Not flippant at all. Thank you for the clarification.
CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro now available in 35mm and 120
-
A
- Thread starter CatLABS
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Durst NEDONEG Negative Carrier
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: Omega DII Lamp House with 212 bulb $25
- Started by Jon Shiu
-
Free FREE: Sears (Ricoh) KSX Super camera body - mirror locked up
- Started by Kodachromeguy
-
For Sale NIKON FM10 70-210mm
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale 2 each 4x5 ground Glass
- Started by waynecrider
Forum statistics
A somewhat unusual occurrence: Brian and I agree completely on this.
...I don't understand the controversy, and starting to think that the revised title was more correct than I initially thought.
Yup.
For absolute clarity, though... we only seem to disagree in (former) Soapbox discussions. LOLA somewhat unusual occurrence: Brian and I agree completely on this.
Last edited:
Shot at ISO 200, given to local lab to develop w no instructions, TMAX developer.
Metered off the wall just before the entrance. Full image, then 100% crop from highlight area, 100% crop from shadow area.
Metered off the wall just before the entrance. Full image, then 100% crop from highlight area, 100% crop from shadow area.
Agree 100%. I only found out that these are actually 800 ISO films by digging into them. It is very misleading having 3200 on the box, because it is only that if you push the film 2 stops. Plus your shop - if you take it to one - will charge you for a 2 stop push.
But I guess Kodak and Ilford with their 3200 get a break. Because they are Kodak and Ilford. But Catlabs? How dare they have 320 on the box when they say to shoot it at 200!
Let me tell you sumfink. 200 is a whole heck of a lot closer to 320, than 800 is to 3200...
Neither Kodak nor Ilford have an ISO rating on their boxes. Do you think FP4 has an ISO of 4 and HP5 has an ISO of 5? I look at the Kodak and Ilford boxes and don't see an ISO rating, so I look at the datasheet. So looking in the datasheet is "digging" but having to go to the CatLABS site to find the recommendation that you shoot at EI 200 is not? Look at what does CatLABS does? They take a film that has an ISO of 200 and put "EI ISO 320" on the box. And did the follow the ISO rubrik for determining an ISO of 320? No, they just made it up for marketing. And you can't see the differences. Pretty astonishing.
Last edited:
It says TMAX 3200 or Delta 3200 in huge print. That is what they call the film. For about 99% of people that means ISO. Even though technically they may not say ISO.
And it's the same story even if that was interpreted as EI xxxxx.
MattKing
Moderator
Here is the Kodak website information - how does the CatLabs compare?
The comparisons aren't that important though. The Kodak product is part of a family of film, with relatively extensive marketing and technical information available in many forms, from several sources.
One can relatively easily come to a conclusion about which Kodak or Ilford product makes sense for one's needs by reviewing the publicly shared information - both directly from the manufacturer/distributor, or from the legion of prior users.
The same applies to the Ilford product.
CatLabs chooses to share what CatLabs chooses to share.
The comparisons aren't that important though. The Kodak product is part of a family of film, with relatively extensive marketing and technical information available in many forms, from several sources.
One can relatively easily come to a conclusion about which Kodak or Ilford product makes sense for one's needs by reviewing the publicly shared information - both directly from the manufacturer/distributor, or from the legion of prior users.
The same applies to the Ilford product.
CatLabs chooses to share what CatLabs chooses to share.
You lost me on that... who would think that and why?
MattKing
Moderator
I've said this earlier and I'll say this again.
I have no problem with people who decide they like the film when they meter it using an EI of 200 and then develop it to a higher than average contrast. Go for it, and go ahead recommending that approach to others.
Just don't confuse that with an ISO designation for sensitivity and contrast.
I don't think it has an ISO sensitivity of 200. Most likely at least a stop less sensitive.
I have no problem with people who decide they like the film when they meter it using an EI of 200 and then develop it to a higher than average contrast. Go for it, and go ahead recommending that approach to others.
Just don't confuse that with an ISO designation for sensitivity and contrast.
I don't think it has an ISO sensitivity of 200. Most likely at least a stop less sensitive.
The name of Kodak's film is TMax P3200. You've got a better case with Delta 3200, except neither has an ISO designation unlike CatLABs "EI ISO 320". I view CatLABs "EI ISO" designation as among the lesser of its misrepresentations anyway, but it was the first thing that jumped out at me. Seeing that I knew nothing else the CatLABS guy said was going to be credible.
MattKing
Moderator
50 ISO is to 200 as 800 is to 3200 - except the Kodak material actually includes the 800 information.
Fred, I'm referring to the highlighted portion of the quote, which referenced FP4 and HP5, not the 3200 products as you mistakenly quoted in post #1,042.
The Agfa Aviphot 200 data sheet says it can be exposed at 125 to 250 ASA. The datasheet goes on to say that exposure depends on the required image contrast, the light reflected from the earth, and the altitude and speed of the aircraft.
Aparat tests showed an ISO of around 80.
Fred, I'm referring to the highlighted portion of the quote, which referenced FP4 and HP5, not the 3200 products as you mistakenly quoted in post #1,042.
If people interpret P3200 to mean ISO 3200, why would they not interpret FP4 to mean ISO 4 and HP5 to mean ISO 5?
Sigh... deep sigh.
Last edited:
This is true. To be fair, though, AGFA isn't exactly clear if that is the "aerial ISO/ASA" or the standard ISO/ASA. We can probably safely assume that they mean "Effective Aerial Film Speed (EAFS)".
No matter, I keep getting stuck at the evidence of decent photographs when CatLabs film is used at 200, as recommended, and processed in a normal commercial processing regimen. Haven't seen similar results of exposing at 80...
MattKing
Moderator
There are a couple in the testing thread.
But yes, I really would like to see more real world application of the more exposure, less development approach that the testing thread indicates would be fruitful - or at least interesting.
Getting it here for experimentation is impractical for me.
I've shot 2 rolls at EI 160 and developed them in Diafine. I liked the results with regard to image contrast. Seeing that Diafine usually gives you about a stop extra speed, it makes sense to me that the actual ISO is around 80-ish. For me, shooting at 200 with the recommended processing times yields too much contrast for my typical shooting situations.
I like the film, and will continue to use it when it suits my needs. I would like to try some in 120 as well, just for curiosity's sake. The price is right, too.
I am a little disappointed that CatLabs was less than forthcoming with information, as if they had something to hide...which it turns out, it seems they did. It seems plausible that the recommended EI and "push" development times were an effort to obfuscate the film's true origins.
I like the film, and will continue to use it when it suits my needs. I would like to try some in 120 as well, just for curiosity's sake. The price is right, too.
I am a little disappointed that CatLabs was less than forthcoming with information, as if they had something to hide...which it turns out, it seems they did. It seems plausible that the recommended EI and "push" development times were an effort to obfuscate the film's true origins.
If anyone is interested in looking at some of the CatLABS guy's photos, I ran across them here:
Not exactly up to date. Looks like an old, perhaps abandoned blog.
Also, not sure of the relevance to the discussion here.
I doubt you get any speed boost with Diafine and this film. I never noticed it, at any rate. You get tamer contrast with Diafine than many alternatives, though.
Have you every used any Aviphot film? It has a massive drop off in the shadows. In a normal contrast scene, if you expose for those, your upper midtones will blow out.
If you expose it properly in a low-contrast scene, you get plenty of shadow detail.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |