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

[Paul Howell]

I guess Orwa, or who is now coating for Orwa and Bergger?

 

[mshchem]

Kentmere is an acetate base. So it's probably, just as has been said, it's not Ilford and it's not Kodak. Hmm, and it's made in the EU....

Maybe the base is extruded by A, the emulsion is prepared by B, the cassettes come from C, it's coated by D, packaged by E and distributed by NATO.

TRY IT OR NOT. NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY

 

[mshchem]

One other thing there's a beautiful manufacturing site in Switzerland. Adox is looking for a technical person who will spend a week a month in Switzerland, then there's Orwo. There's probably an International plot to take over the medium speed panchromatic film industry.

 

[Agulliver]

All the badgering of the nice human from Catlabs who keeps coming here to give us the best info they can.....also tends to lean me towards buying some. Could have it shipped to my sister in-law in MO as I'm visiting in three weeks.

 

[AgX]

I don't know what labeling rules, if any, apply to either the U.K. or the EU, ...

Originally that "made in" even was a labelling enforced by the importing country, to its rules.
Meanwhile it is also important for final products not being imported or exported... Thus regulations of home and export markets could apply, making it a mess...

Here in Germany two, in cases even contradicting, concepts are handled in the legal world.

 

[Ten301]

Actually, in some ways it was kinda nice before the internet when we all had more important things to worry about. Like just enjoying photography.

 

[aparat]

I finished running my tests. I have no reason not to like this film. In fact, I find it very easy (and pleasant) to work with. It has exceptionally low B+F density (for a 35 mm film) and it dries super flat. It also seems to resist drying marks rather nicely. The grain is fine and tight. I would imagine this film would scan really easily. I discovered no emulsion flaws, whatsoever. One interesting bit is the fact that on all three 35 mm cassettes I bought, the DX code was covered with a piece of black electrical tape. Finally, as there's been some speculation as to the film's origin, in my experience, the film does not resemble any of the current 35 mm films by Harman (including Kentmere), Foma, or Kodak. The film base, is similar to that of the Rollei Retro 80s, but I make no claim that the film is made by the same manufacturer as the Rollei Retro 80s.

I encourage you guys to try to find flaws in my methodology, especially if they would help account for the results. I do not claim to be an expert sensitometrist!

I have tried to run the tests using as rigorous a process as I could within my modest home setup. My results DO NOT include any real-world photography, so they are probably completely useless to most photographers. I simply exposed the film using a calibrated and certified sensitometer at 3.68 Log Millilux Seconds, processed four film strips for 4, 5:40, 8, and 12 minutes in D76 1+1 at 20C using continuous agitation in a rotary processor. I then computed all the usual parameters, such as Gamma, G, CI, film speed, fractional gradient, etc., and I am reporting my findings below. Please, refer to my previous post in this thread for more details.

As promised earlier in this thread, I ran my film test twice, just to be sure I didn't botch the first attempt completely. The results are very much the same, e.g., the "speed point" differs by 0.01 Log Exposure and the CI by 0.02 between the two runs (comparing 8 min. in D76 1+1 at 20C with continuous agitation), so within the margin of error. Compared to expired Fujifilm Neopan 400 and expired 400TX, the Catlabs 320 Pro, when processed to approximately the same CI (or G), using the ISO standard, as described in Davis (1993), Eggleston (1984), and elsewhere) appears about 3 stops slower. In essence, when exposed and developed according to the manufacturer's film box recommendations, the film has the property of being significantly underexposed and overdeveloped, or "pushed."

I computed film speed by two different general methods: (1) the ISO standard method, using absolute log exposure values, and (2) the BTZS method, using relative log exposure values. I obtained speed point densities by means of the commonly used 0.1 over B+F method, as well as the fractional gradient (Nelson and Simonds, 1955), and approximate CI (Phil Davis, 1993) methods, all yielding consistent results. Admittedly, there is some, small, gain in speed when developed for the manufacturer's recommended time, but then you're getting the CI of 0.72-0.74, which some photographers will love, but others will hate. . Perhaps this is the "street film" look that Catlabs refer to on their website. I can totally see this film being very popular because of that look!

The results are somewhat troubling to me. The Catlabs 320 Pro does appear significantly slower than advertised. However, different manufacturers have different methodologies of computing their "box speed," so I don't really worry about the actual ISO 320 value per se, as most photographers run their own tests anyway. What's more significant, though, is the fact that the Catlabs Pro 320 appears to be much slower than (expired) 400TX and (expired) Neopan 400. It's a pity I did not have any fresh 400-speed film to compare the 320 Pro against.

Still, I want to take the Catlabs advertised film speed and development time in good faith, so it's possible, maybe even likely, that there are flaws in my methodology. If I were to try to poke holes in my testing process. I could easily find at least two possible sources of variability (or error). One, Catlabs 320 Pro has a much different reciprocity failure property than 400TX and Neopan 400. The sensitometer exposure was 1.068 seconds. Not ideal, but that's the only option I had (I was aiming for an ISO 200 exposure). Two, Catlabs 320 Pro has a very different spectral response, which resulted in a significant dip in sensitivity, particularly, around the peak of 530 nm. I am sure I am missing something. I welcome your comments and criticism.

 

[ags2mikon]

Thank you for your time and effort in testing this. So I get that this has an ei of 25-50? and maybe partially blind at 530?

 

[Huss]

I did.

