CatLABS X FILM 320 (35mm) and 80 (120)

mshchem · Apr 15, 2019

Ah! Sweet mystery of life
At last I've found thee
Ah! I know at last the secret of it all;
All the longing, seeking, striving, waiting, yearning

Bronson Dugnutt · Apr 15, 2019

Bronson Dugnutt said:
CatLabs X 80 120 @ 80 (and the last @ 50 under strobes) in a Pentax 6x7 w/ 90mm f2.8 LS. Exposed as per in-camera meter outdoors; f8 1/60s with studio strobes at lowest power. Developed in 1+50 Rodinol for 15 minutes, tapered agitation.

Extremely thin, clear film base. Easy to load onto the development reel and no curling during drying. Seems to struggle with toe speed in daylight with the development process above. Positively imperceptible grain. Shoot this in the studio @ 50 ISO.

Meow7 · Apr 17, 2019

I realize they say it's not re-spooled Ferrania P30, but' that's what it reminds me of...

Peter Schrager · Apr 17, 2019

Meow7 said:
I realize they say it's not re-spooled Ferrania P30, but' that's what it reminds me of...

Not even close...I've used this not the other but not close...the Chinese film is smooth

cmacd123 · Apr 26, 2019

got a few rolls, looks a bit Chinese. BUT paper is smother and better printed than the GP3 I used to get. Start band is still masking tape. Probably be about a month before I can test further. web site lists "HC-110 Dilution b (1+31) - 8:45 min" which is a fairly long time. (HP5 is 5 minutes by comparison.) and does not match anything (sensible) in the massive developing chart. ((only film shown with that time is a 400 Speed.))

Peter Schrager · Apr 26, 2019

Peter Schrager said:
Not even close...I've used this not the other but not close...the Chinese film is smooth

What I'm referring to is ATOMIC-X

Bronson Dugnutt · Apr 27, 2019

Here's a sample set of the film exposed @ ISO 400. Development was 30 minutes in Rodinal 1+50. The negatives were extremely thin for the most part, and all the images below are heavy modified post-scan to recover the shadows. The first image has some processing artifacts that are my fault, not the film coating. I would only shoot at 400 under tightly controlled conditions and/or low contrast lighting and probably adjust development time upwards. Going to try a roll at 160 next.

BAC1967 · Apr 27, 2019

This was a long exposure, I was just guessing on the time. It would be nice to know the reciprocity, some of my other long exposure shots were quite underexposed from what I was expecting. This was developed in beer so that seems to work good. I need to mess around with it some more before I decide how much I Really like it.

Nizo Heliomatic Trifo by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

mshchem · Apr 27, 2019

BAC1967 said:
This was a long exposure, I was just guessing on the time. It would be nice to know the reciprocity, some of my other long exposure shots were quite underexposed from what I was expecting. This was developed in beer so that seems to work good. I need to mess around with it some more before I decide how much I Really like it.

Nizo Heliomatic Trifo by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

That's certainly a beautiful result. Must make the beer taste funny after development.

John Galt · Apr 28, 2019

I have several 120 rolls I purchased. The one thing I immediately noticed was the masking tape and that the backing paper is very thin and prone to tearing. I accidentally ripped the leader off removing the masking tape. I do like the look in the images posted above. I have a roll loaded in the Hasselblad 500 C/M and will be shooting it today. I will post up scans when I process it hopefully in a day or two. Probably will be developing in D-76, maybe ADOX Rodinol . . we will see.

Bronson Dugnutt · Apr 28, 2019

Some shots @ ISO 160 in Rodinal 1+50 21 minutes. The grain structure just starts to show here, but nothing too obtrusive.

Peter Schrager · Apr 28, 2019

this film always seems to look flat or is it my imagination??

Bronson Dugnutt · Apr 29, 2019

Yes, it is your imagination. Calibrate your monitor.

Michael Teresko · Apr 29, 2019

Exposed at 80 with an Agfa Super Isolette developed in Spur HRX 1:17 for 13.25 minutes at 20C

Coliseum Way by Michael Teresko, on Flickr

Michael Teresko · Apr 29, 2019

Another from the same roll...

