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

[BrianShaw]

That’s fair… but can you please address the earlier post that suggests the “true speed” to be closer to 25 than 320? That discrepancy seems too big to go without comment or clarification.

 

[faberryman]

Do people who are using Tmax 100 for the first time start with the absolute critical information that Kodak publishes on their data sheets, or do they simply stick a roll of film in the camera and examine the results? If the former, i guess we as a company are not aiming at that market segment but rather at the latter. The latter being people who take pictures more and pre calculate the potential expected results before investing $6.99 by analyzing a stand alone graph curve of arbitrary data, never.

I read the data sheet. Most of the data seems relevant rather than arbitrary. It doesn't take long.

Some people like messing around with unknown films off the internet. There is certainly a market for that. I am sure you will be able to sell all of the film you have on hand. I have no idea whether you will commission another run when you are out.

 

[CatLABS]

Some people like messing around with unknown films off the internet.

I honestly dont know what this means.

 

[CatLABS]

That’s fair… but can you please address the earlier post that suggests the “true speed” to be closer to 25 than 320? That discrepancy seems too big to go without comment or clarification.

I really cant and as you say, the discrepancy in that sample case of one is too big to deserve a serious comment. Thats not to mention i honestly, i have no idea what that user was doing, perhaps they themselves are not exactly sure either

The thousands of rolls already in hands of people who have developed them should be comment enough, but alas, for the skeptics, no comment, proof or "hard data" would be any better

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

If you want to take pictures, the following info is not useful to anyone as a photographer:





Do people who are using Tmax 100 for the first time start with the absolute critical information that Kodak publishes on their data sheets, or do they simply stick a roll of film in the camera and examine the results? If the former, i guess we as a company are not aiming at that market segment but rather at the latter. The latter being people who take pictures more and pre calculate the potential expected results before investing $6.99 by analyzing a stand alone graph curve of arbitrary data, never.

I think this partly valid. I've been using film since the early 80's and very seldom I've found film technical info valuable or critical. Probably the most piece of inf had been reciprocity info but thats about it. I'm aware this is just me and everyone has different needs/wishes.


Really guys if you see Catlab''s film as untrustworthy, then keep using the film you like and dont bother with it, OR, like aparat did, test the film and get the info yourself if thats very important to you guys. I'm sure there is fun in doing so if you like those numbers/data.



Best regards

Marcelo

 

[faberryman]

That’s fair… but can you please address the earlier post that suggests the “true speed” to be closer to 25 than 320? That discrepancy seems too big to go without comment or clarification.

I have no idea why they call their film 320. They recommend shooting it at 200. And what is "Pro" about it?

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I have no idea why they call their film 320. They recommend shooting it at 200. And what is "Pro" about it?

I guess it is better than calling it Dracula, Mummy, etc. Agree that name is a bit confussing though.

 

[faberryman]

Looks like CatLABS was selling a similarly named film back in 2019 that was really Kodak 5222. I am not sure why they marketed it as 320. Kodak 5222 is 250 in daylight and 200 under tungsten light. Maybe they didn't read the data sheet.

CatLABS X Film 320 is Kodak 5222 Double-X

I really dislike it when film or paper is sold under a different name and the identity is kept “secret.” This is now the case with CatLABS X 320 Film which is- in fact- Kodak 5222 Doubl…

figitalrevolution.com

Of course, this is off the internet so who knows whether it is true or not.

Another interesting data point:

CatLABS is recommending Zone Imaging's 510 Pyro to develop this new film.

510 Pyro staining developer

A premium pyro staining developer that won the Silvergrain Classics Awards 2021. • Razor sharp and extremely fine grained - most ISO 100 films go...

www.catlabs.info

 

[Paul Howell]

I test all film that is new to me. The manufacture's data sheet is a good start but in my work flow not the final say. And to make matters more complicated I need to test my old mechanical cameras individually as the meters and shutters are very different. As Catlab new 320 film is packaged in reusable cassettes I can break down on 36 exposure to test up to 4 bodies. My newer AF bodies with electronic shutters and matrix metering seem be within a 1/2 stop of each other. I just ordered 3 rolls, will test with F76+ using D76 times as a start.

 

[Moose22]

I test all film that is new to me. The manufacture's data sheet is a good start but in my work flow not the final say.

I do, too.

I'm a rank amateur though, only starting home development a year ago. But 70 rolls into the game I already have my favored times for my favored films that might not match what Kodak or Ilford publish. If I were printing and shooting LF it would be even more vital, of course. But I sure do know where my preference for HP5 at 800 is, and i got there by shooting 5 rolls and trying the default time, more, less...

I get that people love their data. Some folks are like that. *I* am like that in lots of places. But I wager there are a lot more people like me who can't interpret much practical from Ilford's datasheets without actually spending time with Xtol and a stopwatch anyway. We just want to know how the film looks after our normal workflows.

