I finally had a chance to take a look at the T400CN negatives and give them
a brief analysis. The results are rather fascinating--I think. T400CN,
Kodak's C-41 process B&W film is based on a "color" emulsion with three
layers of varying sensitivity. The exposure latitude with this film is
very good and the film is quite forgiving on exposure. This film's primary
advantages are: Exposure latitude, sharpness, speed, C-41 process, and
dye-grain structure.
The subject in my test roll was my sister-inlaw who desparitely needed a
new picture for submitting to a newspaper to anounce her new job. Camera
used was my OM-2S with the Zuiko 100/2.8 with aperatures of F5.6-F11.
Lighting was a studio strobe in a large umbrella. Gray seemless paper was
used for the background. Exposure settings were determined with my Polaris
flash meter.
Standard size and 8x10 prints proved to be ideal for this film. The tonal
range is terrific and shadow detail was not lost. My subject's hair, which
was recently colored really dark, remained textured and still held detail
and substance even when in shadow. T-MAX would have totally lost the
detail in the shadow in this case and TRI-X would have been grainy. Even
when lighting ratio was 4:1 between subject/background the hair was clearly
separate from the background. (Hair/background would have merged into
black with most any color or transparency film).
I took the negatives and placed them in my enlarger and ran it up to 16x20+
size. Using the focuser I attempted to study the grain/sharpness of the
film and compared the T400CN to TRI-X, TMY, and TMX. The T400CN has no
grain--period! There is absolutely no grain with this film. However,
there are dye layers that do have a limit on resolution. TRI-X at this
magnification is similar in look to beach sand--very easy to focus your
enlarger on. TMY is pixely, and TMX is a cross between grain and dye.
However, TMX is extremely sharp in its edge detail. The T400CN has little
edge detail--therefore is resolving power is limited. Eyelashes lacked any
definition and extreme contrasts muddied into each other. The T400CN was
extremely difficult to focus in the enlarger without specific textures to
look at. How do you focus on a mushy blob?
Furthermore, the color cast of the film made it darker to view and does
have at least a two-stop impact on printing times. I didn't compare to my
polycontrast filters, but it looks like the color cast will throw you up a
grade or two in paper contrast. I much prefer any B&W film in the enlarger
to the T400CN for focusing and printing time.
The "smoothness" of the film came into great advantage for portraits
though. Skin blemishes nearly disappeared, while wrinkles were minimized.
Highlights held beautifully and the reflection of my umbrella in her
glasses even showed a water stain in the umbrella! No other film would
have captured THAT detail. Without grain and "edgyness" this film lacks
character. I wouldn't use this film to ever replace TRI-X, but it proves
to be a good B&W film for wedding/portrait work--wedding dresses will hold
every detail while the black tux should even contain shadow detail.
In studying the film under the enlarger I noticed that the sharpness varied
depending on exposure zone. I over-exposed this film, under-exposed and
nailed the exposures too. The over-exposures proved to be less sharp than
the under-exposures. (I did a test by varying the light power, not
aperature). Makes me wonder if the top dye layer is handling the shadows?
Further testing, analyis and printing will follow, but it appears in my
initial testing that this film does not resolve enough, for me, to print a
16x20 from a 35mm negative. Although TRI-X is grainy, its ability to
resolve detail is legendary. I would have expected the lack of grain to
allow me to shoot 35mm and produce the same quality as TRI-X in medium
format. Not quite. I am a stickler for sharpness and prefer sharpness
over lack of grain. One can use the grain as part of the compositon, but
lack of sharpness will cause tossers. I will keep a roll of T400CN with me
as it is an extremely handy film and appears to be sharpest when shot at
ISO 800, but produced exceptional tonal range at ISO 200-400. In medium
format, the lack of resolution wouldn't be a problem.
(all shots were with my 100/2.8 lens and the film was compared to another
roll taken with the same lens within the same week. I doubt that the
resolution problem was caused by the lens).
Ken Norton
PS. Go AmericaOne, screw Dennis (slimebucket) Connors for cheating.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|