpness to produce a nice image. Smaller objects are fuzzy.

For close-ups or medium range shots, this film is acceptable.

Examples:

If you're taking a picture of a church at a distance, forget it. The picture will suck. IF you're taking a picture of a tree, this film won't make out the leaves. It'll look like a blob. If you're taking a picture of a person at 5 feet, it'll look soft, but OK.

Contrast is very flat.

Overall, this film has a novelty appeal, but is really bad overall. Not a substitute for true B&W film, that's for sure.

I give it three stars for value, as it is cheap to print. One star overall, as the images it produces are quite poor overall.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

None

Fairly cheap, can be processed just about anywhere, Decent sharpness, decent contrast.

MUST be printed by a knowlegable printer.

Getting your negs processed won't be a problem, but you have to find someone who can print this film right. A novice printer will give you anything from funky green and blue casts to a soft and mushy look. Properly printed, you can get nice, sharp, detailed prints with any color cast you want, from true B&W, to Sepia. Some photogs seem to knock this film (and XP2 for that matter)because of the sepia prints that most labs give them, but I buy this film BECAUSE of how easy it is to get this. If you are a pro portrait photographer, offer "browntones", and people buy them like hotcakes. Trust me on this, I know :)

Also, as a personal reccomendation, Try the kew Kodak PORTRA B&W. This is one heck of a good film. I had a roll processed and printed at Wal Mart, and it looked great,unbelievably sharp and contrasty. Ifthis film looks good after "wally world" processing, then you can imagine how good it can be processd by a good lab. Try it, you will LIKE it :) It has a dense film base like the 400+, so it will be harder to get an enlagrer print than the 400CN though.

Customer Service

havent tried

Similar Products Used:

ILford XP2 and XP2 Super, Kodak B&W+, Kodak Portra B&W

If you buy this film, a chemist in the depths of Kodak's labs might keep their job.

Every quality you would expect a film to have is a weakness this film exibits.

This is the worst film I have ever used. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

El sucko filmo.

I wouldn't use this film to photograph vomit.

Leave it on the shelf!

Similar Products Used:

I've used so many films I can't name them all. I've been shooting for over 20 years.