Is CatLabs 80 II, Repackaged Fomapan 100?

[Patrick Robert James]

I'd love to try Panchro 400 and Adox 100 but they are never around when I am looking for film. Kind of a shame.

Anyone in the US buy it from Fotoimpex since the whole tarriff thing started? I know they use DHL for shipping to the US and I've heard they are heavy on fees.

 

[retina_restoration]

I also thought Bregger 4X5 sheet film was pretty good and bought two boxes and some rolls of 120. Unfortunately, the 120 film developed some strange type of fungus patterns that really showed themselves in highlight areas. I didn't buy anymore after that. Hopefully this isn't the pattern Adox will follow (here today and gone tomorrow).
I only use HR-50 since it's a pretty darn good IR type film to boot. IR shooting is such a small percentage of what I shoot that it's not really that important for me, but it's still nice to have a few IR type films around.

The last time I bought 10 rolls of Pancro 400 in 120 format (four years ago, maybe five?) it was unusable in anything but D-76. I processed two rolls in PMK (which I had done many times before) and they came out as dense as welder's glasses — unusable. That was the last time I bought any.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The last time I bought 10 rolls of Pancro 400 in 120 format (four years ago, maybe five?) it was unusable in anything but D-76. I processed two rolls in PMK (which I had done many times before) and they came out as dense as welder's glasses — unusable. That was the last time I bought any.

Whoa, I never heard of that problem with Pancro 400 120. Was it a fog problem Paul? Or did they change the emulsion? It really doesn't matter I guess since after my last experience my Pancro 400 days are over anyway.
Oh, I was just looking and I see you can get Catlabs 80 8X10 25 sheets for $139.00 from B&H. That seems pretty darn reasonable for 8X10 B&W film.

 

[pbromaghin]

To hell with all this. I’m sticking to Ilford and Kodak. It ain’t worth a few bucks of savings.

 

[mshchem]

Keep in mind that the author of this thread was quite pleased with the Catlabs film. Tested and shown to be quite acceptable for the task at hand.

 

[albireo]

The last time I bought 10 rolls of Pancro 400 in 120 format (four years ago, maybe five?) it was unusable in anything but D-76. I processed two rolls in PMK (which I had done many times before) and they came out as dense as welder's glasses — unusable. That was the last time I bought any.

I use Pancro 400 routinely in 35mm and 120 and it's a fantastic film. I've had 0 problems with it so far.

I think there might be major issues with your process because the actual film is excellent. I prefer it to HP5+ actually.

In fact, I'm stopping altogether with Ilford and Kentmere which don't give me results I like. Kentmere 200 has to be one of the most disappointing films I've tried recently (much inferior to Foma 200 and Ferrania P33 for my use case) and Ilford HP5+ is just overpriced here in Europe and has odd highlight rendition.

For 120, I will stick with Kodak TriX (noticeably better than HP5+ for my taste, and same price here) or Foma 100 (an incredible film, probably one of my all time favourites) together with Pancro 400.

For 35mm, Foma 100, Foma 200 and Ferrania P33 cover all my basic needs.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I use Pancro 400 routinely in 35mm and 120 and it's a fantastic film.

I think there might be major issues with your process because the actual film is excellent. I prefer it to HP5+ actually.

In fact, I'm stopping altogether with Ilford and Kentmere which don't give me results I like. Kentmere 200 has to be one of the worst films I've tried recently (much inferior to Foma 200 and Ferrania P33 for my use case) and Ilford HP5+ is just overpriced here in Europe and has odd highlight rendition.

For 120, I will stick to Kodak TriX (much better than HP5+ and same price) or Foma 100 (an incredible film, probably one of my all time favourite) and Pancro 400

For 35mm, Foma 100, Foma 200 and Ferrania P33 cover all my basic needs.

I'll let retina_restoration give his opinion on Pancro 400 downside for him, but mine is simple. It's a great film when it works, but after the mottling problem I had with 120 and lack of 4X5 it soured me on Pancro 400. I have honestly not used it in 35mm as far as I can remember, but I usually don't shoot films much above ISO 100 in 35mm with the exception of Foma 200 and a few rolls of TMY2. To be honest I don't really shoot 35mm much anymore at all.
The Catlabs 80 film is now on my "to try" list especially after seeing B&H has 8X10 25sheets for $139.00. Oh, and like I hinted to Andy, I like nice dark red tomatoes and Catlabs 80 delivers that in spades or maybe hearts would be better.

 

[retina_restoration]

I use Pancro 400 routinely in 35mm and 120 and it's a fantastic film. I've had 0 problems with it so far.

I think there might be major issues with your process because the actual film is excellent.

I will point out that I said I have used PMK many, many times with Pancro 400 without any issue, but a certain batch of Pancro I bought a few years back was consistently ill-behaved in PMK, and I tested a second roll just to be sure it wasn’t just something I did wrong. It was most definitely something that had changed in how the film behaved.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I will point out that I said I have used PMK many, many times with Pancro 400 without any issue, but a certain batch of Pancro I bought a few years back was consistently ill-behaved in PMK, and I tested a second roll just to be sure it wasn’t just something I did wrong. It was most definitely something that had changed in how the film behaved.

Thanks for clarifying that, Paul. That's what I was wondering, was it a bad batch or bad storage, but now I know? Maybe they have their act together now, but it doesn't matter to me since there is no 4X5 Pancro 400 I'm not interested in it anyway.

 

[MARTIE]

Correct. They are not making it themselves. Whatever it is, I'm glad it's around, because it's an affordable option to 8x10, for me. It works very well in all the Alt. processes that I use.

Hopefully, this won't rule out your use of the New Ilford Pan f in your next video!

The world is relying on you...

 

[retina_restoration]

Whoa, I never heard of that problem with Pancro 400 120. Was it a fog problem Paul? Or did they change the emulsion? It really doesn't matter I guess since after my last experience my Pancro 400 days are over anyway.
Oh, I was just looking and I see you can get Catlabs 80 8X10 25 sheets for $139.00 from B&H. That seems pretty darn reasonable for 8X10 B&W film.

I don't know, John. I suspect something in the manufacture of the film changed, because I used the same chemistry and technique I had been using for years.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've been ever so slowly working my way through an 8x10 box of Pancro 400... Nice film, but that base fog! I can't use it for Alt! I guess I could scan it in and go from there...

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've been ever so slowly working my way through an 8x10 box of Pancro 400... Nice film, but that base fog! I can't use it for Alt! I guess I could scan it in and go from there...

Yup, fog was the first thing I noticed and was a little worried about. I didn't need to worry since the wet prints came out just fine. Truth is I really did like the film in 4X5, but they must not have sold enough to make it worth them continuing production of sheet film. I'm very tempted to order some Catlabs 80 8X10 from B&H. If Catlabs 80 sheet film works out well, I might just buy a total of 100 sheets. 50 of the 4X5 and 50 of the 8X10. That, along with what I already have would be enough 8X10 film for the rest of my life at my rate of shooting.

 

[braxus]

I just wish Adox would start making again CHS 100II film in sheet sizes. I missed buying it when it was available. I did stock up a little on the 120 though.

 

[polaromar]

I'd love to try Panchro 400 and Adox 100 but they are never around when I am looking for film. Kind of a shame.

Anyone in the US buy it from Fotoimpex since the whole tarriff thing started? I know they use DHL for shipping to the US and I've heard they are heavy on fees.

I have. Shipping is already expensive and the tariffs are just added pain. I'd make sure to order a bunch of rolls in one go to amortize the cost.

It sounds like everyone is talking about 120 here, but for anyone who wants to shoot 35mm, HR-50 and Scala 50 (same emulsion, just different packaging) are pretty readily available via Cinestill.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So.... Anyone here shoot CatLabs 80... or Fomapan 100?

 

[polaromar]

I shot Fomapan 200 that failed to latch to my Voskhod's advance mechanism and made me accidentally expose the whole roll when I tried to unjam it, does that count?

 

[AnselMortensen]

So.... Anyone here shoot CatLabs 80... or Fomapan 100?

