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

Rockwood Bungalow

A
Rockwood Bungalow

  • 0
  • 0
  • 46
Posing

D
Posing

  • 0
  • 0
  • 49
Saab 99LE

A
Saab 99LE

  • 3
  • 0
  • 70
Fall

A
Fall

  • 1
  • 1
  • 64
The Babcock

A
The Babcock

  • 0
  • 0
  • 59

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
180,481
Messages
2,490,188
Members
95,085
Latest member
rasicjoy
Recent bookmarks
5

cramej

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,154
Shooter
Multi Format
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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,390
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
13,218
Location
Here or there.
Shooter
Multi Format
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.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,390
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
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 Heisz

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
2,642
Location
Ontario
Shooter
35mm RF
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?
 

faberryman

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
4,813
Location
Wherever
Shooter
Multi Format
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.
 
Last edited:

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,390
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
259
Shooter
35mm
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

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
259
Shooter
35mm
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

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
259
Shooter
35mm
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

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
259
Shooter
35mm
"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 Heisz

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
2,642
Location
Ontario
Shooter
35mm RF
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

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,614
Location
Daventry, No
Shooter
35mm
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
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,390
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
13,218
Location
Here or there.
Shooter
Multi Format

Wrong answer, most likely. :smile:

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.
 

Mackinaw

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
647
Location
One hour sou
Shooter
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
9,219
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Shooter
Medium Format
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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,390
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
Wrong answer, most likely. :smile:

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

AnselMortensen

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
505
Location
SFBayArea
Shooter
Traditional

Attachments

  • 20221123_162409.jpg
    20221123_162409.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 15
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:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom