Flexibility. Readily available.

Washed out highlights. Black shadows. Low contrast (without manipulation) Grainy when used as directed. There is just so many better options that I wouldn't recommend this to anyone for anything.

I don't know what all of the talk about C-41 processing is because this film, well, isn't. Hmm... should I listen to what people who don't even know what film they're reviewing? No. That being said - One word: Ug. Some day I will understand why photo teachers push this stuff like it is the film to end all films. Maybe. It washes out highlights, makes shadows pure black. It kills the detail, the subtlety, the emotion of any photo. Grain is horrible for a 400 speed film unless used and developed at ISO 100. If I were going to do that I would just buy 100 speed film. Simply put, there are better B&Ws out there, so why use something that’s –almost– good. I used this stuff almost exclusively for my entire first year of photography (10th grade, oh so long ago). I thought that I was a horrible photographer. I mean, how in the world could professionals get all of that detail, that feeling, that wow. Then, on a whim, I picked up a pack of a different black and white. It was like a whole different world. I haven't used this stuff since.

Customer Service

Standard documentation provided on website.

Similar Products Used:

HP5 & Delta, Tri-X

can't think of any

expensive grainy difficult to control

Sorry, I hate this film. It is excessively grainy and has very poor tonal rendition.. Highlights get washed out and shadows dump to black. and in evenly lit situations the grain structure looks sand. I tried blowing 6x4.5 negatives up to 16x20 with terrible results.

Customer Service

none needed

Similar Products Used:

Tri-X, Agfa 400, HP-5

Fantastic grain. Good in low light. When shot it brightly lit situations the high values tend to block a little, but in, say, cloudy-partly cloudy light the shadows and highlights have great detail. Works really well w/35mm and long lenses, you can blow the pictures up to at least 8x10 with excellent grain. I was amazed at the difference the first time I went to it.

Picky when it comes to developing. Kind of expensive, depending where you get it.

What are you people using? TMY400 is NOT c-41 film. Use B+W chemistry. I think only a few reviews picked up on that.

Customer Service

Kodak has very well documented information on development of the film.

Similar Products Used:

TriX, TMX100

Good price, and great results if printed at a reputable Lab, if you get results as the previous user, dont give up, try another lab, you will glad that you did! Skin tones are great, flash photo's are sweet, no grain at 6x4 (have not had enlargements made, but I dont think grain is an issue with this film)

Have any film processed at Rabit photo (a cheap and very, very nasty lab) and you will get nasty results..simple! Pay a few dollars more and only joy will result

In the last 3 years I have used Techpan (very expensive to process as I can only use Pro labs in Melbourne, as B+W -that is Techpan- processing is not offered in the average lab, and even Pro labs are reluctant to process it) a number of times with my Contax TVS II and the results were awesome!! The previous reviewer of the TMax 400 was very negative in his comments, and I too have experienced his angst the first time I had this film developed... The prints were not even close to looking like B+W, yes there were green tinge's, and that fake B+W, processed in colour developer look. My disappointment was even worse since I had just received my Techpan prints (5x7 prints of the Shrine of Remembrance -which I only recently learned I was NOT supposed to photograph...DOH! - taken at 2am in the morning, at 5 minute + exposures -I was pulling numbers out of thin air!!- and they were great) So I left Kodak T400 TMax,C41 alone for 6 months due to my disappointment. Recently I have purchased (due to my Mamiya 6x6 gear getting stolen - if I ever catch the B******d.... but I digress..again) a Canon EOS 30 with 28-70 2.8 L lens, so I thought I might try the film again, but this time had it processed at a Semi Pro lab (pay a bit more as the results are a revelation) and I am impressed!! This film is sensational!! My suggestion for best results, for that true to B+W look, have the film processed at a Pro or semi Pro lab (the ones with digital processing are the best, but pricey) and you will never look back! P.S If your lab has the option to have your prints printed with a Black border, go for it!!! White borders have that pro look, however Black borders, either on colour or B+W prints are sensational, the prints sell them self’s….try it out; you will never use a white border again!

Customer Service

For film? why bother...?

Similar Products Used:

Techpan (35mm and 120), The Kodak 1600 speed B+W (I love grain)

Nice Grain, very smooth and crisp.
Has good contrast.
Easy to develop and cheap to shoot.

