Issues with the new CatLABS X 80 film . . .

[John Galt]

I shoot using a Hasselblad 500 C/M.

I have 10 rolls of it in 120 format. I shot and processed one roll in Rodinol 50 to 1. Here is one of the images off that roll . . .



What I like about it:

1: Love the look
2: Dries very flat with no curl.

Issues:

1: I found that the film strip is a bit narrower than other brands making it a bit difficult to load into the carrier for scanning.
2: The backing paper sucks. Tears much too easily. Accidentally ripped the leader off removing the tape on the first roll.
3: While shooting my second roll yesterday AM, as I was advancing to frame number 7 something felt amiss. There was more resistance to the film advance than normal. I continued to shoot the rest of the roll. Rewinding the film in the Hasselblad magazine was difficult. The film had separated from the backing paper. The backing paper had rewound leaving the film all bunched up in the magazine. What a mess. I had to remove the darkslide and cut the film to get the insert out of the magazine.

This magazine I have logged as having 76 rolls of film though it, no issues whatsoever. I loaded and shot three rolls of film though it yesterday PM, One roll of Tri-X and two rolls of Acros without issues.

If I have any more issues with this film I will be contacting CatLABS.

 

[choiliefan]

They owe you at least one roll of film, so far...

 

[AgX]

I assume you mean Rodinal.

 

[EdSawyer]

that's more than enough issues to not bother with it (not that I was going to anyway, but even moreso now...)

 

[jim appleyard]

I admit I'm curious about all films and I thank you for trying this one out; nothing ventured, nothing gained. While I mean no disrespect to you, I would like to remind all photographers out there that film is probably the least expensive thing in their camera bag. A roll of Tri-X in 120 costs $6.59 in New York camera stores. In a 6x6 format, that's $0.55/ exposure. Pretty cheap. Is it worth it to shoot cheap film?

 

[John Galt]

I assume you mean Rodinal.

 

[John Galt]

I admit I'm curious about all films and I thank you for trying this one out; nothing ventured, nothing gained. While I mean no disrespect to you, I would like to remind all photographers out there that film is probably the least expensive thing in their camera bag. A roll of Tri-X in 120 costs $6.59 in New York camera stores. In a 6x6 format, that's $0.55/ exposure. Pretty cheap. Is it worth it to shoot cheap film?

Did not buy it because it was cheap, I bought it because the distributor markets it as similar to the old Kodak Pan Atomic X

 

[jim appleyard]

But it turned out to be cheap, as in low quality.

 

[mshchem]

Did not buy it because it was cheap, I bought it because the distributor markets it as similar to the old Kodak Pan Atomic X

Sounds like a backing paper problem. If the paper is fragile, and the tape holding the film to the paper failed, the film would wind on until, as you experienced, you had a bunched up mess of backing paper.
And I hear you, this isn't an attempt at cheap film. Catlabs is trying to fill a niche. I hope it works out. This is the first I've heard of a problem. I'm waiting for the 320 in medium format.
I would get ahold of Catlabs with your problem.

 

[John Galt]

But it turned out to be cheap, as in low quality.

Sure seems that way Jim.

 

[John Galt]

Sounds like a backing paper problem. If the paper is fragile, and the tape holding the film to the paper failed, the film would wind on until, as you experienced, you had a bunched up mess of backing paper.
And I hear you, this isn't an attempt at cheap film. Catlabs is trying to fill a niche. I hope it works out. This is the first I've heard of a problem. I'm waiting for the 320 in medium format.
I would get ahold of Catlabs with your problem.

Actually, the film was a bunched up mess, the backing paper wound up nicely on the spindle like it was supposed to . .

 

[koraks]

I assume you mean Rodinal.

In Canada a product is marketed under the name Rodinol IIRC; a rodinal formulation with an altered name to evade a trademark issue I believe.

 

[MattKing]

In Canada a product is marketed under the name Rodinol IIRC; a rodinal formulation with an altered name to evade a trademark issue I believe.

Actually the Canadian version is called Blazinal - described as being the same as one of the historic versions of Rodinal (there have been several).
It is marketed by Blazes Photography - thus the name - who are a Canadian photographic supply company.

 

[koraks]

Then it's the brand name Adox uses in the US and/or Canada for rodinal. I only remember that it's specific to the NA continent and it had something to do with trademarks, but rodinol apparently is real.

 

[bascom49]

Before throwing the towel in contact CatLabs, let them know your experiences and give them a chance to improve their product by benefit of your feedback.

 

[mshchem]

Actually, the film was a bunched up mess, the backing paper wound up nicely on the spindle like it was supposed to . .

So I had the result wrong but it could still be the tape that holds the film to the paper let go. Of course the paper is what is attached to the wind up spool. Brain fart on my part

 

[MattKing]

Actually, the film was a bunched up mess, the backing paper wound up nicely on the spindle like it was supposed to . .

So I had the result wrong but it could still be the tape that holds the film to the paper let go. Of course the paper is what is attached to the wind up spool. Brain fart on my part

The jobs that the backing paper (and tape) are required to do include the very important job of making sure that the film is pulled from the feed spool, across the film gate, and on to the take-up spool.
In fact, the film doesn't even touch the spools themselves.
So if your film ends up in the wrong place, it isn't the film's fault, it is the fault of either the backing paper (and tape) or the camera.
It isn't surprising that problems originate from the backing paper. It probably costs the film supplier more to buy the backing paper than it does to buy or make the film itself - or at least that was what Ilford's representative said several years ago about their 120 film.

 

[removed account4]

Before throwing the towel in contact CatLabs, let them know your experiences and give them a chance to improve their product by benefit of your feedback.

+ 1 !

Complaining on an internet forum will not help much, but an email to the manufacturer might.

 

[John Galt]

I spoke with Omer at CatLABS this morning to inform them of these issues. He said it was a large production run and they had 10,000 rolls on hand. The issue I had with the film releasing from the backing paper was the first he had heard of. He was aware that the backing paper is a bit on the tender side. I examined the film where it was taped to the backing paper, most of the tape was on the film with about 20% actually on the backing paper. I believe the attachment of the film to the backing paper with tape is a manual operation?

I will continue to use the CatLABS X 80 that I have. If I have anymore issues I will contact them to let them know. I sincerely hope that my issues were a fluke and not indicative of the over all quality of the film. I am exited that there is a company (or two) that are willing to take the risk of introducing new analog film to the markets. I wish them success.

 

[bascom49]

I want to personally thank you for taking the time to reach out and contact CatLABS. It gives them a chance to improve their product, which helps out the rest of us in the long run.
Charles

 

[AgX]

Omer from Catlabs is a member here with a great amount of postings. Just now he is online. I doubt that such thread will remain undetected by him for long.

 

[Flyingfortfan]

For what it's worth I shot a roll of the film last week thru a Mamiya RB 67 Pro-SD, 120 Pro-SD back and luckily didn't have any issues. I agree the backing paper was a bit on the delicate side and was pretty course. I liked the film though and look forward to using the other 4 rolls I purchased. I opted to develop in d-76 1+1. Attached is low rez scan of my results.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Are there lot numbers on these film packages? It would help in isolating any issues.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I shoot using a Hasselblad 500 C/M.

I have 10 rolls of it in 120 format. I shot and processed one roll in Rodinol 50 to 1. Here is one of the images off that roll . . .

View attachment 223928

What I like about it:

1: Love the look
2: Dries very flat with no curl.

Issues:

1: I found that the film strip is a bit narrower than other brands making it a bit difficult to load into the carrier for scanning.
2: The backing paper sucks. Tears much too easily. Accidentally ripped the leader off removing the tape on the first roll.
3: While shooting my second roll yesterday AM, as I was advancing to frame number 7 something felt amiss. There was more resistance to the film advance than normal. I continued to shoot the rest of the roll. Rewinding the film in the Hasselblad magazine was difficult. The film had separated from the backing paper. The backing paper had rewound leaving the film all bunched up in the magazine. What a mess. I had to remove the darkslide and cut the film to get the insert out of the magazine.

This magazine I have logged as having 76 rolls of film though it, no issues whatsoever. I loaded and shot three rolls of film though it yesterday PM, One roll of Tri-X and two rolls of Acros without issues.

If I have any more issues with this film I will be contacting CatLABS.

I ran the first roll of X Film 80 through my chemistry today and have some observations that may be related to the issue you had:

1. The tape holding the roll to the backing paper does not provide enough coverage across the width of the frame. It should go at least 90%+ of the width of the roll. If it doesn't, you're just asking for one of the corners to lift up just enough to catch on the inside of your camera and jam things up. See attached photo below. If there's something about this film that is going to hurt it, you're looking at it right now. I ran this roll through a Hasselblad 500CM and when I was advancing to the first frame, I felt one of the corners catch on something inside the film magazine. I was being slow and gentle and got past it, but I could see this easily being the source of lots of problems, so CatLABS, please take notes and on the next production run, the tape needs to go most if not entirely across the width of the film. I'm less perturbed about it not being affixed straight and more perturbed about the fact that it's not holding the corners down.

2. This is an observation and not a complaint. The backing paper resembles black construction paper. It's not particularly sturdy. It wasn't much of an issue for me, but it's definitely more fragile than backing paper for other films. It also smells funny. Not strong, but definitely not odor free, and not what I'd expect to smell. I'm not sure if its the film or the paper that smells.

3. holy wow that is some insanely clear film base.

4. I'll have a characteristic curve worked up and development time for replenished XTOL in a JOBO at 24C and posted in another thread in the next few days (this is what I'm spending my weekend on). It won't be long and we'll know the real workable EI for XTOL and a good idea of the characteristic curve. Following that will be some sample pictures.

 

[destroya]

I just shot and developed (its hanging to dry) my first roll of the catlabs 80 film. a few observations that tell me this film is the same as shanghai Gp3

1) the backing paper. thick almost construction paper like (?). the same as a roll of Gp3 I have sitting in front of me.
2) the cheapness of the film finishing screams gp3. I have not shot a roll of film in years that is the same as Gp3, except for this
3) the thinness of the film base as well as the clear color is the same as the Gp3 I have used before
4) the finishing sticky paper says shanghai Gp3 on it. doesn't get much more obvious than that
5) Like Gp3, this film is available in 120, 4x5 and 8x10, but NOT 35mm.

Now im saying that this is a bad thing. I like the tonality of Gp3. I just dont think the film, as the Catlab product is worth the price of admission at over $6 a roll shipped. More expensive than tmax 400, FP4, and panf, and a lot more expensive than ultrafine xtreme 100. Back when you could get Gp3 for under $3 a roll it was a fair trade, but not at $6 a roll. if they can get the price lower, I would think more about shooting it, but not at the current price. If its all that's available, I would have no problems shooting it. I just feel there are better options out there for me.

This is just 1 mans opinion. Please develop your own

John