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

[cramej]

Has anyone tested with Clayton F76+ yet? I use the Arista premium liquid and my first roll was so faint it was unusable but I'm fairly certain the developer was bad as a roll of Acros II developed in the same session was very underdeveloped. I was basing my time on Foma 200 comparing D76 and F76 seeing that F76 is about 25% less time. CatLabs lists D76 1+1 as 10:00 so I would estimate F76 to be about 8:00.

 

[MattKing]

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.

In the past I've played a little bit with aero film - just not the Aviphot variety.
And yes, in some cases exposing for the shadows or lower mid-tones means that you often need to compromise on upper midtones or highlights - depending at least somewhat on how the films are developed.
This being, of course, the sort of information that prospective purchasers can really benefit from if they are planning on spending their film buying dollars.

 

[BrianShaw]

IDK but it seems that the provided information was sufficient for several Photrio members to make successful images… and things got a lot better with Huss’ demonstration that commercial lab processing seems a likely option for success also. And with minimal investment or testing.

 

[CatLABS]

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?

You might want to actually take a look at a box of HP5 Plus or FP4 Plus, you might find some shocking surprise printed on it

 

[MattKing]

I don't have much boxed film on hand that is in the latest (I believe) packaging, but the ones I do have include HP5+ and T-Max 400, which are clearly labelled "ISO 400" on the box near where the Develop before date, is, and just 400 on other parts of the box.
The 120 Portra 160 has ISO 160 both on the Pro Pack box and the individual wrappers.
The 120 T-Max films have their respective ISO speeds - 100 and 400 - in the same locations.
My older Ektachrome in the freezer has similar labeling - both in 35mm and 120.

 

[Don_ih]

This being, of course, the sort of information that prospective purchasers can really benefit from if they are planning on spending their film buying dollars.

The majority of film buyers don't know that information about any unfamiliar film. They don't know how to read the charts on the film's info sheet. Even zone system proponents will find their "personal exposure value" for a film.
For example, most people buying a 126 cartridge of Kodacolor thought "Film to go in my camera" - that was the level of technical information required. Why demand anything different from this film?

 

[aparat]

Let me tell you sumfink. 200 is a whole heck of a lot closer to 320, than 800 is to 3200...

Yes, it is, but it may not be that simple.

 

[faberryman]

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.

Finally I am in the 1%. I never thought I'd get there. It just shows what you can accomplish with hard work and perseverance.

 

[MattKing]

Certainly the CatLABS guy has gone silent following the latest revelations.

Well it may be that unless he is prepared to give us more information than he has already given then there is nothing more for him to say. It has been clear to me from quite early on in the thread that he is not willing to say more in terms of useful info, so that only leaves him the option of statements that are likely to renew antagonism between him and some of us or renew antagonism between us members but will not be statements that contribute to a positive fact finding discussion.

On that basis I'd say that silence may be the better option for him and us

pentaxuser

Great idea. Let it begin!

After discussions with CatLabs, it has become clear that he/they were under the impression that their change in status prevented them from posting. That was a misunderstanding, but it explains their lack of activity in the thread. They can, if they wish, continue to participate.

 

[Film-Niko]

You actually shot it at an EI of 200, and that difference of terminology is actually the crux of the matter.
You have a visual style that under-exposing and push processing is suitable for.
So that is what you have done, as shown in this and many other good examples you have posted. Each of those reveal exposures with reduced shadow detail and enhanced mid-tone contrast (from push processing), which appear to be the type of results you and many others prefer.
And you choose subjects and expose them in a way that takes advantage of the film used in that way.
For what you do, using the film this way suits your needs very well.
But the EI of 200 (or the 320 in the name) is a special use of a film that appears to have a much lower native light ("ISO") sensitivity, using the sort of tests that film manufacturers and marketers normally use to help customers compare products offered.
If this film was marketed as a low-mid speed (ISO 50?), fine grain film that also offered really good results when shot at EI 200 or higher when push developed, that would have been excellent and far more honest. That would be similar to how the Ilford and Kodak "3200" badged films are designed and bdged and marketed.
If CatLabs had chosen to describe the film that way, it would have been honest, while still highlighting a particular advantage of the film. And there would have been no controversy in this thread.

From my long experience with Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 I can completely agree.

 

[Film-Niko]

I didn’t push process anything w the image of the gas pumps. Shot it at ISO 200, gave it to my lab to develop w no instructions to push etc. They just developed it in Tmax as they do all their B&W film.

