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

absalom1951 said:

Don't know if I should shoot it in my Yashica 1/2 frame or try medium format- maybe 6x9?

Click to expand...

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!

pentaxuser said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

pentaxuser said:

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

Click to expand...

Four or more participants in this thread have bought the film. Four or more have/will not. Who is ahead?

Hint: why’s on second, or third. Who know?

Huss said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your really nice photos and input. Greatly appreciated. I will take your advise and try the film.

BrianShaw said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well yes there was a lot of witty repartee I agree but it just seemed to me that CatLABS was more at pains to emphasise his point about it being 320 than before

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

For a long time on this site it was custom to use the phrase "box speed" as indicating the ISO speed and as far as I know this still applies to Harman, Kodak and Fuji films but you are right that it is probably time now to recognise that the days of being sure of an ISO speed from that written on the box may, with the exception of the big three film makers, be gone

Not sure if most film users would be as relaxed in the same way over the big three abandoning "box speed" as having any meaning as some appear to be over other companies' approach to this

We are maybe into the start of a discussion over "what's the difference" that exempts smaller film makers such as CatLABS from such standards. It may be that the word "smaller" is reason enough on the basis that they don't have the resources However unless CatLABS devised, tested and made their new film entirely by itself then some bigger players had a hand in its production and that begs the question of why those bigger players or probably player have/has not released such helpful information to the seller, CatLABS

This as the saying went in the old days of continuous showing of films and features in the cinemas of yesteryear is "where we came in"


pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

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

Click to expand...

If I can deduce that… anyone can.

Note that only the 320 and/or 200 film speed assertions has been practically demonstrated with results provided in this thread or the other. All else is just

BTW, it may be worth noting that none of the “big guys” seems to have ever explicitly stated in their documentation that their box speed complies with standards. Lots of folks are assuming that. Maybe correctly, but an assumption nonetheless because it’s not stated nor independently verified other than folks using it and it works. Yet then many still suggest deviations…

It’s not unrealistic to assume that management/marketing departments have some impact on product development or marketing despite some folks quest for engineering purity. I can attest to that in non-photographic high-reliability system development.

The internet chest-beating is almost comical at times. The philosophical discussions are philosophical discussions.

I seem to remember past discussions of inaccurate film speeds and I seem to recall that with big-name products too. My memory is vague and I’m not inclined to research it to prove my point so I’m just sayin’

pentaxuser said:

...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...

Click to expand...

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.

Tomro said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Sal Santamaura said:

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.

Click to expand...

IDK… he’s the one making money from selling film while nobody else in this thread seems to be.

Let’s address an elephant in the room: for a variety of historical reasons some folks here just don’t like him and would be critical no matter what. So what does that demonstrate?

Thus endeth mine philosophication!

BrianShaw said:

...he’s the one making money from selling film...

Click to expand...

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.

paulbarden said:

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.

Click to expand...

You say that but I am shooting it at iso 200, not doing any pushing, results look good to me.

There seems to be an awful lot of theory here, with no actual use.

AgX said:

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?

Click to expand...

Chunky = grainy.

Sal Santamaura said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes that was my conclusion as well so you may be right. He is here for the sport It's just that I wondered if the time spent here for the "sport" was worthwhile for a businessman promoting a new film?

Brian, I had no idea who Omer was when I saw this thread. I had nor have any historical axe to grind against Omer the man.

pentaxuser

Terryro said:

Thanks for your really nice photos and input. Greatly appreciated. I will take your advise and try the film.

Click to expand...

You’re welcome! Shoot it at iso 200. And remember, it’s just a roll of film!

Huss said:

You say that but I am shooting it at iso 200, not doing any pushing, results look good to me.

Click to expand...

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

miha said:

How can you be sure this is the case? I mean the samples you posted do look like the film was cooked ...

Click to expand...

This could very well be the case.
I am going to run a set of bracketed exposures, based around "box speed" of 320 today, and process with CatLabs suggested time. Then, maybe another test, but "pulling" the dev times. Maybe use the times for Pan F as a start.

pentaxuser said:

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

Click to expand...

It's demonstrative of the World doesn't care what a bunch of old coots on this forum care.

Sal Santamaura said:

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.

Click to expand...

None of us, except a couple of folks who only use the classified section, are here to make money. We’re here to demonstrate judgemental curmudgeonism and ego self flattery. Or, in other words, were mostly here just to chat. Let’s be realistic… please.

miha said:

How can you be sure this is the case? I mean the samples you posted do look like the film was cooked ...

Click to expand...

How so? I process to my liking as I would do with any film I use.

and that it the thing, the only way to find out if you like it is to try it out yourself. It is easy to armchair quarterback not knowing the intentions of the user! The pic of the car is deliberately low key. The pic of Peppers in the dappled shade is exactly how it looked. The pic on the coast was late in the afternoon and exactly how I wanted it to be. Which for me means my exposures were correct. Because that’s what it really comes down to, exposure.

Be daring. Live a little. Splurge and spend the $6.99. Find out for yourself, developing and processing it to your taste!

brbo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 ......

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.

Oldwino said:

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.

Click to expand...

But wait people here have said it is an iso 20 film!

Klaus_H said:

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 ......

Click to expand...

the photographs posted in this thread do have this superpan look, although grainier and harsher