Is anyone using the Kodak BW 400CN c-41 processed?

[jypsee]

I gave this film a try, using an old Minolta HiMatic 11, which may or may not be metering accurately, and I'm really stumped about the results. When I scan the negative I get BIG square grain and what looks like speckly digital noise. The first time I scanned I did it in B&W 16bit grayscale and it was not good. The second scans I made I scanned as a color negative and did a 16bit grayscale in the scanner and it was better, but still lots of BIG ugly grain. I like grain, but this is like squares of something in a repeated grid/line all down the frames. This film is designed to be developed in a one hour lab by color processing (and it seems that traditional B&W labs are becoming rarer by the day) so I don't know if this is how the film is or if it's the camera or the lab.

any ideas?

Mary in Michigan

[nigelgray]

what resolution are you scanning at?

[jypsee]

at 150dpi, just like I scan every other negative from other cameras for posting online.

what resolution are you scanning at?

[jypsee]

... and anyone else who needs to know about this

I don't have any particular info on this particular film except that although it can be processed in c-41 chemistry it makes a difference if the lab person knows what they're doing. (the scans came from the one hour lab with big blobs of dust and so forth on them; I have 40 yr old negs that don't have that much crap on them!)
And, that scanning at a very high resolution is supposed to mitigate something called grain aliasing that occurs in scanning... who knew? I've only scanned slides...OTOH, I scanned some old negatives from 1971 that I developed in my home darkroom and scanned at 150dpi and got great scans, look just like the negative.

here's the info on grain aliasing

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

[agripix]

Hi:
I'm not sure what scanner and software you are using. I scan either of these c-41 processed chromogenic films on an Epson flatbed, and I scan it as a color negative in the 'set up'. I scan to 360dpi, to get an original large file, using 'scratch and dust removal'. Digital Ice also works on this although will not work on 'real' BW film. Once I have the file in TIFF format, I make a JPEG copy of it, to the image size I want for the web - usually about 6 inches wide max. at 72dpi. This makes a file of only 150-250kb usually, but it's good on screen.

I find that it is easiest and quickest to crop, then sharpen, this JPEG 'web' image (and leave the TIFF file untouched.

As someone else has said, regular film processing labs are turning out terrible results - I think the skills have disappeared. Pro labs are still good. I only use CN/XP2 as an emergency now - I prefer Ilford Delta Pro, ('real' BW film) home processed. Very easy, and no darkroom.

As for the square grain ... don't know. It could be a scanning 'artifact'. I have home processed and used solution that was too warm - had big marbled pattern !! Very 'arty'.

Sorry I can't think why you have that problem.

Colin at Pbase/agripix

[jypsee]

Thanks for the reply; I did scan as a color neg and did do the scan at 300 dpi as a tiff and I also use an Epson flatbed scanner with dust removal and so forth. The local camera store gave me some rolls of the kodak 400cn and I finally got through the roll (18 months later... sure don't go through film like I go through digital frames :^). I'm not too excited about the stuff.
After looking through my negatives from my days in the darkroom I decided that I like the look of film and thought I might as well use up those remaining frames in the old HiMatic 11 I got off ebay last year...anyhow, I've got a roll of tri-x in the thing now ... don't know where I'll get it processed since the local camera place doesn't do anything but c-41...

anyhow, thanks for the reply, I really appreciate the time you took to help me out.
here's the gallery of the HiMatic photos on the 400BW cn crap...
http://www.pbase.com/jypsee/one

Mary in Michigan

[agripix]

Hello Again:

As much as I can see with the pictures, I'd say that the lazy SOBs had dirty rollers in the auto processor tank. It leaves what appears to be dust spots but it is actually underdeveloped and / or overdeveloped film. Another sign can be a slight 'barring' across the negatives. This will mostly be towards the end of the roll(which goes in first!), so look at 16-20 or 32-36 on a 35mm roll.

For your 'real' B&W, do it yourself. It is fun, and easy. If you invest less than $50, you will save $10 the first film, and not be hostage to any careless people. And, from the work I have seen of yours, you can 'engineer' all kinds of effects for later scanning.... wohoo!! =;-)

Cheers,

Colin

[jypsee]

You are SO right about the location of the barring, what I was calling grid like noise. That takes a load off my mind.
I am thinking of getting some chemistry and a tank, etc., for developing my film. At the moment I'm in the middle of selling this house in Michigan, but I have a nice DARK bathroom in Florida and scanning negatives sure beats using an enlarger and printing wet.
AND... thanks for the critique and kind remarks ... you're too kind!

Mary in Michigan, but not much longer

Hello Again:

As much as I can see with the pictures, I'd say that the lazy SOBs had dirty rollers in the auto processor tank. It leaves what appears to be dust spots but it is actually underdeveloped and / or overdeveloped film. Another sign can be a slight 'barring' across the negatives. This will mostly be towards the end of the roll(which goes in first!), so look at 16-20 or 32-36 on a 35mm roll.

For your 'real' B&W, do it yourself. It is fun, and easy. If you invest less than $50, you will save $10 the first film, and not be hostage to any careless people. And, from the work I have seen of yours, you can 'engineer' all kinds of effects for later scanning.... wohoo!! =;-)

Cheers,

Colin