CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro now available in 35mm and 120

[cramej]

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.

As CatLabs has stated multiple times in this thread, the 320 Pro is not a rebranded/ repackaged film.

 

[OrientPoint]

As CatLabs has stated multiple times in this thread, the 320 Pro is not a rebranded/ repackaged film.

So that means 320Pro was developed at their sprawling R&D center in Jamaica Plain to fill a perceived gap in the market?

 

[cramej]

So that means 320Pro was developed at their sprawling R&D center in Jamaica Plain to fill a perceived gap in the market?

Maybe, maybe not. Does there need to be a gap in the market to produce a new film? Does it matter if they partnered with someone else to develop the film to their specifications?

Just as in film production, there is a lot of chemistry and physics involved in bread baking that can be taken to the Nth degree. That science is all well and good but sometimes you find something really good comes out of just letting natural yeasts land in your sourdough.

 

[faberryman]

Just as in film production, there is a lot of chemistry and physics involved in bread baking that can be taken to the Nth degree. That science is all well and good but sometimes you find something really good comes out of just letting natural yeasts land in your sourdough.

Are you suggesting someone dropped a donut in some film emulsion and that's how they got CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro? Any idea what kind of donut?

 

[BrianShaw]

Donut/doughnut? I'd think if anything was dropped into the batter it would be cat food or kitty litter.

 

[faberryman]

Donut/doughnut? I'd think if anything was dropped into the batter it would be cat food or kitty litter.

I am trying to avoid the whole cat thing. I hate cats. There is this other photo/camera forum that has a whole thread dedicated to cats. It's got like 5,000 photos of cats and counting. I think the cat thread has more photos of cats than the Leica thread has photos of Leicas, which is quite an achievement. Probably most of the photos of cats were taken with Leicas, but that's another story.

 

[cramej]

@faberryman After I shoot and process some, I'll try to figure it out. If I like it, it must have been a blueberry streusel cake donut. Maybe a Bavarian cream yeast donut. Hmmm, could be a German chocolate twist? If I don't like it, probably a grocery store 2 day old glazed donut.

@BrianShaw Kitty litter? That's some crunchy grain right there! Fancy Feast meaty grain?

 

[BrianShaw]

Not a Boston Cream donut?

Boston cream doughnut - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I’m a dog person… had a cat once and have the scars to prove it. The dog drool dries clear.

 

[cramej]

Only if it's Dunkin'. Every other "Boston Cream" donut I've had has a filling that's more like nasty whipped cake frosting. Lamar's Bavarian cream is the standard by which I judge by for those. A local shop has the most excellent blueberry streusel cake donut.

 

[Don_ih]

Donut/doughnut?

Dough Knot?

 

[pentaxuser]

So that means 320Pro was developed at their sprawling R&D center in Jamaica Plain to fill a perceived gap in the market?

I haven't been able to "get a handle" on the size of Catlabs R&D. All that was stated was that it was 4 years in the making. I did ask about Catlabs actual involvement as follows: "I looked up CatLABS but while there was a lot of retail info and where you are I couldn't find out enough to work out if you have film making resources there or simply a small R&D team with the resources to devise a new emulsion but for which you need one of the big film makers to make it?"

However I never got an answer for reasons that I cannot work out. So I have no idea if Catlabs has had its own team of R&D film chemists who are 100% responsible for devising the film. I had thought it likely that unless Catlabs has full film making facilities then a Catlab team of R&D film chemists might have devised a new film and then contracted the making out to another film maker which seems likely but as I said no answer of any kind was forthcoming

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

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,...

Well, what you call "just is..." typically are materials unobtainable for a consumer. Making such films available is as such most welcome, and I understand why some people try out all such films.

That often these films are marketed veiling their origin or even misleading the buyer is the bad side to that. The more vivid testing thus is needed.

 

[BrianShaw]

marketed veiling their origin

Whether it’s “veiling” or just not mentioning details most consumers couldn’t care less about, it can be disturbing to those who do care. I loved my made-in-Germany Mercedes Benz and when it needed replacement I bought something else because Daimler is making too many Mercedes models in Mexico or, gasp, Alabama!

