CatLABS X FILM 320 35mm has finally arrived

[pentaxuser]

Well we may have reached at least once conclusion, admittedly only based on a couple of unequivocal posts, namely that CATLABS do not have the facilities to apply an emulsion. So that leaves three options, I think.
1 The film's emulsion has been commissioned by CATLABS and produced by a film maker who has such facilities and is a new film
2. It is an existing current emulsion, is available from another maker under another name and thus meets the definition of rebranding
3. It is an existing but not current emulsion. Rolls of the film in storage have been sold to CATLABS and have given another name. This might be a new film in the sense of a return to the market of a film that was once current.

In addition and based on CATLABS statement the film has no connection to FOMA. So we can rule out any chance that FOMA is involved

In pursuing this whole topic I am simply trying with the help of fellow Photrioers to get to the facts that will help form a decision on whether we have a new film or not. I have no other ulterior motive. If this all seems very strange on my part that's fine as well. Just be glad in that case that I do not live next door.


pentaxuser

 

[OrientPoint]

The facts seem simple to me:

1. CatLabs is not coating film. They're a smallish camera store in Boston, not an industrial concern.
2. CatLabs is repackaging existing films.
3. These films may or may not be Shanghai GP3, Eastman XX and/or other stocks.
4. They're definitely not creating a new magical stock the likes of which the world has never seen. Whatever is in the box is almost certainly an existing stock that you might have used in the past.

GP3, Eastman XX, etc are all great films. There's nothing wrong with CatLabs repackaging and selling them. But they're not being transparent about the nature of what they're selling. Why would I buy CatLabs and guess? How can we even be sure that CatLabs is the same emulsion over time? If I want XX I can buy it from Film Photography Project labelled as such. GP3 is easy to find too, in a box that says GP3.

The Japan Camera Hunter film is another version of this. JCH is a camera broker, not a film coating enterprise. He's selling re-boxed film, just like CatLabs. But he's very clear about what he's doing and what's in the tin. No one ever has to ask if he's coating it or guess if it's some random spool of cine film shoved into cartridges.

 

[removed account4]

It's always good to know what's actually in the box.

yup, and whats in the box is catlabs x 320

 

[pentaxuser]

yup, and whats in the box is catlabs x 320

So to make matters really interesting and further this discussion, do I move in next door to you or do you move in next door to me
Actually, it may not work as I suspect neither of us is "uptight" enough

pentaxuser

 

[foc]

The Japan Camera Hunter film is another version of this. JCH is a camera broker, not a film coating enterprise. He's selling re-boxed film, just like CatLabs. But he's very clear about what he's doing and what's in the tin. No one ever has to ask if he's coating it or guess if it's some random spool of cine film shoved into cartridges.

Very well said.
Transparency kills speculation.

 

[MattKing]

I think a lot of posters here are underestimating the ability of suppliers like Harman to make and coat custom emulsions, to a customer's specifications.

 

[John Galt]

I think a lot of posters here are underestimating the ability of suppliers like Harman to make and coat custom emulsions, to a customer's specifications.

Two thumbs up!!

In one conversation with Omer it was indicated that the 120 80 ISO was indeed ~deliberately formulated~ to emulate the classic Kodak Panatomic X. It as much as says this on the CatLabs website.

 

[faberryman]

In one conversation with Omer it was indicated that the 120 80 ISO was indeed ~deliberately formulated~ to emulate the classic Kodak Panatomic X. It as much as says this on the CatLabs website.

The only redeeming feature of Panatomic-X was that it was fine grained. Otherwise it yielded flat negatives.

 

[John Galt]

The only redeeming feature of Panatomic-X was that it was fine grained. Otherwise it yielded flat negatives.

not for me . . .

 

[pentaxuser]

I think a lot of posters here are underestimating the ability of suppliers like Harman to make and coat custom emulsions, to a customer's specifications.

That may be the case but clearly Harman has the skills and facilities to do this and I never thought otherwise. My interest was in what is the likely cost of this and is this a feasible investment for CATLABS to have made vis a vis the danger that it may not make a profit. I cannot quite work out why CATLABS or indeed any other new film "commissioner" would not want to say it has commissioned a new emulsion to its specs that it believe will meet a market need that currently is not being met but is desired by film consumers. If CATLABS is seen to have taken a chance on a new film that has a financial risk for it then that adds to its reputation, doesn't it?

This admission gives no secrets away, except that of admitting that it does not have its own facilities to do in house what it has commissioned.

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

I think a lot of posters here are underestimating the ability of suppliers like Harman to make and coat custom emulsions, to a customer's specifications.

But maybe some underestimate the amount of money to be spent on such. Minimum tollmanufactured area varies between manufacturer, also to be taken into account are development costs for the emulsion unless taken out of stock of ready to coat formulas.

And that not only has to be financed in advanced but also sold. For large established retailers as Fotoimpex or Maco that likely would be easier than a still niche dealer.

 

[faberryman]

If it is just Shanghai film in a different box, there are no additional costs other than packaging. At $9/roll, there is profit to be made.

 

[Agulliver]

Harman and Shanghai may well offer to coat film for others....but I doubt it has "Eastman XX" in the rebate....unless that post was some sort of a joke.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

The only redeeming feature of Panatomic-X was that it was fine grained. Otherwise it yielded flat negatives.

Gee, glad you are such an expert. Any more photographic pearls of wisdom?