I mean...really, how are we supposed to take decent photos if we don't have the results of spectrographic and RMS granularity testing, as well as notarized provenance of all components?

<sarcasm off>
(For those who need that disclaimer)
<sarcasm off again>

Lol, excellent!

I have never, ever looked at data sheets. Ever. All that matters to me is shoot a roll, see if I like the results. If I do, I’ll use more.
These insane, nit picking questions border on someone asking having a type of aspergers. It’s like instead of being happy that someone is releasing film, they are determined to prove some kind of weird conspiracy and thus hoping to doom it.
This is a site meant to celebrating film, not cursing the survival of it.

Catlabs - impressed u are still here replying to some of these inane comments. But if I were you I’d spend time marketing/answering to the younger and young film crowd who would be delighted to hear this product is being released. The type of photographers that many here would disparage as ‘hipsters’ because they gotta hate on everything.

Peace out,

 

[Huss]

Placed my order, looking forward to using it.

 

[MattKing]

It might be fun to play around with a ~50 ISO film with intriguing spectral sensitivity, rather than a more predictable 400 ISO film.

 

[pentaxuser]

One interesting bit is the fact that on all three 35 mm cassettes I bought, the DX code was covered with a piece of black electrical tape.

I wonder why this was the case? Have you taken the tape off to see what the code underneath reveals assuming there is a code there?

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

I wonder why this was the case? Have you taken the tape off to see what the code underneath reveals assuming there is a code there?

I think I read somewhere that cassettes are in short supply, so perhaps CatLABS couldn't find cassettes with the right DX code. Besides, ISO 320 is a little unusual, so they may have been in short supply anyway.

 

[aparat]

I wonder why this was the case? Have you taken the tape off to see what the code underneath reveals assuming there is a code there?

pentaxuser

I do not know why, but here's a picture

 

[aparat]

Thank you for your time and effort in testing this. So I get that this has an ei of 25-50? and maybe partially blind at 530?

I guess the data seem to be pointing that way, yes.

 

[aparat]

Lol, excellent!

I have never, ever looked at data sheets. Ever.

Are you sure? The film box is a data sheet, and the most important one at that.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks aparat for the photos of the code on the cassettes. Does anyone know what this represents in terms of speed?

Does Catlabs mention this use of electrical tape anywhere in its details? The problem arises with some P&S cameras such as the mju II which reverts to 100 without a DX code. Of course not a problem if the real speed is in this region. Still it might be nice if owners of such cameras were made aware of the use of electrical tape


pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

Lol, excellent!

I have never, ever looked at data sheets. Ever. All that matters to me is shoot a roll, see if I like the results. If I do, I’ll use more.

People are different. Have different attitudes. Some of us are engineers, with a different approach than you.

 

[Arcadia4]

Left cassette in pic
1250 iso
24exp, +2/-1 exp tolerance

Seems a random choice hence the black tape.
for those wondering there is a code for 320 iso.

 

[Huss]

People are different. Have different attitudes. Some of us are engineers, with a different approach than you.

And some of us are photographers.

 

[Huss]

Are you sure? The film box is a data sheet, and the most important one at that.

No it’s a box.

 

[AgX]

And some of us are photographers.

Well, there was the profession of Photoengineer.

Some of these only took photos of colour-tables and designed those wonderful films you love, others took real photos and sold them.

 

[pentaxuser]

Left cassette in pic
1250 iso
24exp, +2/-1 exp tolerance

Seems a random choice hence the black tape.
for those wondering there is a code for 320 iso.

Thanks It gets even more intriguing. It may be that whoever "confections" the film for Catlabs is unable to make/obtain a 320 code and using what ever it can find and then attaches (by hand?) electrical tape?

It might be helpful if others buying this film were to check their cassettes for DX codes as it might be that whoever is confectioning the film is having to use whatever cassettes it can find so other cassettes have other codes

I had no idea that any previous films were 1250 but there must have been such films for this code to exist

It might be a temporary matter of course. Maybe Catlabs will shed some light on this puzzle?

pentaxuser

 

[ags2mikon]

With all of the supply line shortages we are lucky to even get film in cassettes. It may get to the point it is sold on the spool in a light tight foil and we load it into our own cassettes in the darkroom. My last batch of GP-3 35mm was in refugee cassettes.

 

[faberryman]

No it’s a box.

The film box says whether it is color or black and white film and has the film ISO speed printed on it which may be helpful when you are buying film at the store, and can't take the cannister out to read the information there. The inside of the box, at least at one time, told you how to expose the film if you didn't have a meter. It was the Sunny 16 rule, which curiously remained the same both before and after they removed the ASA safety factor in 1960 and black and white films magically became twice as sensitive to light. Twice as sensitive to light yet required the same exposure. Quite a trick. Maybe the sun dimmed. Oh, the data sheet also contained some developing instructions just in case you didn't know that intuitively.

Of course, now we have the internet so we don't need boxes and data sheets. The thing is if you go to Photrio or another forum, no one can agree on film speed, or which developer to use, or how long to develop the film, or whether to agitate with your left hand or your right hand, or whether to use water or stop bath, or what concentration of photoflo, etc. I sort of think new film enthusiasts would be better off with a box and a data sheet, you know, get the basics down before you go on the internet and become hopelessly confused. That assumes you'll be developing your own film. I guess most new film enthusiasts just mail their film off for processing and digital scanning, so maybe that information is really unnecessary. I guess it could be that boxes and data sheets are anachronisms.