 

[aparat]

In my haste, I forgot to include a plot comparing the curves of Catlabs 320 Pro and Kodak 400TX (purple). I gave Tri-X the same amount of exposure as the Catlabs 320 Pro (3.68 Log Millilux Seconds) and developed in the same tank for 8 minutes. Clearly, Tri-X did not receive enough development, as the contrast Index (CI) is only about 0.45. Even so, it presents a well-formed curve, with a fairly short "toe" and a long, monotonically increasing "straight line" portion of the curve. This would translate into a negative with a wide, smooth tonal range; one that should print easily on Grade 2 paper through a condenser enlarger (though I prefer to develop Tri-X to the CI of about 0.55). The speed point is about 3 stops "in front of" (or faster) than that of the Catlabs film of G=0.62 (the pink "ISO" curve and triangle). The Tri-X curve also shows much higher B+F density, which is to be expected as the film has a very different base and is a few years expired.

The manufactures of both films claim their respective products to be conventional, panchromatic, black and white films, with the "box speed" of around ISO 320-400. Both manufactures list D76 1+1 as a recommended developer. Catlabs lists 10 minutes at 20C (so that should translate to around 8:00 minutes in a rotary processor), whereas Kodak lists 9:45 minutes for 400TX in a rotary processor (again, my test sample did not receive enough development). Therefore, one would expect the curves to look very similar, except, of course, for the difference in base fog density and some other minor idiosyncrasies. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the results suggest that, compared to Tri-X, the 320 Pro would have a much more "punchy" look, with significantly less shadow detail and a somewhat narrow, steep tonal range. I am sure it's a look that a lot of people love. It would require a softer paper grade to print well. A good scanner or DLSR, on the other hand, should be able to get some of the shadow detail back, with endless Photoshop editing possibilities.

Finally, while looking at each film through a magnifier, the Catlabs film appears to have somewhat finer grain than 400TX? Maybe? But that is just "by eye," so please take it with a grain of salt (pun not intended). My eyes are not what they used to be.

I am looking forward to seeing other people's tests of the Catlab 320 Pro and possible comparisons with other films.

 

[OrientPoint]

I haven't been able to "get a handle" on the size of Catlabs R&D. All that was stated was that it was 4 years in the making. I did ask about Catlabs actual involvement as follows: "I looked up CatLABS but while there was a lot of retail info and where you are I couldn't find out enough to work out if you have film making resources there or simply a small R&D team with the resources to devise a new emulsion but for which you need one of the big film makers to make it?"

However I never got an answer for reasons that I cannot work out. So I have no idea if Catlabs has had its own team of R&D film chemists who are 100% responsible for devising the film. I had thought it likely that unless Catlabs has full film making facilities then a Catlab team of R&D film chemists might have devised a new film and then contracted the making out to another film maker which seems likely but as I said no answer of any kind was forthcoming

pentaxuser

CatLabs is a retailer with a history of manufacturing promises. I remember back in 2016 after Fuji killed the last of their instant pack film (FP100c) CatLabs declared they were going to revive it with their own production. It never happened of course.

Near as I can tell 320 Pro is an Orwo product, packaged in nice CatLabs livery for sale. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. Does it matter that there's no data sheet? Not if you don't need one. I just feel it's a stretch to call any black and white film coming out in 2022 as "new" unless it has been engineered to meet specific, articulated design objectives that aren't already well-covered elsewhere. Looks "gritty" (Japan Camera Hunter StreetPan) or "kinda like Panatomic-X" (the tag line for the round of CatLabs film before this current one) may or may not be true, but are certainly not terribly intriguing. There's a reason why back in the 20th century when we had our choice from a wide range of (relatively) cheap film engineered for pictorial use no one shot what was loaded in traffic cameras.

Maybe the 320 Pro design goal is price? $7/roll seems pretty fair these days for a roll of film, so 320 Pro has that going for it, especially when a roll of Tri-X is $13. On the other hand, you can get Foma for $5/roll if price is a key criterion.

 

[BrianShaw]

I just feel it's a stretch to call any black and white film coming out in 2022 as "new" unless it has been engineered to meet specific, articulated design objectives that aren't already well-covered elsewhere.

That’s valid from an engineering perspective but not from a marketing perspective. Is the marketing perspective use of the word “new” invalid… I think not.

 

[OrientPoint]

That’s valid from an engineering perspective but not from a marketing perspective. Is the marketing perspective invalid… I think not.

I'm referring to "new" with respect to why anyone on Photrio should care any more about this film than others in the seemingly constant stream of "new" films (which are generally anything but) from Film Photography Project, Siberra, Kosmo, Washi, JCH, Lomo and the like. If CatLabs can successfully market this one, good for them.

