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

[Paul Howell]

I am waiting for my 5 rolls, I will test with a ring around, start with ISO 50 and work up to 800, use F76+ 1:10 and look for texture in Zone III, then refine development time for texture in Zone VII and call it a day. As early testing indicates E.I slower than 320 I hope for 100, 50 would be a bit slow for me.

 

[aparat]

No it’s a box.

Okay, it's a box. In photography, there's no right or wrong in terms of process. From what you said, it seems that you are motivated by obtaining results that you like, strictly by trial and error. What you are doing, in fact, is creating mental "data sheets." You are constructing a mental map through your process, remembering all the little details that lead you to your destination, so that, next time, you can get to your destination more easily. Some of the posters in this thread, prefer a more data-driven, quantitative approach. It's just another road to the same destination. There's no need to call such people names.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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

That would only under expose Ilford Delta 3200 by 1/3 stop per ISO.

 

[pentaxuser]

That would only under expose Ilford Delta 3200 by 1/3 stop per ISO.

Or if the Catlabs film is genuinely an ISO of 1250 would match D3200's ISO in the fastest developer for it and beat its speed in most developers

pentaxuser

 

[Huss]

Okay, it's a box. In photography, there's no right or wrong in terms of process. From what you said, it seems that you are motivated by obtaining results that you like, strictly by trial and error. What you are doing, in fact, is creating mental "data sheets." You are constructing a mental map through your process, remembering all the little details that lead you to your destination, so that, next time, you can get to your destination more easily. Some of the posters in this thread, prefer a more data-driven, quantitative approach. It's just another road to the same destination. There's no need to call such people names.

This reply proves my point exactly. Now bickering over what a data sheet is.

Geez no wonder young people are allergic to this site.

 

[BrianShaw]

Geez no wonder young people are allergic to this site

It might not be limited to young people. LOL

 

[Oldwino]

If the true speed is really somewhere arounf
d 100, then the recommended dev times seem a little wacky. 19 min for Rodinal 1+50?
are we developing or baking here?
I think I will try Diafine for my first roll…

 

[Moose22]

I'm kind of sorry I looked back.

I swear I hate photographers some days. Seriously, it could be the second coming and these people would bitch and argue about how long the dude's beard was.

Anyway, I was going to report that I killed a roll just walking around yesterday. I'll try to soup it in the next day or two, I'm just out of xtol and time to mix up my fresh batch this weekend.

Oh, it's not freaking Kentmere. Even if it was, I'm not shedding a tear over a few pennies. If a dollar's difference is stopping you from shooting film, you should have gone digital a long time ago.

 

[AgX]

The reason for some bickering at this thread is the number of rebranded films having turned up lately, some not even mentioned at Photrio. I mean rebranded films without even a benefit price-or availability-wise.
This made some of us, let's say allergic.

(To be fair, if one looks at rebranding having been done in the good old days, the current situation seems far from that.)

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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."

This is interesting and useful. Thanks for doing the tests and sharing your findings.

It would also be useful to compare the real-world results that you get with i) manufacturer's recommendations vs ii) your experimentally determined EI + developing time. If you plan to do this comparison, please do share your results.

Thanks again.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

That would only under expose Ilford Delta 3200 by 1/3 stop per ISO.

Or if the Catlabs film is genuinely an ISO of 1250 would match D3200's ISO in the fastest developer for it and beat its speed in most developers

pentaxuser

Completely misses the point. Manufacturers naming their films with numbers that have nothing to do with the real ISO speed is neither new nor unique to the subject of this thread. That's the point.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

The reason for some bickering at this thread is the number of rebranded films having turned up lately, some not even mentioned at Photrio. I mean rebranded films without even a benefit price-or availability-wise.
This made some of us, let's say allergic.

(To be fair, if one looks at rebranding having been done in the good old days, the current situation seems far from that.)

Yeah agre with y ou AgX. There has been some Foma rebranded films that charge a couple of bucks more just for the package. I suspect this make us wary about "new film stock".

By the way, even if it was Kentmere, Kentmere is not available as 120 so Catlabas 320 has plus points for this.


Will order 10 120 rolls this weekend and test it.

 

[Nitroplait]

Did someone say it has a clear base?
I have some Adox 35mm with clear base. It is made in Germany according to the label.
Who makes ADOX?

 

[CatLABS]

This made some of us, let's say allergic.

It has already been said above, this forum indeed causes an allergic reaction to many.

By the way, even if it was Kentmere, Kentmere is not available as 120 so Catlabas 320 has plus points for this.

Lets speculate on this a bit more, could CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro possibly be Kentmere 400?
Despite all empirical evidence to the contrary, the company flat out saying "no", all visual based evidence and cues says "no" and even common sense is screaming "no" at you. Should we still consider the possibility, after all of these, even if so remote, it likely requires a global, international, multi-generational conspiracy to hide the truth from the masses? According to Photrio, the answer is YES. Perhaps the new CatLABS film is the harbinger of flat earthers .

 

[Huss]

CatLabs recommends to shoot this film at ISO 200 for outdoor use.
I will shoot it at ISO 200 and I’ll put money down that actual results will look great.
For those who claim by their studies/research etc it is actually an ISO 25 or whatever film just stop and think for a second..
CatLabs wants you the consumer to be happy with the results from this film. They want repeat customers. Why on earth would they say to shoot this film at ISO 200 when it actually is 4 stops slower?

This reminds me of the same nonsense with Shanghai 100 220 film. “Experts“ here claimed it actually was an ISO 20 film. I shot it at 100 as recommended and the results were great. I posted examples of this. Mysteriously those claimed the ISO was much lower never posted actual images taken at that ISO speed.

