CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro now available in 35mm and 120
-
A
- Thread starter CatLABS
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Manfrotto 502AH Pro Video Head
- Started by Barlow
-
Sold Light Impressions Archival Slide Storage Boxes
- Started by Jon Shiu
-
For Sale SPECIAL BOXED SET OF 14 PHOTOGRAPHS 1972
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Ricohflex TLR CAMERA
- Started by Peter Schrager
Forum statistics
It makes complete sense to me. I'd wager it does to at least some others as well. But you have to know what EI and ISO mean and the difference between them.
Almost certainly most Portra 400 is shot at box speed, because most is shot by people who just load film and shoot and don't read Internet sites or books about film photography and exposure.
Most color negative film can benefit from a little more than box speed exposure, but I wouldn't and don't routinely shoot it at 200. More like 320, maybe 250. It's perfectly good at 400 too of course. Some is down to the meter you use and how you use it.
I agree completely. I tend to give negative film a little extra exposure. I was looking over the Leica site tonight, they say the same thing. I have used a lot of Portra 160, it used to be less expensive than 400. I do most of my color work in daylight so speed isn't a big deal.
If the light is really flat I usually over develop black and white negatives just to (try to) add a little contrast
I take it to mean that Catlabs haven't been able to do all the tests in an ISO certified lab, so they cannot put "ISO 320" or "320 ISO" on the box. But they feel they are legally able to put "EI ISO 320".
In much the same way, Film Ferrania use "80ASA" because they haven't been able to ISO certify the film.
That's my take. Could be wrong. What would I know....my dad only chaired a bunch of ISO committees for twenty years...
Seems entirely plausible that a 320 film could give results that some find more pleasing at 200. If it's really more like 25 using the recommended processing chemistry and techniques.then something is wrong somewhere.
ASA film sensitivity designation then must be based on the ASA standard.
Someone for whatever reason not being able to designate to ISO standard hardly would be able to do so to ASA standard either.
Standards, like ISO and national standards, are VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS, not law. None ever had “legal status” per se. They are all recommend but can only be made a legal requirement via a procurement contract.
To cite compliance with a standard one must comply, in part or in full. For some, such as Quality Assurance there might be certification programs available to aid in credibility and voluntary compliance but those, also, voluntary.
Standards are more about following the process (or normative clauses) in the standards and documentation than using “certified labs”. You Dad would know this because it’s written in the front-end boilerplate of each standard.
If you are asking about ASA vs ISO standard, few would use a superseded standard. That could be injurious to reputatio even if there are no injurious effects on the product. But it’s not unheard of because updating even corporate process documents costs money.
Last edited:
TechPan had a wide ISO ( ASA back then ) from 12 to 200 and people liked it. Tri-x had 7stops. I think the protestors should buy film keep small companies that are progressive alive instead of complaining the ISO isn't what they want it to be or labelled the way they like it.
You may mix up two things:
The legal implementation of a standard in the meaning that things have to be done a standardized way. This is rarely the case. Instead most standards just have become common in one industry.
The other thing is what legal implication such reference to a standard has. Well, it is a statement on the product characteristic a product has to life up to. Out of this buyer's rights may arise depending on the legislation of where such product has been bought. The most basic right would be to be refunded the paid money. Further compensations are imaginable but the industry tried so far to avoid such. The sheer discussion of this seems to be prohibited at this forum, so I leave it at this.
Every time this topic of ISO/ASA speed designation and standards comes up it devolves when folks apply “Philadelphia lawyer” assumptions.
Amen
I had always thought that our issue or at least those of us who have any issue with what Catlabs has told us or not told us is that if it cannot reveal any information, it tells us why.
In the case of ISO it may be that whoever makes the film doesn't have the ability to conduct the test to the correct standard but in that case, is there any reason why it cannot be honest about it and say that what tests it or the film maker was able to run suggests a speed similar to 320 but due to the look of the film many users who like its look might prefer to rate it at 200?
Similarly on spectral sensitivity, doesn't the Macbeth colour chart reveal a film's colour bias in terms of how it shows the primary and secondary colours. I note for instance that Greg Davis in his film tests gives a H&D curve and the Macbeth chart and he, as far as I understand, manages these tests by himself
It's the same thing on the cassettes and DX coding. There could be a good reason why the DX code is covered up. So far it appears that Catlabs or the maker has had to use cassettes not made specifically for a code of 320. Indeed it may be that the maker's of the film has had to use whatever it can get hold of which may be a variety of DX coded cassettes. There could be good reasons for this but none of us know what it is
Those who wish to buy the film with less or no information because they like it or have a desire to try new film anyway will not be concerned with any of this, although even they, I imagine, welcomed development times in various developers
Those who want more information and who may buy if they felt that as much as can be provided is being provided might well be happier with answers as to why some information is not and cannot be forthcoming
In summary I fail to see why more openness or honesty about why some information is not there is likely to damage Catlabs sales and may well encourage more to be empathetic towards Catlabs
pentaxuser
In the case of ISO it may be that whoever makes the film doesn't have the ability to conduct the test to the correct standard but in that case, is there any reason why it cannot be honest about it and say that what tests it or the film maker was able to run suggests a speed similar to 320 but due to the look of the film many users who like its look might prefer to rate it at 200?
Similarly on spectral sensitivity, doesn't the Macbeth colour chart reveal a film's colour bias in terms of how it shows the primary and secondary colours. I note for instance that Greg Davis in his film tests gives a H&D curve and the Macbeth chart and he, as far as I understand, manages these tests by himself
It's the same thing on the cassettes and DX coding. There could be a good reason why the DX code is covered up. So far it appears that Catlabs or the maker has had to use cassettes not made specifically for a code of 320. Indeed it may be that the maker's of the film has had to use whatever it can get hold of which may be a variety of DX coded cassettes. There could be good reasons for this but none of us know what it is
Those who wish to buy the film with less or no information because they like it or have a desire to try new film anyway will not be concerned with any of this, although even they, I imagine, welcomed development times in various developers
Those who want more information and who may buy if they felt that as much as can be provided is being provided might well be happier with answers as to why some information is not and cannot be forthcoming
In summary I fail to see why more openness or honesty about why some information is not there is likely to damage Catlabs sales and may well encourage more to be empathetic towards Catlabs
pentaxuser
Some photographers like to try every "new" film that comes on the market. Sometimes it is a new film and sometimes it is just old surveillance film, or aerial film, or traffic camera film, of the ends of cine film, etc which they have rebranded. I don't get it, but like I posted above, I don't get why some people collect Hummel figurines, so I have no problem with it.. Everybody has different ends in mind when pursuing this hobby.
I am not sure what a "progressive" company is in this sphere, much less a "progressive alive" company. Here is an article on progressive companies.
The 8 habits of the world’s most progressive workplaces
The Corporate Rebels has travelled the globe to learned from the most progressive organizations, and learn how to make work better, and funnier.
www.maize.io
I have no idea whether CatLABS is progressive or not. It's probably small enough not to have an endless bureaucracy.
Last edited:
But think about it. We all use many engineered products each day without worrying about what standards were used and how the product performance claims were established. Why is film so different? Independent testing is generally how the published specifications and performance claims are verified.
And what about another current thread where an ISO 9000 (Quality Assurance) certified company openly admitted to a significant quality assurance failure that results in a crap shoot for users of their product. Not a glowing testimonial for standards compliance/conformance and a good reason to question their claim to such.
In summary… I fail to see why folks don’t either buy the film or hush.
Thanks Brian. It will come as no surprise to you when I say I disagree with your analogy nor will I hush in this thread or any other where I feel I have a legitimate point to make or a legitimate question to ask
pentaxuser
It does not matter if Catlabs product is good or bad, meets ISO standards or not. What I have seen here is The lack of candor displayed by Catlabs. As far as I am concerned I will never buy from them or use any of their services. It will be interesting to see how they handle defective products in the future. We have first class film suppliers that have full support and a wide range of product, and those are the ones we should be supporting. I made my choice yesterday and ordered more Harmon product. "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low cost is forgotten" applies here. I'm through with this thread.
Some photographers like to try every "new" film that comes on the market. Sometimes it is a new film and sometimes it is just old surveillance film, or aerial film, or traffic camera film, of the ends of cine film, etc which they have rebranded. I don't get it, but like I posted above, I don't get why some people collect Hummel figurines, so I have no problem with it.. Everybody has different ends in mind when pursuing this hobby.
I am not sure what a "progressive" company is in this sphere, much less a "progressive alive" company. Here is an article on progressive companies.
The 8 habits of the world’s most progressive workplaces
The Corporate Rebels has travelled the globe to learned from the most progressive organizations, and learn how to make work better, and funnier.
I have no idea whether CatLABS is progressive or not. It's probably small enough not to have an endless bureaucracy.
This series of observations seems true, and I collect Hummels and stuffed frogs from Mexico. CatLabs has no history of deceiving anybody that I can tell. Yes giving a discount to people who have traditionally been discriminated against is progressive.
I am wondering if you have ever looked through internet photo websites and seen how often consumables and equipment manufacturers take part in these internet-stonings about things that really do not matter. As soon as I get my social security check I will buy some of this film, I will eat Mac and Cheese for a week and it will be worth it.
You should hear my friends complain at the Senior Center.
If you are never going to use Catlab products why do you care how they will deal with any possible film defect? By the way, what lack of candor, like Photo Wearhouse and Bergger that they contract with cannot by terms of the contact disclose who the coater is.
The last time CatLABS sold 35mm film they called it "CatLABS X Film 320" and it was Kodak 5222. They also sold 120 film which they called "CatLABS X Film 80" and it was Shanghai GP3. It's current sheet films are Shanghai GP3 as well. No problem, a lot of outfits sell rebranded film. But in light of that, it doesn't seem out of line to wonder who makes their current 35mm/120 film.
Last edited:
Are there really any new black and white films in 2022? It appears that most everything out there is repackaged film from the same small group of surviving manufacturers (Kodak, Ilford/Kentmere, the Orwo/Shanghai/Innoviscoat/Agfa/Adox gestalt, Foma or, on a good day, Ferrannia). Or it's old aerial/surveillance stock from who-knows-where stuffed in a can.
There's obviously nothing wrong with CatLabs (or Film Photography Project) sticking a label on any one of these and selling it at a reasonable price, but it doesn't seem terribly exciting... certainly not exciting enough to warrant 13 pages of comments and counting.
There's obviously nothing wrong with CatLabs (or Film Photography Project) sticking a label on any one of these and selling it at a reasonable price, but it doesn't seem terribly exciting... certainly not exciting enough to warrant 13 pages of comments and counting.
There's obviously nothing wrong with CatLabs (or Film Photography Project) sticking a label on any one of these and selling it at a reasonable price, but it doesn't seem terribly exciting... certainly not exciting enough to warrant 13 pages of comments and counting.
I am guessing you are not a big fan of mystery novels. I got hooked when I was young reading The Speckled Band. I won't sleep in a room with a bell cord.
Only good ones.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |