- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,235
- Format
- Multi Format
As CatLabs has stated multiple times in this thread, the 320 Pro is not a rebranded/ repackaged film.
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.
So that means 320Pro was developed at their sprawling R&D center in Jamaica Plain to fill a perceived gap in the market?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?
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.
Donut/doughnut? I'd think if anything was dropped into the batter it would be cat food or kitty litter.
Donut/doughnut?
So that means 320Pro was developed at their sprawling R&D center in Jamaica Plain to fill a perceived gap in the market?
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,...
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!marketed veiling their origin
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.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
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.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 invalid… I think not.
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
Hold on there for just one moment......Catlabs lists 10 minutes at 20C (so that should translate to around 8:00 minutes in a rotary processor)
I suppose CatLabs would be good for dramatic effects, but I don't think it's suitable for general photography.
While there are various film boxes out there witn ORWO material inside, this is not one of them.Near as I can tell 320 Pro is an Orwo product
Hold on there for just one moment......
Sorry to shatter the pillars of the earth here, but that is just erroneous.
Indeed, especially considering that sample of one was developed using erroneous assumptions resulting in wrong processing times.On the basis of one roll shot by someone else developed in a single type of developer?
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.Indeed, especially considering that sample of one was developed using erroneous assumptions resulting in wrong processing times.
Typically, in a rotary processor, you develop for about 15-20% less time
The assumption that you reduce the processing time by 20% for rotation processing is wholly erroneous.What is erroneous about that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?