• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

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

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
MattKing said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Huss said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
faberryman said:
Certainly the CatLABS guy has gone silent following the latest revelations.
Click to expand...


BrianShaw said:
Great idea. Let it begin!
Click to expand...

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.
 

From my long experience with Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 I can completely agree.
 
Huss said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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

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.
 
Film-Niko said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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

Uh?
 
MattKing said:
Uh?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
BrianShaw said:
Wrong answer, most likely.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure "I can't understand what you are asking" is ever the wrong answer to any question - even in abbreviated form.
 
Would anyone have bought this film if they knew it was rebranded Agfa Aviphot 200?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register