When I receive it, I’m going to shoot the CatLabs film at ISO 200 and post results.
How about those who claim it is an ISO 25 or whatever film shoot it at that and post results?

Also, I am going to develop it completely normally i.e as Catlabs recommends. So no trying go make up for errors in “exposure” by pushing dev.

 

[Nitroplait]

I don't think speculating who is involved in making a product is necessary toxic.
It is like trying to solve a mystery. It is just procrastination, keeping us from going out making photos or from darkroom work.

There are other directions in this thread that qualifies as toxic.

 

[Paul Howell]

Completely misses the point. Manufacturers naming their films with numbers that have nothing to do with the real ISO speed is neither new nor unique to the subject of this thread. That's the point.

Although most folks do not shoot Delta or Tmax 3200 at 3200, it is what both ILford and Kodak has set the DX default to 3200, looking at the Kodak data sheet I can see that with Tmax developer you can shoot at 3200 with shadow detail. I develop in D76 so I shoot 1600 and consider 3200 to be push.

Until I get my rolls of Catlabs new film and do some very basic testing of my own have no idea what my E.I will be.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

By the way, never especulated that Catlabs 320 was Kentmere, was just bringing a fact that contradicted that theory.

 

[mshchem]

It has already been said above, this forum indeed causes an allergic reaction to many.

Lets speculate on this a bit more, could CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro possibly be Kentmere 400?
Despite all empirical evidence to the contrary, the company flat out saying "no", all visual based evidence and cues says "no" and even common sense is screaming "no" at you. Should we still consider the possibility, after all of these, even if so remote, it likely requires a global, international, multi-generational conspiracy to hide the truth from the masses? According to Photrio, the answer is YES. Perhaps the new CatLABS film is the harbinger of flat earthers .

A couple weeks ago I was in a (coin) shop. I was in the presence of two "Flat Earthers" . It was stunning! They were tuned in to the same internet wizard.

All this nonsense and conspiracy stuff is ruining this forum. Catlabs is a premier supplier, leader in the United States for darkroom equipment from Jobo, Heiland and many others.

Either buy the film or don't. If you do, develop and report the results.

I have a refrigerator full of film, it will probably be a while before I buy anymore.

 

[pentaxuser]

Completely misses the point. Manufacturers naming their films with numbers that have nothing to do with the real ISO speed is neither new nor unique to the subject of this thread. That's the point.

Sal, I thought you were being whimsical about the use of a 1250 DX coded cassette being relevant in any way to the Catlabs film and in my whimsical way I was trying to be in tune with you. My whimsy was obviously blown off course over the Atlantic, the Ozarks, the Great plains or the Rockies but I know not which

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

Completely misses the point. Manufacturers naming their films with numbers that have nothing to do with the real ISO speed is neither new nor unique to the subject of this thread. That's the point.

It is probably just a coincidence that CatLABS names its film "CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro" and also claims it is an "EI ISO" 320 film.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, right from the beginning I took the reference to Kentmere as being a reference to the trends in the marketplace, not a theory about this specific film.
I too would like to see information about the ISO speed for the film, but I understand that obtaining that information is something that requires somewhat expensive testing, and may therefore be impractical for CatLabs.
And this is more of a pet peeve than anything else, but in my mind the examples posted are much better demonstrations of the vision of a particular photographer and use of interesting light than something that would tell me about how the film performs in a variety of situations and types of light.

 

[faberryman]

A couple weeks ago I was in a (coin) shop. I was in the presence of two "Flat Earthers" . It was stunning! They were tuned in to the same internet wizard.

All this nonsense and conspiracy stuff is ruining this forum. Catlabs is a premier supplier, leader in the United States for darkroom equipment from Jobo, Heiland and many others.

Either buy the film or don't. If you do, develop and report the results.

I have a refrigerator full of film, it will probably be a while before I buy anymore.

It is not conspiracy stuff. CatsLABS doesn't want to say who manufactures its film, and some photographers want to try to figure out who it is. The last time CatsLABS offered 35mm/120 film, CatLABS kept the manufacturer secret and some enterprising photographers determined it was Kodak 5222 and Shanghai GP3, and had fun doing so. What's the problem? Where's Waldo?

I can't believe you don't want to spend $6.99 for a roll of CatLABS film to try it out. This could be THE film.

 

[Moose22]

CatLabs recommends to shoot this film at ISO 200 for outdoor use.
I will shoot it at ISO 200 and I’ll put money down that actual results will look great.

My plan is to test at 320 and 200.

I shot the first roll at 320, the one that's in now is set to 200 (same camera, my F6. and I'll shoot this week so similar light) and I'll see with my own eyes how they look after the xtol. I'm expecting I'll probably shoot the rest at 200 or whatever I like.

I find this fun, and it's affordable film to do the experiment with. But that's all the experimenting I need to do as I'm not technical.

I got 120 as well, though I'm starting with the 135. The cat labs folks being active and available, and the film not being pricey, I'm more than willing to spend the $7ish (including developing chemisty costs) to see how it looks with my own eyes.

 

[mshchem]

It is not a conspiracy. CatsLABS doesn't want to say who manufactures its film, and some photographers what to try to figure out who it is. The least time CatsLABS offered 35mm/120 film, CatLABS kept the manufacturer secret and some enterprising photographers determined it was Kodak 5222 and Shanghai GP3, and had fun doing so. What's the problem? Where's Waldo?

I can't believe you don't want to spend $6.99 for a roll of CatLABS film to try it out. This could be THE film.

There's always non disclosure agreements, do not analyze agreements. Etc. This is ordinary and completely normal. Previous job we dealt with plastics and chemicals. If something was marked "business confidential" you didn't make copies, share even internally by email.
I don't see why people care who makes it???