 

[Eric Rose]

Gee, glad you are such an expert. Any more photographic pearls of wisdom?

Actually he's right.

 

[Wallendo]

It is not uncommon for film resellers to be quite secretive about their films' origins. Sometimes it is for marketing reasons, and other times it may be due to contract terms where the films actual manufacturer will not allow its identity to be revealed.

Photo Warehouse won't tell us who manufactures their UltraFine Xtreme line - many assume it is Harmon based on the films look, but there has never been any confirmation I know of.
A lot of Lomography's films are of unknown origin, although the LomoChrome films are definitely "new" films.

I find the new film interesting as a matter of curiosity. What about this film makes it more suitable for use than the films made by Kodak and Harmon which are available at a lower price.
From it's description
"
• An ideal “street film”, offering versatility and unique characteristics

• Characterized by its distinct grain quality, contrast and tonal range, not found with other traditional films

• Produces unique deep grey tones with an almost silvery/metallic look"

What exactly are it's unique characteristics, what is distinct about its grain quality, and how does a silvery/metallic looking negative affect the eventual print or scan?
Unfortunately, I do not have enough free time to do these studies myself, and look forward to someone else reporting his experiences with this film.

 

[faberryman]

I have no interest in "testing" all the "new" films that come on the market. None are going to make me a better photographer. There are already plenty of films out there with known provenance. And generally cheaper too.

 

[BrianShaw]

Here’s an executive summary of my future book, “Film testing made easy.” Buy a couple rolls of film. Shoot at box speed, preferably in “A” mode or using the exposure setting recommended by meter. Send out for processing. Look at negs... if you like what you see then either the film meets the test goal or the subject/composition is really good.

 

[AgX]

Life can't be that easy.

 

[BrianShaw]

Life can't be that easy.

Sometimes it can be that easy. With all of the hate and heartache in this world I’m trying to simplify a few things to increase instant gratification without making others miserable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here’s an executive summary of my future book, “Film testing made easy.” Buy a couple rolls of film. Shoot at box speed, preferably in “A” mode or using the exposure setting recommended by meter. Send out for processing. Look at negs... if you like what you see then either the film meets the test goal or the subject/composition is really good.

Life can't be that easy.

It is really that easy and a good starting place.

 

[removed account4]

Here’s an executive summary of my future book, “Film testing made easy.” Buy a couple rolls of film. Shoot at box speed, preferably in “A” mode or using the exposure setting recommended by meter. Send out for processing. Look at negs... if you like what you see then either the film meets the test goal or the subject/composition is really good.

dude people have trouble with simple, it has to be as complicated as possible, you know like adamesque.
the whole need on knowing what the film is i don't get, its like having a liver crisis because well, you didn't
know what the "special sauce" was on a big mac ... its "special sauce" just like this stuff is " iso 320 film"

 

[Pioneer]

That may be the case but clearly Harman has the skills and facilities to do this and I never thought otherwise. My interest was in what is the likely cost of this and is this a feasible investment for CATLABS to have made vis a vis the danger that it may not make a profit. I cannot quite work out why CATLABS or indeed any other new film "commissioner" would not want to say it has commissioned a new emulsion to its specs that it believe will meet a market need that currently is not being met but is desired by film consumers. If CATLABS is seen to have taken a chance on a new film that has a financial risk for it then that adds to its reputation, doesn't it?

This admission gives no secrets away, except that of admitting that it does not have its own facilities to do in house what it has commissioned.

pentaxuser

This sounds so sweet and simple but everyone here knows that it really doesn't work that way. The minute something like that is said it is just like chumming the sharks (been watching Shark Week on Discovery. ) Posts pop up like wildfire with people wanting all the nitty gritty details, oftentimes details that can't be divulged. When all this information isn't forthcoming then people get even more upset. "You told us this much why won't you tell us all the rest?" As if that would really make any difference.

What IS useful is for the potential user to buy a few rolls and do some testing of their own. Forget this amorphous "market need." Does it seem to meet YOUR needs? If it doesn't then move on. If it does then great. Buy some more and put it to use. Communicate your results and your workflow to add to the common database and information around the film. As time goes on and people learn more from actual use then we will find whether or not the film itself is a success.

But as is common, no one want to do that footwork for themselves. Instead, just like the uncountable number of requests for "the best film" that seem to pop up on this very forum, people actually want someone else to do the research for them and then provide the answers. Of course we all know that it doesn't really work out that way, but the continual search for the perfect emulsion, the perfect developer, the perfect camera, continues on ad infinitum.

Catlabs has taken the initial steps and has assumed the financial risk of bringing this product to the market. They have provided some specifications and some initial developing information. Now it is up to us to decide if it is really something we want or need. In most cases I think that people are more concerned about whether or not they can get it cheaper elsewhere not whether or not it is actually useful for them.

Right now I am pretty happy with TMX100, JCH Streetpan and AEU400 so am not really in the market for another film. With others it may be different. I hope they choose to explore this option and communicate some of their experiences.

 

[mshchem]

I just looked on B&H. There was 1 question about the Catlabs 320 35mm. Where is it made? Answer from Moe at B&H, made in USA. I would say that narrows it down somewhat.

 

[mshchem]

Easy way to try Eastman Double X without needing to buy a 400 foot roll. Everyone went crazy over the Ferrania cine film. Here's a chance to try something similar without all the begging and quality problems.