190427-1 by Michael Teresko, on Flickr

John Galt · Apr 30, 2019

Developed my first roll in Rodinol 1+25 for 10 minutes. The negs look absolutely brilliant. I am very excited. Will scan and post a few tomorrow.

John Galt · May 1, 2019

Here are two shots from the first roll of 120 80 ISO. I will be ordering more. I have some expired Panatomic X that has been kept refrigerated. I will be doing a side by side comparison soon. I am no expert but have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express several times . The film is a little narrower than others, drys very flat which is nice. I do not like the backing paper at all.

It was a dark and gray day with showers, in the 40s. Shot with Hasselblad 500 C/M, 60mm Distagon, yellow filter, 1/2 second @ f14 on a tripod with cable release.

Peter Schrager · May 3, 2019

John Galt said:
Here are two shots from the first roll of 120 80 ISO. I will be ordering more. I have some expired Panatomic X that has been kept refrigerated. I will be doing a side by side comparison soon. I am no expert but have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express several times . The film is a little narrower than others, drys very flat which is nice. I do not like the backing paper at all.

It was a dark and gray day with showers, in the 40s. Shot with Hasselblad 500 C/M, 60mm Distagon, yellow filter, 1/2 second @ f14 on a tripod with cable release.

View attachment 222709 View attachment 222710

Why would u bother to compare to panatomic x
That's a waste of time since there is NO film like that available....???
Dont understand

Pieter12 · May 3, 2019

Maybe because he thinks it might be similar enough to use as he would Panatomic X, but with a higher ISO rating?

John Galt · May 3, 2019

Peter Schrager said:
Why would u bother to compare to panatomic x
That's a waste of time since there is NO film like that available....???
Dont understand

Umm . . Maybe because the distributor markets it as similar to Panatomic X?? Hence the name: CatLAB X??

If YOU consider it a waste of time then why bring YOUR negativity to this thread?? Maybe there is NOW a film like that available??

Do your research before being a thread shitter.

For your elucidation: (Ignorance is a choice) https://www.catlabs.info/product/catlabs-x-film-80-120

John Galt · May 3, 2019

Pieter12 said:
Maybe because he thinks it might be similar enough to use as he would Panatomic X, but with a higher ISO rating?

Thank you Pieter12

Kodachromeguy · May 3, 2019

Peter Schrager said:
Why would u bother to compare to panatomic x
That's a waste of time since there is NO film like that available....???
Dont understand

Because the manufacturer compared this new film to Panatomic-X, why do you think? Where are you going with your comment or what is the end goal?

MattKing · May 3, 2019

I think people are being a bit harsh - Peter did ask it as a question, and did indicate that he didn't understand why John Galt made the choice he did.
Now he knows.
John Galt's test was as much a test of Catlab's representation of the film as it was of the film itself.

Sirius Glass · May 3, 2019

John Galt said:
Umm . . Maybe because the distributor markets it as similar to Panatomic X?? Hence the name: CatLAB X??

If YOU consider it a waste of time then why bring YOUR negativity to this thread?? Maybe there is NOW a film like that available??

Do your research before being a thread shitter.

For your elucidation: (Ignorance is a choice) https://www.catlabs.info/product/catlabs-x-film-80-120

Comparing it to Plus X is about as useful as comparing to tin plate. There is no useful nor logical reason to do that. Examine the new film based on its merits and drawbacks on its own. Do you destructively compare your children but laying their report card down and examining them side by side? So cruel to the children!

John Galt · May 3, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
Comparing it to Plus X is about as useful as comparing to tin plate. There is no useful nor logical reason to do that. Examine the new film based on its merits and drawbacks on its own. Do you destructively compare your children but laying their report card down and examining them side by side? So cruel to the children!

SG, your treatise is invalid . . . Tin Plate?? The Distributor is comparing it to Panatomic X . . . Not comparing it to Plus X . . . or Tin Plate

. . . . I am comparing it to Panatomic X as per the Marketing Verbiage of the products distributor. If the Distributor is making the claim that it is similar to Panatomic X then a comparison is justified and warranted, No??

CatLABS X FILM 320 (35mm) and 80 (120)

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency