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

[gone]

I'm late to the party, as usual, but what was/is the issue w/ the Catlabs film in question here?

I did a google search and it appears to be readily available, even on Fleabay. And I looked at a lot of the threads here, some of which said the film "should" be shot at EI 40-60. That's peculiar, but not necessarily a deal killer.

It appears to be different than the usual films, and it would take time to figure things out like the EI, what developer/filters it likes or doesn't like, etc. But we have to do that sort of thing w/ any film that's new to us. Maybe I missed something in the threads, but I'm always up for an $8 35mm 36 Exposure film challenge.

 

[BrianShaw]

The whole matter of CatLABS and this film seems to be going from bad to worse I always thought that if "you are in a hole stop digging" was the sensible course of action but seemingly not in this case

pentaxuser

It really was a rather light-hearted commentary. No real harm done.

 

[Huss]

I'm late to the party, as usual, but what was/is the issue w/ the Catlabs film in question here?

I did a google search and it appears to be readily available, even on Fleabay. And I looked at a lot of the threads here, some of which said the film "should" be shot at EI 40-60. That's peculiar, but not necessarily a deal killer.

It appears to be different than the usual films, and it would take time to figure things out like the EI, what developer/filters it likes or doesn't like, etc. But we have to do that sort of thing w/ any film that's new to us. Maybe I missed something in the threads, but I'm always up for an $8 35mm 36 Exposure film challenge.

I don’t understand the ISO 40 claim. I shot this at ISO 200

 

[MattKing]

don’t understand the ISO 40 claim. I shot this at ISO 200

You actually shot it at an EI of 200, and that difference of terminology is actually the crux of the matter.
You have a visual style that under-exposing and push processing is suitable for.
So that is what you have done, as shown in this and many other good examples you have posted. Each of those reveal exposures with reduced shadow detail and enhanced mid-tone contrast (from push processing), which appear to be the type of results you and many others prefer.
And you choose subjects and expose them in a way that takes advantage of the film used in that way.
For what you do, using the film this way suits your needs very well.
But the EI of 200 (or the 320 in the name) is a special use of a film that appears to have a much lower native light ("ISO") sensitivity, using the sort of tests that film manufacturers and marketers normally use to help customers compare products offered.
If this film was marketed as a low-mid speed (ISO 50?), fine grain film that also offered really good results when shot at EI 200 or higher when push developed, that would have been excellent and far more honest. That would be similar to how the Ilford and Kodak "3200" badged films are designed and bdged and marketed.
If CatLabs had chosen to describe the film that way, it would have been honest, while still highlighting a particular advantage of the film. And there would have been no controversy in this thread.

 

[Huss]

You actually shot it at an EI of 200, and that difference of terminology is actually the crux of the matter.
You have a visual style that under-exposing and push processing is suitable for.
So that is what you have done, as shown in this and many other good examples you have posted. Each of those reveal exposures with reduced shadow detail and enhanced mid-tone contrast (from push processing), which appear to be the type of results you and many others prefer.
And you choose subjects and expose them in a way that takes advantage of the film used in that way.
For what you do, using the film this way suits your needs very well.
But the EI of 200 (or the 320 in the name) is a special use of a film that appears to have a much lower native light ("ISO") sensitivity, using the sort of tests that film manufacturers and marketers normally use to help customers compare products offered.
If this film was marketed as a low-mid speed (ISO 50?), fine grain film that also offered really good results when shot at EI 200 or higher when push developed, that would have been excellent and far more honest. That would be similar to how the Ilford and Kodak "3200" badged films are designed and bdged and marketed.
If CatLabs had chosen to describe the film that way, it would have been honest, while still highlighting a particular advantage of the film. And there would have been no controversy in this thread.

I didn’t push process anything w the image of the gas pumps. Shot it at ISO 200, gave it to my lab to develop w no instructions to push etc. They just developed it in Tmax as they do all their B&W film.
As for deliberately picking subject matter/lighting, on this roll I also shot a bunch of interior scenes for the very intention of seeing how it would perform. Again, as above, lab developed no push etc because it was the same roll of film!

 

[MattKing]

The "standard" development recommendations out there are the ones from CatLabs - they are effectively push development recommendations.
An ISO development for the film, with metering at the ISO speed, would result in very different results.

 

[Huss]

Perhaps you should provide examples of those very different results? Shoot a scene at ISO 200 developed normally.. shoot the same scene at ISO 40 or 60, and develop at what you think is the appropriate rate for that ISO.

A visual comparison would be very useful.

 

[Agulliver]

I've followed this thread from the start and even used the CatLabs X 320 pro film, but even I am getting confused now.

It's supposedly Agfa Aviphot 200. It's also supposedly really ISO 40-50 ? Meanwhile CatLabs say it's some unique brew not available in any other form ?

"The CatLabs guy" changed the title of the thread after having his account restricted? sounds quite bitter to me. Until recently I was prepared to defend him but I'm getting more and more sceptical. I have no issue with Agfa Aviphot 200 being repurposed as camera film, it's good stuff. But I have issues *if* it has been falsely advertised as something else.

 

[koraks]

"The CatLabs guy" changed the title of the thread after having his account restricted?

No, that's not the chronology.

Moreover, please refrain from further conjecture about the intentions of members. It's fine to discuss a product and its marketing, and in that context it's evidently alright to point out inconsistencies etc.; kindly also keep it at that.

 

[Don_ih]

So that is what you have done, as shown in this and many other good examples you have posted. Each of those reveal exposures with reduced shadow detail and enhanced mid-tone contrast (from push processing), which appear to be the type of results you and many others prefer.

"Reduced shadow detail" is the characteristic of this film - as is "enhanced mid-tone contrast". There is virtually no way to change that with Aviphot - it's what it was designed to do, since it's supposed to be taking photos of an inherently low-contrast scene. As such, this film deals with low-contrast very well, if given enough exposure. But that doesn't need to be iso40. Iso100 to 200 is fine, if you know how to meter.

The lower the contrast of the scene, the easier it is to get and retain shadow detail.

 

[CatLABS]

And there would have been no controversy in this thread.

This seems quite unfounded....

 

[warden]

Perhaps you should provide examples of those very different results? Shoot a scene at ISO 200 developed normally.. shoot the same scene at ISO 40 or 60, and develop at what you think is the appropriate rate for that ISO.

A visual comparison would be very useful.

I agree that a comparison would be instructive for those interested. It would be easy to shoot a roll of properly exposed iso200 film (Ilford makes one) alongside the Catlabs product (also exposed at iso200) to see the differences between them.

 

[faberryman]

I agree that a comparison would be instructive for those interested. It would be easy to shoot a roll of properly exposed iso200 film (Ilford makes one) alongside the Catlabs product (also exposed at iso200) to see the differences between them.

I thought aparat posted photos exposed at EI 80 and developed in D76 1:1 for 5:45 on his Jobo. I think he is the only one who has shot at EI 80. I think everyone else has shot at EI 200. My takeaway from the photos exposed at EI 200 and developed variously were that they were high contrast with no shadow detail. From what I have read that is what the film was originally designed to do so that is no surprise, now that we know what the film actually is. If that is a look you like, by all means shoot it, or one of its other rebranded siblings.

 

[BrianShaw]

But the EI of 200 (or the 320 in the name) is a special use of a film that appears to have a much lower native light ("ISO") sensitivity, using the sort of tests that film manufacturers and marketers normally use to help customers compare products offered.

If this film was marketed as a low-mid speed (ISO 50?), fine grain film that also offered really good results when shot at EI 200 or higher when push developed, that would have been excellent and far more honest. That would be similar to how the Ilford and Kodak "3200" badged films are designed and bdged and marketed.

Following your logic, Kodak should have bdged their “3200” film with an 800 or 1000 designation.

 

[BrianShaw]

I didn’t push process anything w the image of the gas pumps. Shot it at ISO 200, gave it to my lab to develop w no instructions to push etc. They just developed it in Tmax as they do all their B&W film.

I shot this at ISO 200

And how were you metering? Some sort of special or critical metering seems often mentioned as a caveat for several lines of thinking in these threads. Additional clarity on your successes might help.

 

[MattKing]

Following your logic, Kodak should have bdged their “3200” film with an 800 or 1000 designation.

No - it is badged as a 3200 film because it is designed to give superior results at that EI, compared to other films.
It has ISO sensitivity of 800 - 1000, depending on developer. If you meter at that speed, its results are pedestrian, but capable.
But most important of all, the manufacturer fully discloses that ISO sensitivity characteristic.

 

[MattKing]

"Reduced shadow detail" is the characteristic of this film - as is "enhanced mid-tone contrast". There is virtually no way to change that with Aviphot - it's what it was designed to do, since it's supposed to be taking photos of an inherently low-contrast scene. As such, this film deals with low-contrast very well, if given enough exposure. But that doesn't need to be iso40. Iso100 to 200 is fine, if you know how to meter.

The lower the contrast of the scene, the easier it is to get and retain shadow detail.

If Aviphot is given more light - exposed and developed at something closer to its actual daylight ISO (not its aero ISO) - you will get more shadow detail. You may or may not like how the highlights render.
Just as I often don't like how the shadows are rendered when it is under-exposed at 200 and pushed.

 

[BrianShaw]

No - it is badged as a 3200 film because it is designed to give superior results at that EI, compared to other films.
It has ISO sensitivity of 800 - 1000, depending on developer. If you meter at that speed, its results are pedestrian, but capable.
But most important of all, the manufacturer fully discloses that ISO sensitivity characteristic.

The nominal speed is EI 1000 when the film is processed in KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer or KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX RS Developer and Replenisher, or EI 800 when it is processed in other KODAK black-and-white developers. It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards. For ease in calculating exposure and for consistency with the commonly used scale of film-speed numbers, the nominal speed has been rounded to EI 800. Because of its great latitude, you can expose this film at EI 1600 and yield negatives of high quality. There will be no change in the grain of the final print, but there may be a slight loss of shadow detail. When you need a higher speed, you can expose this film at EI 3200 or 6400. At these speeds, there will be a slight increase in contrast and graininess with additional loss of shadow detail.

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/F4001.pdf

 

[MattKing]

Exactly what I was saying Brian.
And if CatLabs had said something like this, and/or identified it as similar to Aviphot, no controversy.

 

[BrianShaw]

Exactly what I was saying Brian.
And if CatLabs had said something like this, and/or identified it as similar to Aviphot, no controversy.

Not really. According to your logic, Kodak should have been "more honest" and put the NOMINAL (true ISO) rating on the film canister and packaging. Explaining deviations in the documentation is fine but they marketed the film as 3200 speed.

CatLABS, at least, didn't "stretch the truth very far" if we are to believe the numerous practical examples of very good images provided by Huss and others that validate the CatLABS recommended speed rating of 200. And seeing is believing...

I don't understand the controversy, and starting to think that the revised title was more correct than I initially thought.

 

[MattKing]

No, that's not the chronology.

Moreover, please refrain from further conjecture about the intentions of members. It's fine to discuss a product and its marketing, and in that context it's evidently alright to point out inconsistencies etc.; kindly also keep it at that.

Actually the chronology was correct - the unintended extended window for thread title amendment was a glitch, and has now been corrected.
The rest of koraks post is correct.

 

[koraks]

Thanks Matt for the correction! What I meant was that there was no apparent causality between those two events, which I suspected was the implicit motivation behind the question. I should have formulated that more clearly.

 

[MattKing]

Not really. Kodak should have been "more honest" and put the NOMINAL (true ISO) rating on the film canister and packaging. Explaining deviations in the documentation is fine but they marketed the film as 3200 speed.

CatLABS, at least, didn't "stretch the truth very far" if we are to believe the numerous practical example provided by Huss and others that validate the CatLABS recommended speed rating of 200.

We can agree to disagree on this Brian. In any event, the parallel is not applicable, because CatLabs not only didn't disclose the ISO speed in its materials, it obfuscated the issue by putting ISO in the name and refused to disclose the ISO speed here when asked.

 

[BrianShaw]

We can agree to disagree on this Brian. In any event, the parallel is not applicable, because CatLabs not only didn't disclose the ISO speed in its materials, it obfuscated the issue by putting ISO in the name and refused to disclose the ISO speed here when asked.

We can agree to disagree, but that's not what we are disagreeing about.

 

[Huss]

And how were you metering? Some sort of special or critical metering seems often mentioned as a caveat for several lines of thinking in these threads. Additional clarity on your successes might help.

I don't mean to be flippant here, but I meter the way I would with any film given whatever the scene is. I do what I always do, meter for what I want 'correctly' exposed.
I didn't do anything special with this film, and that was my specific intention because I wanted to use it as a regular, unsuspecting, innocent buyer would, who has never heard of Photrio....
Which is also why I dropped it off at my lab, with no instructions as to how to develop it because I wanted the experience that a regular civilian would get. Not someone deep in the weeds uncovering the mysteries of this film that frankly no-one else outside the 10 or so people on photrio care about.

My take away? Do not develop it in DF 96 monobath as the results are very inconsistent. Regular developers like Tmax work great. If you want a punchy, very fine, ISO 200 film this is it. Bonuses are it is very easy to handle as nothing dries flatter. And it is only $6.99/roll.

If you don't like the characteristics of this film - which is fair enough - look elsewhere, there are so many options.