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

[Dwight Anderson]

It's interesting, I took BrianShaw's response to Dwight's comment as being more directed to the thread in general, not Dwight in particular.
Wearing my moderator hat for a brief moment here - a suggestion to everyone to pause before you assume the worst about a post. Without the benefit of intonation or the sort of visual or auditory clues that a face to face conversation add, there is often multiple ways to read something.
Now back to our regularly scheduled thread .

Well Brian did quote me . But not having been on this forum long enough to know personalities and previous postings, I jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

The forum for my other hobby, autocross, (gymkhana for Europe) is mostly young men in their twenties and old men in their fifties and up. So, opportunities for misunderstandings abound. The use of the sarcasm symbol /s is encouraged, as well as emoji's.

 

[Huss]

I think the light piping may be related to the clear base as well, I am waiting for some Santacolor film which doesn't have a mask and they report light piping as an issue in their instructions.

I divided my first roll into three in a dark bag for testing, so the strip was pretty short when loading the reel.

By the way, I think your photos with the Catlabs pro are great, probably worth trying to figure out the reel loading.

Ok, yeah I am loading the full length rolls. I always run into problems at about the length where about 24-28 exposures have been shot. Then it starts to foul up on the Arista reels.
This roll also had light piping I could see light leakage past the exposed leader (from loading the camera) until about 2 exposure lengths in. Luckily it ended before my first actual exposure, so with this film I would not try to sneak in an extra shot or two at the beginning like I can do with Kentmere, HP5 etc.

p.s. thanks! Will be scanning the roll I just developed later today.

 

[MattKing]

In response to Dwight's post #901 above:
As I added subsequently to my quoted post: "Kudos to Brian and Dwight for straightening out the misunderstanding between yourselves." You resolved the issue, leaving the thread in fine shape, which all together provided a good example to use when talking about posting in general.

But your comment does bring up another point for people to consider. Quoting a post is often done to serve as a reference for what follows - a starting point. It doesn't necessarily mean that the post that follows is meant as a challenge or a comment on the person who is quoted.
As an example, I could have done this:

Well Brian did quote me

And then I could have followed with observations about using quotes.

On the theme of being wary about quick assumptions, it is important to remember that this site is international, many people are posting in languages that aren't their first language, and people are posting with varying levels of familiarity about internet conventions.
For example, I've been on the internet for years, but this is the first time I've heard of "/s" being a reference to sarcasm.

 

[Huss]

Ach, roll #8 in still fresh DF96 shows severe bromide drag w CatLabs 320 Pro... No issues with other film at this point. Using my same agitation techniques as with other films that do not show bromide drag.
Not a dig on CatLabs, I guess DF96 is not a decent match for it. So now that is three films for me that don't work well with DF96 - Catlabs 320, Silberra Orta, Adox CMS 20.

I will still post some examples from this roll, but bummer.

 

[pentaxuser]

I came across a video on this new CatLABS film today from a U.K. based presenter. I am giving away no secrets about him when I say he is not nor claims to be an expert in film technology but has largely made his reputation on YouTube by being the "man in the street" photographer with an interest in film and darkroom work

He makes a comment towards the end about what he assumes to be the anti-halation dye which I haven't heard mention before and found interesting for that reason

Anyway for what it is worth here it is for those who wish to view it



pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

Anyway for what it is worth here it is for those who wish to view it

Thank you very much for that video. A really great review by an apparently very competent photographer and quite “digestible “ presentation of information. A great addition to the reviews by Photrio members who have actually used the film.

The loading problem on the Rollei is worth noting. Seems like the combination of backing paper and thin film may not be fully compatible with the auto-sensing roller. Or, his camera is a wee bit out of specification.

I had to chuckle about being mistaken for a speed unit. Once, when photographing with a Rollei in a small English village, I was shadowed by a young boy. Inquisitive more than annoying. Suddenly he went over to a woman sitting on a park bench and said, “Mummy… whatsoever is that very odd man doing?” To which she replied, “That very odd man is a photographer; he is photographing.” The young boy seemed satisfied with the explanation. Me… not quite as satisfied.

 

[faberryman]

The two things I picked up from the review were 1) the reviewer is a curmudgeon because he said several times he would have liked to have had datasheets, and 2) even though shot at E.I. 200, the reviewer said that the negatives were quite thin, indicating that even E.I. 200 is optimistic. Looking at the prints, they are quite contrasty. Clearly not a general purpose film, but if you want or need a contrasty film, and don't use Arista developing reels, it may be worth a try, once you figure out an appropriate film speed.

For those of you who have shot and processed this film, have you noticed "unique deep grey tones with an almost silvery/metallic look" from the film or resulting prints? I haven't seen it in anything posted so far. The identical claim was made about CatLABS' previous film which was rebranded Kodak 5222. I have not used Kodak 5222, so I don't know if the claim is accurate for that film either.

 

[runswithsizzers]

It would seem to me that those who are fine with the new film and all the information we have on it are completely satisfied probably do not need to participate any longer, nor for that matter do those are not so fine with the film and information available

We may have reached a genuine end point for the thread from a practical aspect

So is there any point in it continuing? I'd have thought not

pentaxuser

I would love to see every thread on Photrio marked with some kind of a flag or banner to mark the point at which the original question or issue is effectively resolved!! Maybe an icon of a dead horse would be appropriate. ;-)

Participants could then just read down to the dead horse, and not bother with wasting time on the subsequent many pages devoted to the beating of it!