Watch out who develops it. Can be brown, or sepia. Sometimes green.
Lack of respect from hardcore Photoheads, for using c-41 B&W.:-)

If you MUST develop 1hr take to Walgreens they do T400CN right (hard to believe, but it is). No brown, sepia. Just B&W!!

Customer Service

never use it

Similar Products Used:

ILFORD XP-2
T-MAX 400

wide tonal range, quick standardized processing (C-41)

can sometimes be *too* low in contrast

This is a chromogenic b+w film which is processed in C-41 color neg chemistry. It has a very long tonal range, and very low contrast, and because of that it can be exposed at a wide range of ISO values and still yield good results. (That also means that you have to screw up the exposure quite a bit before you get something unprintable.)

The C-41 processing is convenient, of course, but the best part is that it is standardized. As long as the processor takes reasonable care, C-41 processing is the same everywhere -- you don't have to worry about a lab tech getting the temps, or the dilutions, or the agitation wrong.

This film can be printed on standard black+white papers in the darkroom, where you will probably want to start with a higher grade of paper or v/c filter than you normally would. It makes beautiful prints, especially of people, especially if you tend towards overexposure of the neg, and particularly if you use it in 120. One advantage of chromogenic film is that the image is made up of dye clouds, rather than silver, in the emulsion. Overexposure leads to smooth highlight tones and virtually grainless midtones -- no more of that mottled sky from trying to print through all that silver.

You can, of course, get this film printed on color paper at the local 1-hour lab. If you want to do this, my advice would be to find a lab that has done it, or is willing to learn. Otherwise you'll be constantly dealing with very slight, but annoying, differences in color balance between prints.

Finally, and this is the best part for me, this film scans beautifully -- much better than normal b+w film. Since all of our b+w is scanned in-house for publication, this is a terrific advantage. I can scan directly from the negs without needing to make prints first, which can save a huge amount of time.

Similar Products Used:

XP-2

C-41 processing. Up here it is $20 to get 36 prints developed b/w. This costs $4 at a supermarket lab. Need I say more. If done right (yes when it was first done everyone screwed it up) you can get fine results. (Been working with same lab for awhile now and they look great.

Printer who trained to process film next to the McDonalds (Walmart, hahaha). People who know what they are doing-none.

What are you using it for? Amature or Pro Work. As I've stated if the printer knows his way around the secpia tones can be eliminated from "automated" c-41 machines (looks great with a boder too). But as stated below, for any repoduction work get them to print on b/w paper. Have had wonderfull results.

Customer Service

See my other reviews in Royal Gold 400.

Similar Products Used:

Not many b/w as of cost.

It can be printed onto color paper (which reduces processing fees).

"Sepia" tones when printed onto color paper.

A great film for someone looking to dabble in B & W photography.

Customer Service

never needed

Similar Products Used:

Kodak TriX

Quick turnaround, mix with C neg film at one Lab. Incredible Latitude, shoot at ASA 100n for no grain at all or at ASA 1600 for some grain, push +1.5

No pronounced hghlights or shadows, i'm missing the punchline of the film that makes bw interesting in the first place.

If you're just bringing one bw film on locationthis is it, but you need a good sense of your contrast situation, the more the better, be patient and test different pushs to what suit your needs and a very good (BW)printer. I shoot that film with Kodak 160NC with the same exposure, than in the next situation with 400NC with the same rating and it works great.

Customer Service

Best in the field, quick to answer, fully loaded website

Similar Products Used:

Other classic Kodaks, Neopan 400, Apx 25-400,

c-41 process

c-41 process (the strength is its weakness). There is obviously not enough consistancy in the c-41 process to achieve repeatable, or even acceptable results (even Kodak processors can't get it right). The ONLY reason to use this film is the c-41 process - all other b&w films give superior results. So if you need quick and lousy b&w prints from your 1-hour processor, this is the film for you. Also, for you darkroom folks, the negatives take 3 times the exposure that conventional films require - a situation that could fog your enlarging paper.

Don't.

Customer Service

As good as the film

Similar Products Used:

All conventional Kodak b&w films (Tri-x, TMax 100, 400, 3200)