Please add some examples of the 120 version. I’m assuming that there are minor differences, like thickness of the film base. If not mistaken, all prior examples were 35mm (or unidentified). Also show us both sides of the backing paper!
Please add some examples of the 120 version. I’m assuming that there are minor differences, like thickness of the film base. If not mistaken, all prior examples were 35mm (or unidentified). Also show us both sides of the backing paper!Don't know if I should shoot it in my Yashica 1/2 frame or try medium format- maybe 6x9?
I don't think the latest witty repartee on film speed has anything to do with “true” film speed but BOX SPEED (the speed printed on the box).e.g. for the first time I can recall, you have stated that 320 is the film's true speed as it is stated on the box
Four or more participants in this thread have bought the film. Four or more have/will not. Who is ahead?Fair enough but in that case I do now wonder why you now consider the time you spend her as a participant on this thread is worth the effort in terms of future sales of Pro 320
Disclaimer - I am a film slut and like all film.
Now with that out of the way.. I shot it at ISO 200, and found the grain to be fine, as in small. The developer I am using is Cinestill DF96 Monobath - which I use with all the films I shoot that can handle it. There are a couple that do not - Silberra Orta where the emulsion literally strips off, and Adox CMS 20.
With DF96, Catlabs is nice and punchy, with deep blacks and bright highlights. I did not use any filters. Will it add something different and unique? No. But only the extreme films I use do, like the super slow ones, or the ones w/o or very weak anti-halation layers (Arista 100 for example) or ortho films. With the rest, it's on me to create something unique
This film is a very decent value though at $6.99/36 exp. That makes it cheaper than HP5, and a lot cheaper than TriX. More expensive than Kentmere 400 which I really like, but Kentmere is definitely chunkier, and also harder to get from my local stores. I mail order it, while my locals always have these 'alternative' brands on the shelves.
For all those getting in a tizzy over Catlabs 320 PRO, it's just a roll of film that costs $6.99 fercryinoutloud. Some here act like they got bound, gagged and beaten. Then again, maybe they're into that sort of thing. Look, I don't judge.
My point? Just try it. If you find it blows, big whup, $6.99 for a life lesson. But I like it.
I don't think the latest witty repartee on film speed has anything to do with “true” film speed but BOX SPEED (the speed printed on the box).
I think we know that:
Film speed, box = 320
Film speed, recommended = 200
Film speed, tested = 30-ish
Film speed, King = 80
None are necessarily “true”, as in strictly per ISO standard. Any could be usable. Some have shown to be.
If I can deduce that… anyone can.True he did not lay things out as you have above which if this reflects the CatLABS position would have been welcome in my case and possibly others who have expressed concerns about the ISO speed
...I do now wonder why you now consider the time you spend her as a participant on this thread is worth the effort in terms of future sales of Pro 320...
The film is on the contrasty side, so not something I would normally use, but if I lived in the US, I would definitely check it out, however, for Europeans the price is not really competitive, but now that there are samples available, that s fine, because everyone can decide for her/himself whether the price is worth it or not.
It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that Omer continues participating in this thread not because doing so will have any substantial positive effect on sales of CatLABS X FILM 320 PRO. Rather, he's here for the same reason I am, namely, it's more entertaining than any stand-up so-called "comedy" has ever been.
...he’s the one making money from selling film...
Its been shown that this film has a true speed of something closer to 50 ASA, and that to get anything close to 320 ASA, you're actually pushing the film in development, a LOT. This gives blank, detail-less shadows and blocked highlights. I have seen evidence of this in example photos, including those posted by CatLabs.
But I supose that if what you like is the 1960's "editorial" Tri-X look, then this might be the cat's meow for you, pun intended.
I used the X 80 sheet film from CatLabs a couple years ago, and its true speed was closer to 25ASA than 80 ASA. Even at 25 ASA it was a struggle to record sufficient shadow information to be printable. New films brought to the market are a great thing, but its not doing anyone any favors if the manufacturer isn't being honest about the performance traits of the product.
Its noteworthy that Catlabs continues to decline all requests for characteristic curves and actual film speed data, preferring to make jokes and excuses for the absence of factual data.
Yes, this thread is most entertaining.
Thus see it positive.
To get back to the very film:
What do you mean by chunky? Grain size or form?
Omer's profit from film sold to those posting in this thread likely wouldn't amount to minimum wage for the time he's spent reading and posting in it.
Thanks for your really nice photos and input. Greatly appreciated. I will take your advise and try the film.
You say that but I am shooting it at iso 200, not doing any pushing, results look good to me.
How can you be sure this is the case? I mean the samples you posted do look like the film was cooked ...
I don't wish to appear to be rude or at best abrupt,mshchem, but I'll have to risk it. What is your link supposed to tell us that we didn't already know. It just looks like an advert for the new film and essentially a repeat of the CatLABS opening announcement of this thread
If it does tell us more then what are those extra pieces of information?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Omer's profit from film sold to those posting in this thread likely wouldn't amount to minimum wage for the time he's spent reading and posting in it.
How can you be sure this is the case? I mean the samples you posted do look like the film was cooked ...
If you are in EU, just buy Rollei Retro 400S. The results will be at least as good as Catlabs 320 Pro. Price will be lower, too.
I’ve run a quick test with bracketed exposures, which I will report on in the other thread shortly.
Film is drying, but initial impression is that using the suggested CatLabs time for Rodinal 1+25, my proper EI would be right around 400.
Retro 400S = IR400S = Superpan 200 = Aviphot 200 = .....
True speed: about 50 to 100 ASA depending on developer.
Try the CalLabs 320 film with a R72 filter at 6 ASA. If it performs like a IR film ......
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?