No it’s a box.
...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.
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.
It might not be limited to young people. LOLGeez no wonder young people are allergic to this site
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."
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
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.)
It has already been said above, this forum indeed causes an allergic reaction to many.This made some of us, let's say allergic.
Lets speculate on this a bit more, could CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro possibly be Kentmere 400?By the way, even if it was Kentmere, Kentmere is not available as 120 so Catlabas 320 has plus points for this.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?