[Leica] Re: Kodak T400CN

[drodgers@nextlink.com]

Frank wrote:

>>Has anyone used Kodak T400CN. It's the black and white film that
processed
in C-41 chemistry. Comments would be greatly appreciated.<<

I just went through a rather informal evaluation process of T400CN and
XP-2. I shot about a dozen rolls of each. I scanned everything thus far. I
haven't printed, so the jury is still out. However, on a purely subjective
level thus far, I prefer XP-2.

Further, based on some feedback I received from the leica-users list -- as
well as privately -- I don't think I'm going to use chromogenic film
exclusively. But it certainly is convenient, especially since I've found a
good, low-cost, conveniently located lab which will do C-41 processing.

Over the past several weeks I've spent quite a bit of time going back
through binders of old negatives. I've always taken care in developing my
own film, and I've heard the horror stories about outside labs. However,
reviewing my negs has been an eye opening experience. I looked through
about 400 rolls of conventional film that I developed myself over the past
three years. I found enough scratches and defects that a) I'm going to cut
outside labs some slack and b) I'm going to be even more careful with my
own processing in the future.

For some reason I noticed more defects in this review/scanning process than
I ever noticed when printing. By defects I don't mean just handling
defects. I mean a variety of issues related to things such as poor
agitation, bad water, bad developer, bad fixer, dust, and even poor
storage. I can't always pinpoint the cause. And I'm not saying that every
negative was bad. Most of the problems were minor, taken case by case.
There were a couple of severe flare ups. Going through a bunch of archives
over a short period opened my eyes to things I not have noticed otherwise.
I store my negatives in sleeves in binders organized chronologically. It
was interesting to notice tendancies.

In some instances it's obvious that I printed contacts, picked out the
negatives that I thought were worth printing, and I handled the rest
carelessly. Other times it appears that I was just careless from the start.
It appears that I used exhausted fixer at one point. In another group of
negs (20 rolls) there were numerous tiny black specs, which I assume were
processing related. It spanned more than one type of film. I noticed water
streaking ceased about a year ago. I recall reading about (and using) a
different Photoflo method on the LUG at approx the same time.

The lesson I learned is that there's more to developing than just
developing. Further, I wish that I had taken better notes. And finally,
there are certainly times when a good lab and chromogenic film may be
preferable to self developing.

David