Whatever, I do have some catlabs film on the way to try out. Ordered a couple weeks back because why the heck not? Amateur, I am doing it for fun, $6.50 a roll is just fine, so I might as well support another supplier.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I have some 120 on order.
I plan on shooting it at EI 320, developing it in Rodinal per the instructions in post #1.
I currently shoot Arista 400 EDU at 320 and process in Rodinal, so I plan to do a side-by-side test for my process.
I couldn't care less what the RMS granularity measurement is, or how many lines/mm it resolves with a USAF test...or what color the used developer is when it comes out of the tank....if I like the results, I like the results.

 

[Moose22]

Another interesting data point:

CatLABS is recommending Zone Imaging's 510 Pyro to develop this new film.

510 Pyro staining developer

A premium pyro staining developer that won the Silvergrain Classics Awards 2021. • Razor sharp and extremely fine grained - most ISO 100 films go...

www.catlabs.info

I'm actually really interested in Pyro developers. Only used xtol to this point.... but I think that's probably discussion for a different thread.

 

[Moose22]

I...or what color the used developer is when it comes out of the tank....if I like the results, I like the results.

I kind of like when it comes out pink for some reason.

Don't care for the film, the image quality is what matters there. But I really do like the colors when I pour out the tank. They're pretty.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I kind of like when it comes out pink for some reason.

Don't care for the film, the image quality is what matters there. But I really do like the colors when I pour out the tank. They're pretty.

Let the film sit in fixer longer to clear the pink.

I prefer Kodak Tri X 400 shot at box speed, but as with all metering be sure to meter without the sky in the meter's field of view.

 

[Nitroplait]

I'm impressed CatLabs is hanging on and still participating constructively in this thread.
I would given this site the finger (in my mind) a long time ago.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for reply which was in fact addressed to Agulliver's points. I was unsure of why the examples of information I gave is to use your words " not useful to anyone as a photographer. Ilford and Kodak seems to think it is but so be it if that's what you feel

I feel the last point you make simply reinforces what I had felt was probably going to be your position so on that I rest my case as they say in a U.K. court of law

Still I appreciate your answers. I have made my mind up now. It remains for others should they decide to read what you have said to decide what they think.

pentaxuser

 

[CatLABS]

I have no idea why they call their film 320. They recommend shooting it at 200. And what is "Pro" about it?

let me see if i can dig up the differences between TXP and plain ole trix....

Ilford and Kodak seems to think it is....

Lets not compare. But also, lets see which companies business practices over decades landed them in receivership, multiple times. Should those really be models to follow? I dont know. What i can tell you for certain is that CatLABS≠Kodak, Ilford or any other company

 

[Moose22]

Let the film sit in fixer longer to clear the pin.

I prefer Kodak Tri X 400 shot at box speed, but as with all metering be sure to meter without the sky in the meter's field of view.

I think you might be missing some of the sarcasm, Sirius.

 

[aparat]

Since there appears to be some interest in seeing the curves, I'd be happy to share my analysis and the details of my process. However, until I re-run the tests, I'd prefer to share data via DM only. I'd rather not post the analysis on an open forum, until I am certain of the results. I hope you understand.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think you might be missing some of the sarcasm, Sirius.

I was missing [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags.

 

[Moose22]

I was missing [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags.

I still love ya man. And I love Tri-X, a pretty much do it all film. Classic look and super forgiving.


@aparat That is awesome. I'm happy to wait until they're publicly posed, but that's a great service to the community.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Since there appears to be some interest in seeing the curves, I'd be happy to share my analysis and the details of my process. However, until I re-run the tests, I'd prefer to share data via DM only. I'd rather not post the analysis on an open forum, until I am certain of the results. I hope you understand.

Thanks dude.

 

[mshchem]

Interesting point about not following the lead of companies that have declared bankruptcy.

I'm going to give this a try.

Don't worry be happy!

 

[Roger Cole]

Let the film sit in fixer longer to clear the pink.

I prefer Kodak Tri X 400 shot at box speed, but as with all metering be sure to meter without the sky in the meter's field of view.

He was saying he liked the color coming out in the developer. The fixer will indeed clear the color from the film but that wasn't what he was talking about.

 

[Agulliver]

When I started photography as a child in the late 70s, I had no idea data sheets were even available. I asked those who had more experience than I what they used and why....asked to see some examples. I started on bog standard Kodacolor II but when I branched out into B&W for the first time I eventually stuck with Ilford FP4 having talked to older, presumably wiser folk.

Actually I don't think I became aware of the existence of full on data sheets until I came upon the www in the mid 90s. No camera shop, teacher or practitioner of photography had ever suggested I consult a data sheet when I asked "Hey, what's the best film for photographing an indoor concert" or "What's the best slide film for taking up a mountain". Then as now, a big part of the equation was price and availability.

that's not to say that data sheets aren't useful. And in an ideal world CatLabs would be able to furnish us with one. But it seems a minor issue to me. What's important is we've been told this isn't a repackaged film available in some other form.