CatLABS X FILM 320 35mm has finally arrived

[pmargolis]

This gentleman seems to have "proof" that the film is really Eastman 5222 Double X:

https://figitalrevolution.com/2019/05/06/catlabs-x-film-320-is-kodak-5222-double-x/

I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm just passing on something that I found when I was looking for information on the film.

 

[Agulliver]

A film offered as "ISO xyz" must comply regarding that sensitivity to the film sensitivity measured based on the ISO standard.

That such is not always handled this way, one can see at the case of Film Ferrania who admitted here at Apug not even to have done an ISO testing, and who tried to evade this by designating the respective film with an "ASA" designation arguing that such no longer having a legal implication.

As I understand it, the ISO organisation themselves take a *very* dim view of anyone using their moniker for products which do not match up to the quoted or relevant ISO standard. Anyone selling a film at "ISO 320" must be ready to provide evidence that it does so. Now 320 isn't much different to 400 especially when developers are taking into account...but one cannot simply take an film of one ISO "speed" and pass it of as another.

My late father chaired several (non-photography) BS, CEN and ISO technical committees for three decades up to 2008. Things could have changed since but I am doubtful.

 

[AgX]

There are consumer rights and there are laws on stating product characteristics, especially when standards are hinted at. I do not see why Americans or enthusiastic entrepreneurs may stand aside of that when other firms have to keep conform.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

At the risk of displaying my ignorance... Who the *^$@ cares? It’s film, it’s available, try it out. If you don’t like it don’t buy it. Spend your time in the process, not on naysaying. The fact that there are companies still trying to provide analogue film products is a cause for celebration, not %^&*()&^%$#%^)*@#$$%+__(!!!

 

[jim appleyard]

At the risk of displaying my ignorance... Who the *^$@ cares? It’s film, it’s available, try it out. If you don’t like it don’t buy it. Spend your time in the process, not on naysaying. The fact that there are companies still trying to provide analogue film products is a cause for celebration, not %^&*()&^%$#%^)*@#$$%+__(!!!

You missed the whole point, obviously.

 

[Agulliver]

How reputable is the "figital revolution" site? They're displaying a photo which purports to be CatLabs 320 film, and it's edge markings identify it clearly as Eastman/Kodak XX. Has anyone else noticed this?

As for ISO....it is important because the box identifies the film as "ISO 320/21". They literally cannot lawfully print this unless the film conforms to the ISO standard, and ISO do take standards and misuse of their name *very* seriously. For most practical purposes, one could certainly take an ISO 400 film and tell an end user to use it at 320. But to actually print "ISO 320/21" on the box means more.

 

[BrianShaw]

“As for ISO....it is important because the box identifies the film as "ISO 320/21". They literally cannot lawfully print this unless the film conforms to the ISO standard, ...”

Please educate me. What law legislates that?

 

[KN4SMF]

Man, these Catlab people have really taken a grilling over this.

 

[bascom49]

At the risk of displaying my ignorance... Who the *^$@ cares? It’s film, it’s available, try it out. If you don’t like it don’t buy it. Spend your time in the process, not on naysaying. The fact that there are companies still trying to provide analogue film products is a cause for celebration, not %^&*()&^%$#%^)*@#$$%+__(!!!

Exactly, well said.

 

[bascom49]

You missed the whole point, obviously.

This thread started as an announcement that CatLABS has brought a film to market, and we should use it, try it, and see how we like it. You know, have fun and actually be a photographer. Thats the point, not all this trite conversation about ISO and conspiracy theories as to who coats film... perhaps you missed the point....
that we’re supposed to be out shooting film, developing, printing, sharing, and supporting our community.

It’s threads like this one that are starting to become more and more prevalent that cause me to question the value of spending time on this web site at all.

Check out the digital side of APUG, not nearly the amount of backbiting and negativity.

 

[jim appleyard]

It’s threads like this one that are starting to become more and more prevalent that cause me to question the value of spending time on this web site at all.

Check out the digital side of APUG, not nearly the amount of backbiting and negativity.

Then move along...

 

[pentaxuser]

Consumers and that is us and others who buy films just need to be sure that what they are getting as a new film is a new film. CATLABS would appear to be a small company to be able to produce film, based on what locals to New Jersey have said about it. However it might have the resources to commission and pay for a new emulsion but this is far from clear and CATLABS do not want to engage us by answering questions which is their right. However I would have thought that there were enough grounds to be sceptical about it being a new film and surely armed with what we know, there are grounds for questions to be asked. .

Speaking only for myself and using Kentmere as an example I would be very unhappy if I had bought what is Kentmere or any other film as a new film but paid a lot more for it only realise I had gained nothing for my money. Yes we should celebrate new films and the growth in the range of films but they have to be new don't they? Otherwise we are living in a fool's paradise, aren't we? I see no advantage for me in living there.

pentaxuser

 

[foc]

Consumers and that is us and others who buy films just need to be sure that what they are getting as a new film is a new film. CATLABS would appear to be a small company to be able to produce film, based on what locals to New Jersey have said about it. However it might have the resources to commission and pay for a new emulsion but this is far from clear and CATLABS do not want to engage us by answering questions which is their right. However I would have thought that there were enough grounds to be sceptical about it being a new film and surely armed with what we know, there are grounds for questions to be asked. .

Speaking only for myself and using Kentmere as an example I would be very unhappy if I had bought what is Kentmere or any other film as a new film but paid a lot more for it only realise I had gained nothing for my money. Yes we should celebrate new films and the growth in the range of films but they have to be new don't they? Otherwise we are living in a fool's paradise, aren't we? I see no advantage for me in living there.

pentaxuser

+1

 

[bascom49]

Then move along...

Certainly, thank you for making my point.

 

[BrianShaw]

Man, these Catlab people have really taken a grilling over this.

Isn’t it pitiful... and a bit of an embarrassment.

 

[mshchem]

“As for ISO....it is important because the box identifies the film as "ISO 320/21". They literally cannot lawfully print this unless the film conforms to the ISO standard, ...”

Please educate me. What law legislates that?

I agree, ISO sets standards, they don't certify a product complies. I've never seen 3rd party certification on film. . Marketing opportunities for UL, CSA, etc.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If it's Kodak Double-X then that's fine by me!

 

[Pioneer]

If it's Kodak Double-X then that's fine by me!

I tend to agree with this.

Actually I wasn't too interested in this when it was introduced as I already have a few too many films to really become expert using any of them (not that I qualify as an expert.) I have actually been trying to cut back on what I have available to use for this very reason.

However, now that I have seen the Figital Revolution post I am going to have to call Omer and have him ship me a roll just so I can check to see if it actually has Eastman Kodak 522 printed on the rebate.

By the way Omer, congrats on the film introduction. I hope it works out for you. Of all the posts entered here I haven't noticed anyone who is posting, except Jason of course, who is actually doing the same.

It would also be kind of nice if someone would test a few rolls and post some results that would give us an idea of what we may be able to accomplish if we did decided to use it.

 

[removed account4]

How reputable is the "figital revolution" site?

stephen schuab is very reputable. knows a lot about a lot, AND he's a nice guy too ! that's like the triple threat ..

 

[Ten301]

Possibly the same film?
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/192138-Imago-320-ISO-35mm-x-36-exp.

 

[Agulliver]

stephen schuab is very reputable. knows a lot about a lot, AND he's a nice guy too ! that's like the triple threat ..

I hadn't come across the site before....so...if CatLabs are actually using XX with the original edge markings intact....that would kind of clinch it.

 

[KN4SMF]

Actually they could very well have acquired an old web press like an old 4 color Royal Zenith and hired a hot shot mechanic to rework it to coat film. I have a good buddy who has made a lifetime career and done pretty well for himself at just this kind of thing. In fact I haven't heard from my buddy David in about 8 months. Quite possibly he might be up north on a job. If I know him, it could be this one. He always was best at these super complicated machine jobs.

 

[Ian Grant]

In all the arguement of ISO speeds lets remember that in fact there's two ISO speds for every film a Daylight ISO and a Tungsten light ISO, this can vary in difference depending of the spectral sensitivity of the films.

No-one complained about the old EFKE (Adox) films speeds. The slowest film EFKE Kb/R/Pl 14 was initially named for its Tunsten DIN speed, this was later changed to Kb/R/Pl 25 the Tungsten ASA speed, however the Daylight speed was 40/50 ASA. This was important at a time when Tungsten studio lighting was common, in recent years Ilford have stopped listing the Tungsten seeds of most of their films.

There are exceptions, films like Ilford Orto Plus still list the Daylight and Tungsten speeds, and because the slower EFKE films were ortho-panchromatic with a reduced red sensitivity the company chose to use the Tungsten speed.

In addition we need to remember the ISO speed has two components the ASA/BS speed and the DIN speed and the standard allows testing by one or the other, so FP4 has an ISO of 125/22º and specifically adds "Daylight", my old data=sheets give a Tungsten speed of 80. Kodak had the ASA component relaxed to allow more practical testing when Tmax films were introduced, they would fail the older standard.

There was a time I was shooting EFKE Pl25 and Tmax 100 both at 50EI, also APX100 at 100E all in DaylightI, then processing the films for the same time often alongside each other in the same JOBO tank, all would print on the same grade paper.

Ian

 

[AgX]

Actually they could very well have acquired an old web press like an old 4 color Royal Zenith and hired a hot shot mechanic to rework it to coat film. I have a good buddy who has made a lifetime career and done pretty well for himself at just this kind of thing. In fact I haven't heard from my buddy David in about 8 months. Quite possibly he might be up north on a job. If I know him, it could be this one. He always was best at these super complicated machine jobs.

A web press is quite different from a modern coating line. Though I do not exclude that in the end it would work. But designing an emulsion, building a coating line from scrap, making the emulsion, doing the coating, then the converting and the packaging would need more than a hot shot mechanic, and the question remains whether, until a competive product is yielded, it will cost more than having it toll-manufactured.
But we already have seen projects of small coating lines, so you might give your friend a call.

 

[removed account4]

I hadn't come across the site before....so...if CatLabs are actually using XX with the original edge markings intact....that would kind of clinch it.

his website is a good read, and his older website ( if you can find it in the way back machine ) is great too....
personally regarding the big mystery of what the film is or isn't, im in the "who cares" camp .. its film, its good film, and the former brand really shouldn't matter. if people want it to stick around
they should buy it and shoot it and repeat the process. 5222, superxx, era, a master roll of forte found in a mountain, old panx or plus x aero film, a boutique coated master of efke100
.. whatever, who cares! can't believe people are so not nice .. catlabs has don't a great thing if you ask me..
personally, i am hoping they or someone starts making ortho film in sheets and big spools like 1900.
YYMVFTSITW