 

[Oldwino]

I would love to see every thread on Photrio marked with some kind of a flag or banner to mark the point at which the original question or issue is effectively resolved!! Maybe an icon of a dead horse would be appropriate. ;-)

Participants could then just read down to the dead horse, and not bother with wasting time on the subsequent many pages devoted to the beating of it!

Where’s the amusement in that?

 

[MattKing]

I would love to see every thread on Photrio marked with some kind of a flag or banner to mark the point at which the original question or issue is effectively resolved!! Maybe an icon of a dead horse would be appropriate. ;-)

For some reason this makes me think of Peter Falk in the role of Lieutenant Columbo

 

[Huss]

CatLabs 320 in DF96. ISO 200. Severe bromide drag on this roll, but when I developed a roll of Acros II after this, using the exact same technique and the same bottle of DF96 - no bromide drag. These pics show it far less than most of the others on this roll.
So I cannot recommend CatLabs to be developed w DF96 Monobath.

Leica R9, Elmarit 28mm 2.8

 

[pentaxuser]

OK several people have now looked at the video so I'll ask one more question now in relation to the comment made by the presenter almost at the end of the video about the film's dye.


What was the colour of your anti-halation dye? Was it the same colour as the video man's and if so has any one seen the same colour from any other film's dye and if so what was that film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, the dye that comes out with the pre-wash or developer can be a number of things, including anti-halation dye.
And its colour can vary with the ph of the developer or pre-wash.

 

[Huss]

@pentaxuser it turned my developer orange.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the replies so far. There are now 3 different colours so Matt may be right

pentaxuser

 

[Agulliver]

Shot and developed one roll. It turned the developer rather pee coloured. Not a colour I've seen before....I've had Kodak purple and the light blue of Foma before. Everything about the packaging and backing paper screams Harman. I am 100% sure they're using the same backing paper as Harman. It is identical to that on FP4+. HP5+ and Delta 3200 that I've used recently. The foil packet is very similar too right down to the way the text is printed on it. As for who manufactured and coated the film, still anyone's guess. It doesn't behave like any Ilford or Kentmere film I've used. And I think I've used all the current range in addition to the older FP4, HP5 and even HP4 back in the 70s.

I like it for certain subjects, see the truck photo for example. BUT I am convinced there was an issue with the coating of this roll. Look at the black spots on one of the frames. This only affected three frames but I don't think it's an issue with my regimen. There was nothing unusual about using the film or processing it. I used Microphen stock for 6 minutes at 20C (ish) inverting every minute. Not one of the developers specifically recommended but not anything out of the ordinary either.

For the record, Zeiss-Ikon Ikonta 521/16 camera, the film has been through X-ray at XNA airport but they say it's safe for film and their X-ray machines for cabin bags are the older non-CT types. Metered at approximately 200ISO, I wasn't being too careful. But exposure isn't an issue all 12 frames were OK in that sense. I'm now not home much the rest of the week but will try and get a photo of the offending negative at some point.

 

[Huss]

Nice pics. Those black spots look like debris, not a coating issue. edit - but if it was debris it would be white....

 

[Agulliver]

Nice pics. Those black spots look like debris, not a coating issue. edit - but if it was debris it would be white....

That's what I thought, if it were dust or other debris on the film or the scanner bed, it would come out white when reversed. I'll investigate the negatives more possibly next weekend. I did scan that negative twice just to be sure. I may re-wash it and see if that makes any difference.

I do like this film. I'll definitely use the remaining two rolls. Would I buy it again? Possibly, it's got more contrast than Fomapan or FP4+ which is nice for some styles of photography. I certainly had no issues handling the film in the developing or shooting processes. The film dried very flat and was a joy to scan, I'd think it's easy to print too. Negatives were pleasantly exposed not thin or thick. But it didn't have any price advantage against Ilford and certainly not Foma even though I bought it in the USA. And price is a factor, it's why my go-to film in medium format tends to be Fomapan 400.

Speculation....it's made in the EU, finished by Harman in the UK and then shipped off to the USA for distribution. That seems rather inefficient. It might be possible to reduce costs if they can have the film manufacturing and finishing/confectioning done at least in the same country. But of course there may be many reasons why that's not possible/feasible.

 

[Agulliver]

What was the colour of your anti-halation dye? Was it the same colour as the video man's and if so has any one seen the same colour from any other film's dye and if so what was that film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I would say that my developer came out of the tank looking like pee. Not a colour I recall seeing before. I've used the Rollei Retro 400 mentioned in the review but I don't recall it producing that colour. However it's been two years since I shot a roll so I may have simply forgotten.

 

[MattKing]

BUT I am convinced there was an issue with the coating of this roll. Look at the black spots on one of the frames.

Can you see clear spots on the negatives themselves?

 

[Agulliver]

Can you see clear spots on the negatives themselves?

No time tonight to check, I am about to hit the pillow....and likely no time this week but I'll have a proper look at the weekend and post photos of the worst frame. I fully agree that a look at the negative is more important than the scan.

 

[pentaxuser]

Shot and developed one roll. It turned the developer rather pee coloured. Not a colour I've seen before...

Agulliver, can you take a look at the colour in the video and say how similar or not your pee colour is to that colour in the video?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[AnselMortensen]

Agulliver, can you take a look at the colour in the video and say how similar or not your pee colour is to that colour in the video?

Thanks

pentaxuser

It might depend on how well hydrated he is.

 

[Agulliver]

I don't think mine was quite as dark as in the video, but maybe I used a larger volume of developer and diluted the dye more? Mine came out something like pee, straw coloured.

I've had an idea that I'll try during the week to bring the negs to work and look at them under a microscope during a lunch break.

 

[Huss]

One frame that did not have too much bromide streakage