Yes.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot Foma 100 rated at 64 in 120 and 35, for large format I've been using Foma 400 rated at 200. I have a roll of Catlab 80 in my Kowa Super 66, will take it out next week and develop in Clayton F76+.. Foma 100 is a decent film. Over the years I have used it with MCM 100, F76+, Acufine, HC110, Rodinal, grain is good, resloution is ok at 110 LPM, with Acufine tends to get a bit of contrast, in D76 or Clayton F76+ workable. But, I have stopped buying Foma 120 due to the curle, others have posted that the new runs seems to have less curle.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have. Shipping is already expensive and the tariffs are just added pain. I'd make sure to order a bunch of rolls in one go to amortize the cost.

It sounds like everyone is talking about 120 here, but for anyone who wants to shoot 35mm, HR-50 and Scala 50 (same emulsion, just different packaging) are pretty readily available via Cinestill.

Yes, HR-50 is available, but I don't want it in 36 exp. cassettes. Too much film curl with the cassettes so I want to buy 100' bulk rolls only. Of course, if Adox doesn't bring back 100' bulk rolls I'll have no other choice. Oh, I'm still waiting for HR-50 in 120 like Adox had mentioned when they released HR-50, but no sign or even mention of that from Adox. Oh well 35mm cassettes are better than nothing I guess.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have. Shipping is already expensive and the tariffs are just added pain. I'd make sure to order a bunch of rolls in one go to amortize the cost.

It sounds like everyone is talking about 120 here, but for anyone who wants to shoot 35mm, HR-50 and Scala 50 (same emulsion, just different packaging) are pretty readily available via Cinestill.

Curious how much the tariffs and fees from DHL were....

 

[Daniel Stuefer]

So.... Anyone here shoot CatLabs 80... or Fomapan 100?

Only fomapan 100, at 50, and ortho 400 at 200, both in D-23 replenished (usually), in 135, 120, 4x5

I don't like the near-IR films as much, the reds get too bright (unless I want to actually do IR)...
I've actually just ordered a 50cc cyan filter, to see how close that pushes normal pan response to ortho (proper cyan/"minus red" filters are too hard to find...)

 

[tcolgate]

So.... Anyone here shoot CatLabs 80... or Fomapan 100?

I got a box of foma100 in 4x5 for my first ever adventures with LF, zero regrets, but I do quite a bit of still life/macro and the reciprocity is a bit of a hindrance there.
For my second box I got some FP4, but after messing up with a grafmatic back and trashing 6 sheets of foma in one go, I decided to save the FP4 for "Sunday best" until I can trust myself to F up a bit less. I ended up buying a second box of the foma100.
Honestly though, I feel like the foma is absolutely good enough for my needs. I think it's just a bit of snobbery that gets me reaching for other stuff. (I've just sated the snob in me by ordering a box of PanF too).
Do you think that Foma or the catlabs can get enough density range for salt prints? (that's the next big thing on my ToDo list).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I got a box of foma100 in 4x5 for my first ever adventures with LF, zero regrets, but I do quite a bit of still life/macro and the reciprocity is a bit of a hindrance there.
For my second box I got some FP4, but after messing up with a grafmatic back and trashing 6 sheets of foma in one go, I decided to save the FP4 for "Sunday best" until I can trust myself to F up a bit less. I ended up buying a second box of the foma100.
Honestly though, I feel like the foma is absolutely good enough for my needs. I think it's just a bit of snobbery that gets me reaching for other stuff. (I've just sated the snob in me by ordering a box of PanF too).
Do you think that Foma or the catlabs can get enough density range for salt prints? (that's the next big thing on my ToDo list).

Yes, they are fine for Salt, and all other Alt. processes that I use, including Carbon Transfer.

 

[retina_restoration]

Do you think that Foma or the catlabs can get enough density range for salt prints? (that's the next big thing on my ToDo list).

Density is not the problem, the film base + fog is. I tried using the CatLabs/Fomapan for Salt and Kallitype printing, and it was difficult because the base density interferes with shadow rendering. Compared to prints made with FP4+, the CatLabs print was dull and the high values quickly blocked up.
I know Andy has had a different experience, but I found it quite unsuitable for alt print processes.