Your examples you have posted so far are really very valuble (at least for me), because they show exactly the behaviour and characteristics of Agfa Aviphot Pan 200.
You use it with an EI (Exposure Index) of 200, and then you get that high contrast and a lack of shadow detail.
And the tonality also precisely shows the strong S-shaped characteristic curve which is so absolutely typical for Aviphot Pan 200.
As already explained by several members in the other thread about this film the ISO rating of Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 is based on the aerial ISO norm, resulting in much less shadow detail. With our ISO norm for pictorial photography we have to give this film about two stops more light to get about the same amount of shadow detail.
You will see the significant difference in shadow detail e.g. if you compare Aviphot Pan 200 to Ilford SFX 200. SFX delivers much more shadow detail in comparison if both films were exposed at an EI of 200.
Or compare Aviphot Pan 200 to Ilford PanF+: Both films will show similar shadow detail if the Agfa is exposed at EI 50 (and developed accordingly), and PanF+ is exposed at EI 50.

 

[Film-Niko]

Perhaps you should provide examples of those very different results? Shoot a scene at ISO 200 developed normally.. shoot the same scene at ISO 40 or 60, and develop at what you think is the appropriate rate for that ISO.

A visual comparison would be very useful.

Please have a look at the other thread, where the thread opener has done exactly that.

 

[Film-Niko]

"Reduced shadow detail" is the characteristic of this film - as is "enhanced mid-tone contrast". There is virtually no way to change that with Aviphot - it's what it was designed to do, since it's supposed to be taking photos of an inherently low-contrast scene. As such, this film deals with low-contrast very well, if given enough exposure.

I can completely agree from my experience with Aviphot Pan 200.
"Reduced shadow detail" and "enhanced midtone contrast" are simply the result of the strong S-shape characteristic curve of that film.
For aerial photography exactly that is needed.
For pictorial photography on the ground it can be problematic, or it can be good. It is depending on the scene and the intentions of the photographer.
In my experience the S-shaped characteristic curve generally remains even if a different developer is used.
With some developers which generally give a straight, linear curve (like T-Max Dev, Ilford DD-X, Tetenal Ultrafin T-Plus) the S-shape can be a bit flattened, becoming a bit more linear. But you will never get a real linear curve and smooth tonality like with standard BW films. You can just make the strong S-shape a bit less strong.

 

[Don_ih]

you will never get a real linear curve and smooth tonality like with standard BW films. You can just make the strong S-shape a bit less strong.

I agree completely. The only way to tame that curve is to only expose the film to the middle values, which will allow you to get more shadow detail - i.e., a lower contrast scene. Otherwise, this film has the character of a copy film - contrast is boosted, shadows disappear, highlights also tend to lose detail.

 

[pentaxuser]

After discussions with CatLabs, it has become clear that he/they were under the impression that their change in status prevented them from posting. That was a misunderstanding, but it explains their lack of activity in the thread. They can, if they wish, continue to participate.

Presumably you are referring to recent days if not a week or so,Matt and not just today or the last couple of days? I seem to recall a number of "post deleted" indications against CatLABs in the last few days so presumably he or is it definitely "they" as you might use if it was Kodak or Ilford has/have realised he/they can participate in posting?

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

May as well just ban CatLabs. Save them the embarrassment.

 

[BrianShaw]

May as well just ban CatLabs. Save them the embarrassment.

You’re kidding, I hope.

 

[MattKing]

Presumably you are referring to recent days if not a week or so,Matt and not just today or the last couple of days? I seem to recall a number of "post deleted" indications against CatLABs in the last few days so presumably he or is it definitely "they" as you might use if it was Kodak or Ilford has/have realised he/they can participate in posting?

pentaxuser

Uh?

 

[BrianShaw]

Uh?

Wrong answer, most likely.

I think it is asking if CatLABS currently can participate and post to Photrio. So the answer probably is, “yes, dear, it can and has.”

Perhaps an underlying question is what restrictions are associated with “restricted access” status.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

May as well just ban CatLabs. Save them the embarrassment.

In my opinion, it's those who've acted important and entitled, not Omer, who ought be embarrassed by their posts in this (and other) threads.

 

[Mackinaw]

I still wonder why CatLabs hasn't become a Photrio partner like Adox, Ilford, Stearman Press, and others. Basically Photrio has given CatLabs free advertising since they first introduced 320 Pro. This thread now has over 1,000 posts, talk about free marketing! At least they can do is partner with Photrio.

Jim B.

 

[mshchem]

I have a boatload of film, everything I have from Kodak, Fujifilm, and Ilford has an ISO film speed rating. I have Portra 800, it is ISO 800. I don't have anything above 800.

 

[MattKing]

Wrong answer, most likely.

I'm not sure "I can't understand what you are asking" is ever the wrong answer to any question - even in abbreviated form.

 

[faberryman]

Would anyone have bought this film if they knew it was rebranded Agfa Aviphot 200?

 

[AnselMortensen]

Would anyone have bought this film if they knew it was rebranded Agfa Aviphot 200?

Hmmmm....