 

[albada]

In my haste, I forgot to include a plot comparing the curves of Catlabs 320 Pro and Kodak 400TX (purple). I gave Tri-X the same amount of exposure as the Catlabs 320 Pro (3.68 Log Millilux Seconds) and developed in the same tank for 8 minutes. Clearly, Tri-X did not receive enough development, as the contrast Index (CI) is only about 0.45. Even so, it presents a well-formed curve, with a fairly short "toe" and a long, monotonically increasing "straight line" portion of the curve. This would translate into a negative with a wide, smooth tonal range; one that should print easily on Grade 2 paper through a condenser enlarger (though I prefer to develop Tri-X to the CI of about 0.55). The speed point is about 3 stops "in front of" (or faster) than that of the Catlabs film of G=0.62 (the pink "ISO" curve and triangle). The Tri-X curve also shows much higher B+F density, which is to be expected as the film has a very different base and is a few years expired.

The manufactures of both films claim their respective products to be conventional, panchromatic, black and white films, with the "box speed" of around ISO 320-400. Both manufactures list D76 1+1 as a recommended developer. Catlabs lists 10 minutes at 20C (so that should translate to around 8:00 minutes in a rotary processor), whereas Kodak lists 9:45 minutes for 400TX in a rotary processor (again, my test sample did not receive enough development). Therefore, one would expect the curves to look very similar, except, of course, for the difference in base fog density and some other minor idiosyncrasies. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the results suggest that, compared to Tri-X, the 320 Pro would have a much more "punchy" look, with significantly less shadow detail and a somewhat narrow, steep tonal range. I am sure it's a look that a lot of people love. It would require a softer paper grade to print well. A good scanner or DLSR, on the other hand, should be able to get some of the shadow detail back, with endless Photoshop editing possibilities.

Finally, while looking at each film through a magnifier, the Catlabs film appears to have somewhat finer grain than 400TX? Maybe? But that is just "by eye," so please take it with a grain of salt (pun not intended). My eyes are not what they used to be.

I am looking forward to seeing other people's tests of the Catlab 320 Pro and possible comparisons with other films.

View attachment 318180

Nick, thanks for creating these curves. Their shapes are interesting:

• Tri-X starts steep, yielding good separation of shadows, and then becomes shallower, giving less separation in highlights.
• CatLabs, when developed to a CI around 0.60, does the opposite: It starts shallow (less shadow contrast), and then becomes steeper (higher highlight contrast).

But human eyes are less sensitive at seeing shadow contrast than highlight contrast, so a film is wise to behave like Tri-X by having higher shadow contrast. CatLabs will produce shadows that are too dark and lacking contrast, with good highlight contrast. I suppose CatLabs would be good for dramatic effects, but I don't think it's suitable for general photography.

 

[CatLABS]

Catlabs lists 10 minutes at 20C (so that should translate to around 8:00 minutes in a rotary processor)

Hold on there for just one moment......
Sorry to shatter the pillars of the earth here, but that is just erroneous.

 

[Don_ih]

I suppose CatLabs would be good for dramatic effects, but I don't think it's suitable for general photography.

On the basis of one roll shot by someone else developed in a single type of developer? You can adjust your exposure and developing to compensate for how the film naturally (i.e., box speed, recommended dev) handles shadows.

 

[CatLABS]

Near as I can tell 320 Pro is an Orwo product

While there are various film boxes out there witn ORWO material inside, this is not one of them.

 

[aparat]

Hold on there for just one moment......
Sorry to shatter the pillars of the earth here, but that is just erroneous.

Just taken directly from your website: "D76 1+1 10 min"
Typically, in a rotary processor, you develop for about 15-20% less time, to start, and then adjust to taste. Nothing carved in stone, but a reasonable starting point.
I developed this particular strip of Tri-X for 8 minutes, along with a strip of Catlabs 320 Pro. What is erroneous about that?

 

[CatLABS]

On the basis of one roll shot by someone else developed in a single type of developer?

Indeed, especially considering that sample of one was developed using erroneous assumptions resulting in wrong processing times.

 

[aparat]

Indeed, especially considering that sample of one was developed using erroneous assumptions resulting in wrong processing times.

Please, show me where the error is. I processed not one, but four strips of the film in times ranging from 4 to 12 minutes. That is how film testing is done. I chose to compare to Tri-X at 8 minutes because it was the closest time to your own recommendation so I could develop both in the same tank, to avoid adding a source of variability to the analysis.

 

[CatLABS]

Typically, in a rotary processor, you develop for about 15-20% less time

What is erroneous about that?

The assumption that you reduce the processing time by 20% for rotation processing is wholly erroneous.

In general, assumptions, playing a central role as part of a critical, seemingly meticulous scientific and empirical study seems somewhat ironic