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

[mshchem]

Omer is a good fellow. Has helped me out on several occasions. Catlabs buys and sells everything analog. I would think on this forum such institutions would be welcome

 

[Agulliver]

Because we know, from experience, that this is an aerial surveillance film

Do we know that?

At this point I'm going to demand written pwoof, with all the necessary data and graphs hand plotted or I'll scweem and scweeem and scweem until i get it.

All I am seeing in the last 24 hours is more reasons why this forum is actually known as "the unfriendly forum".

 

[brbo]

Do we know that?

At this point I'm going to demand written pwoof, with all the necessary data and graphs hand plotted or I'll scweem and scweeem and scweem until i get it.

I'm glad you noticed what I did there. Yes, please demand all that and see if my behavior here will go as low as someone else's.

Also, keep an eye on this thread if anybody provides proof (there are certain people that could) that I'm wrong.

You probably also missed that we do have a thread with data and plots.

 

[lolbertbread]

waiting on 10 rolls to arrive right now, does anybody have an idea what dev times would be like in sprint standard?

 

[Huss]

What next?
Maybe a CatLabs color film!

View attachment 319298

 

[AgX]

Catlabs calling perception "anecedotal" is a killer argument. Of course all our perception is anecdotal. I mean we all live in our bubbles. Or for those who dislike this image: me lying under a rock and Catlabs staring out of his narrow shop-window.

We got this again and again in such discussions. By lack of any reasonable data about this niche-within-a-niche topic we are bound to refer to our perceptions. And of course these vary. Due to location and perspective.

 

[Huss]

Ok, so I developed my second roll. First off, this film is very thin physically and I had light leaks/piping that affected the first pic. I had loaded my camera in daylight, but my back was to the sun (no choice as I was out n about) but still it seems I have to be much more careful loading compared to something like Kentmere 400.
This film also dries super flat. No curls at all, so that makes it very nice to handle.

My developer is Cinestill DF 96 Monobath, so all my thoughts are based on this. Obviously things would be different with other developers, but this is what I use with all my B&W films so it is easy for me to compare across the board. If you have a problem with DF96, use the developer you are happy with. That being said, in DF96 this film is contrasty and very punchy. It's not a film I'd pick for delicate landscapes, or even planned portraits if you want a multitude of tones. But it is a film that I would definitely pick if I wanted in your face 'loud' images. I think this would be great for street photography as it makes the images just jump at you. The type of shots where you want the subject matter to yell out their story, and you don't care about the nuances. For nuances, pick the awesome offerings like Acros II, your choice of Ilfords, etc.

This is about choice and picking what you want for the result you want.

Would it be my choice for an all-round film? Nope. That would be Kentmere 400 or HP5 if I'm feeling more splurgy. But if I'm going out looking to take some jumping images, Catlabs 320 PRO is where it is at. The kids - i.e. people who are the future of film photography and who avoid this site like the plague - will love this film.

Shot at iso 200, no filter.

 

[BrianShaw]

Ahhhh, DTLA… a great place for photography. Haven’t been there for a few years. Now on the short list of things to do and places to go. Thanks for sharing your images, Huss.

 

[AgX]

Omer is a good fellow. Has helped me out on several occasions. Catlabs buys and sells everything analog. I would think on this forum such institutions would be welcome

Who says he is not welcome?

But who gives out also has to take in. This is what the banter is about.

 

[mshchem]

Ok, so I developed my second roll. First off, this film is very thin physically and I had light leaks/piping that affected the first pic. I had loaded my camera in daylight, but my back was to the sun (no choice as I was out n about) but still it seems I have to be much more careful loading compared to something like Kentmere 400.
This film also dries super flat. No curls at all, so that makes it very nice to handle.

My developer is Cinestill DF 96 Monobath, so all my thoughts are based on this. Obviously things would be different with other developers, but this is what I use with all my B&W films so it is easy for me to compare across the board. If you have a problem with DF96, use the developer you are happy with. That being said, in DF96 this film is contrasty and very punchy. It's not a film I'd pick for delicate landscapes, or even planned portraits if you want a multitude of tones. But it is a film that I would definitely pick if I wanted in your face 'loud' images. I think this would be great for street photography as it makes the images just jump at you. The type of shots where you want the subject matter to yell out their story, and you don't care about the nuances. For nuances, pick the awesome offerings like Acros II, your choice of Ilfords, etc.

This is about choice and picking what you want for the result you want.

Would it be my choice for an all-round film? Nope. That would be Kentmere 400 or HP5 if I'm feeling more splurgy. But if I'm going out looking to take some jumping images, Catlabs 320 PRO is where it is at. The kids - i.e. people who are the future of film photography and who avoid this site like the plague - will love this film.

Shot at iso 200, no filter.

Great pictures. Thanks for your contributions!

 

[Huss]

Ahhhh, DTLA… a great place for photography. Haven’t been there for a few years. Now on the short list of things to do and places to go. Thanks for sharing your images, Huss.

You’re welcome!

 

[Huss]

Great pictures. Thanks for your contributions!

My pleasure!

 

[Agulliver]

Picked up my three 120 rolls of CatLabs 320 Pro from my sister in-law in Arkansas yesterday so I'll try and shoot a roll while I am out here, bringing two back home for later use. I'll be shooting on a 1930s Zeiss-Ikon folder. Thus far all I can say with certainty is that the service from CatLabs was rapid, and I agree that the film *looks* like Harman finishing in that it's in a silver foil packet with printing reminiscent of Ilford products and the backing paper is reminiscent of Ilford 120 backing paper. However it says "made in EU" and Mobberly has not, last time I checked, unilaterally rejoined the EU.

 

[Huss]

The sticker may have been made in the EU.

 

[aparat]

Ok, so I developed my second roll. First off, this film is very thin physically and I had light leaks/piping that affected the first pic. I had loaded my camera in daylight, but my back was to the sun (no choice as I was out n about) but still it seems I have to be much more careful loading compared to something like Kentmere 400.
This film also dries super flat. No curls at all, so that makes it very nice to handle.

My developer is Cinestill DF 96 Monobath, so all my thoughts are based on this. Obviously things would be different with other developers, but this is what I use with all my B&W films so it is easy for me to compare across the board. If you have a problem with DF96, use the developer you are happy with. That being said, in DF96 this film is contrasty and very punchy. It's not a film I'd pick for delicate landscapes, or even planned portraits if you want a multitude of tones. But it is a film that I would definitely pick if I wanted in your face 'loud' images. I think this would be great for street photography as it makes the images just jump at you. The type of shots where you want the subject matter to yell out their story, and you don't care about the nuances. For nuances, pick the awesome offerings like Acros II, your choice of Ilfords, etc.

This is about choice and picking what you want for the result you want.

Would it be my choice for an all-round film? Nope. That would be Kentmere 400 or HP5 if I'm feeling more splurgy. But if I'm going out looking to take some jumping images, Catlabs 320 PRO is where it is at. The kids - i.e. people who are the future of film photography and who avoid this site like the plague - will love this film.

Shot at iso 200, no filter.

These are fantastic! Thank you for sharing.

 

[brbo]

However it says "made in EU" and Mobberly has not, last time I checked, unilaterally rejoined the EU.

So? Film was made in EU and packaged in UK. Why would it be so odd to have it say "Made in EU"?

 

[Huss]

These are fantastic! Thank you for sharing.

You’re welcome! Did you notice the film physically seemed unusually thin? Or is that my imagination?
It made it harder to load onto my Arista plastic reels that I never have any issues w other films.

 

[aparat]

You’re welcome! Did you notice the film physically seemed unusually thin? Or is that my imagination?
It made it harder to load onto my Arista plastic reels that I never have any issues w other films.

I think so, yes. According to my caliper, about 0.02 mm thinner than 400TX. I agree that the film dries very flat and is easy to work with. Did you have a chance to examine grain in your high-resolution scans? Looking through a magnifier, it seemed very fine to me.

 

[Huss]

I think so, yes. According to my caliper, about 0.02 mm thinner than 400TX. I agree that the film dries very flat and is easy to work with. Did you have a chance to examine grain in your high-resolution scans? Looking through a magnifier, it seemed very fine to me.

The grain is very fine if developed sufficiently. Underdeveloping it - at least if using DF96 - results in much grainier images. My underdevelopment was unintentional - I should have tested if the DF96 was still potent with a test strip but forgot. With this monobath one needs to do that by the 14th roll.

It is an unusual film. Very fine grain with very high contrast. Definitely has its own look and if that suits your application then great!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

You’re welcome! Did you notice the film physically seemed unusually thin? Or is that my imagination?
It made it harder to load onto my Arista plastic reels that I never have any issues w other films.

Had the same difficulty. Only other film with which I had this problem is Adox CHS 100 ii.

 

[Huss]

Had the same difficulty. Only other film with which I had this problem is Adox CHS 100 ii.

Good to know. This actually will be the one thing that will dissuade me from buying the film again. It took me numerous attempts in my dark bag to load it. I like the results given the correct subject matter and/or desired effect, but if I cannot load it onto a reel w/o damaging it then it’s a no from me.
got three rolls left, will see how my loading mojo goes.

 

[MattKing]

I know you are invested in this "announcement" thread Huss, but your photos and your comments would be a perfect fit for the other thread, which is designed to report people's results from and evaluation of the film.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm hoping for 1000 replies. Let Huss continue.

 

[brbo]

You’re welcome! Did you notice the film physically seemed unusually thin? Or is that my imagination?
It made it harder to load onto my Arista plastic reels that I never have any issues w other films.

135 films on acetate base typically have base thickness of 0.12-0.13mm, those on polyester about 0.1mm. What @aparat measured seems about right for a polyester base.

I wonder what the deal is with Arista reels as I've loaded a lot of polyester based films onto my Paterson and Jobo reels and never had a problem.

 

[Huss]

135 films on acetate base typically have base thickness of 0.12-0.13mm, those on polyester about 0.1mm. What @aparat measured seems about right for a polyester base.

I wonder what the deal is with Arista reels as I've loaded a lot of polyester based films onto my Paterson and Jobo reels and never had a problem.

It may have been a one off. No issues w my first roll. Issues w the second. I have 3 more rolls that I will report back on when I use them.