Issues with the new CatLABS X 80 film . . .

[Film-Niko]

Would you care to post the curves?

For ISO 64 I`ve got the following values (GP3 first number, catlabs second):
Zone I: 0.09 / 0.08 logD
II: 0.19 / 0.2
III: 0.38 / 0.39
IV: 0.53 / 0.55
V: 0.73 / 0.73
VI: 0.88 / 0.9
VII: 1.06 / 1.06
VIII: 1.28 / 1.26
IX: 1,45 / 1.47
X : 1.63 / 1.65
My Densitometer has a standard variation (=given tolerance by the densi manufacturer) of 0.1.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So, if the manufacturer used a longer piece of tape, would the problem be solved? Is the issue with the type of tape, or length used?

 

[Pieter12]

So, if the manufacturer used a longer piece of tape, would the problem be solved? Is the issue with the type of tape, or length used?

I wonder if the problems is not the tape, but the film base. The film is unlike any of the Kodak or Ilford products I am familiar with, having no curl at all when unspooled. It also seems more slippery, loading very easily on the the developing reel. Maybe whatever tape they are using doesn't adhere that well to this base? In the late 90's I worked on advertising for the Agfa motion picture film account. They had a motion picture print film that was different from Kodak's and was more environmentally-friendly to process. Unfortunately, the emulsion would sometimes slide off the base!

 

[Adrian Bacon]

So, if the manufacturer used a longer piece of tape, would the problem be solved? Is the issue with the type of tape, or length used?

I think it’s the tape length across the width of the film. All of Kodak’s and Fuji’s 120 film that I’ve seen has the tape going all the way across, even Bergger Pancro400 has the tape going all the way across, and I never feel anything catch on anything when I advance to the first frame, but with this film, it catching seems normal.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think it’s the tape length across the width of the film. All of Kodak’s and Fuji’s 120 film that I’ve seen has the tape going all the way across, even Bergger Pancro400 has the tape going all the way across, and I never feel anything catch on anything when I advance to the first frame, but with this film, it catching seems normal.

Thanks Adrian. A very simple fix, then. They had better do it for the next batch otherwise they won't be selling any 120.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Are CatLABS aware of the tape issue? Wouldnt want any cats to have to miss meals...

 

[John Galt]

Are CatLABS aware of the tape issue? Wouldnt want any cats to have to miss meals...

Theo Sulphate, I spoke to them about it on the phone. The person I spoke with basically punted with "Well we had to come in with the film at a specific price point" and no offer to replace the defective roll. I have shot two rolls, the first roll was OK, I was pleased with the results. The second roll the film pulled away from the backing paper and wadded up in the Hasselblad magazine. Had to disassemble the magazine partially to get the insert out . . . almost lost a $200+ magazine for a $6 roll of overpriced film.

That's a 50% failure rated so far. I have 18 more rolls to roll the dice with. :/

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Wow. Of all the things that could go wrong and be bad with 120 film, ensuring sufficient tape across the width of the leading edge is about the easiest to fix and microscopic increase in cost.

Yes, film magazines are expensive and no one wants to damage one. They need to fix the problem.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Now that we know exactly which film CatLabs X 80 is it all makes sense. They pulled GP3 off the market while they were negotiating a deal with CatLabs. After that deal was sealed they(China) then opened the floodgates and it started showing up on eBay again, but at much higher prices than before. I'd say that Catlabs is paying well under $3.00 a roll. Part of the deal between the GP3 Shanghai film company and CatLabs was that Shanghai GP3 film company had to then wholesale their brand GP3 higher than they did before they pulled GP3 so as not to undercut CatLabs. Chinese firms are starting to play Capitalistic games now. What a shame. Greed is what makes Capitalism work and it;s what make Communism fail. Of course I could be wrong on this, but maybe not. If I were CatLabs I would send every roll back or sell it at a discount with the disclosure about the tape problem. Then tell those Chinese Capitalist to make up the difference while they fix the problem. I'll stay with Ilford as I think this is a little shady. Maybe honest, but shady to me.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Greed is what makes Capitalism work and it;s what make Communism fail. ...

Greed works only in the short term - because people will buy crap for only so long (*). Producing a better product is what makes Capitalism work. Thus we saw all the high quality cameras, cars, electronics, etc., from Japan, Germany, and elsewhere.

(*) yeah, I can't explain Microsoft Windows.

 

[Peter Schrager]

At $6 a roll I'd call it a sucker's game
Never had a bad roll or sheet of Kodak or ilford
I'm not ever supporting catlabs ..
I like to make photographs..if I want to gamble I'll go to Vegas!

 

[John Galt]

At $6 a roll I'd call it a sucker's game
Never had a bad roll or sheet of Kodak or ilford
I'm not ever supporting catlabs ..
I like to make photographs..if I want to gamble I'll go to Vegas!

I'll trade you 18 rolls of CatLABS X 80 for 9 rolls of whatever you have in Ilford or Kodak . . .

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I'll trade you 18 rolls of CatLABS X 80 for 9 rolls of whatever you have in Ilford or Kodak . . .

Well, maybe that's your way forward: sell or trade the film to those who have medium format cameras that don't use complex and expensive magazines.

 

[John Galt]

Well, maybe that's your way forward: sell or trade the film to those who have medium format cameras that don't use complex and expensive magazines.

I got suckered by their marketing it as similar to the old Kodak Panatomic X

 

[MattKing]

The film would probably be trouble free in most folders or Mamiya C series TLRS - anything with a really straight film path.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Pentax 6x7 too.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The CatLABS film is 7 GBP here, ie much more expensive than FP4: https://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/firstcall-catlabs-x-120-iso-80/p7394

 

[AgX]

So what was the intention of Catlabs?
They could have re-introduced a "budget" film, with all its implications. Instead they seem to have wanted to set foot on the market with an "own" film, within standard price range. The same time they argue with a dissatisfied customer that they have to keep things cheap.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The whole issue of film pricing seems odd. Here in the UK ILFORD 120 (Pan F, FP4, HP5) and Foma 120 are similarly priced, but Foma 35mm to an extent, and certainly Foma sheet film is much less expensive. Kodak seems to be more competitively priced from Fotoimpex, compared to some UK dealers.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Well, maybe that's your way forward: sell or trade the film to those who have medium format cameras that don't use complex and expensive magazines.

+1

I only have one camera this happens with. My other two medium format cameras have absolutely zero issues.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The film would probably be trouble free in most folders or Mamiya C series TLRS - anything with a really straight film path.

Yes, the only camera that developed the wading was the 'blad backs. My folders and Pentax 67 had no problems. The truly sad part about this whole story is that the film itself is really darn good. I could live with the tape issue if I were paying close to its prior price of $3.00 or sometimes less, but revolt at the new price. While I say the film is good it's just not $6.00 a roll good. JohnW

 

[choiliefan]

I suppose one could unroll the start of the film, feel and re-tape if deemed necessary.
Does the factory tape have adequate tackiness?

 

[John Wiegerink]

I suppose one could unroll the start of the film, feel and re-tape if deemed necessary.
Does the factory tape have adequate tackiness?

I found that the tape was just basically a cheap piece of masking tape. Of course, that was a while back so I don't know what they use now, but it sounds like the same cheap tape. True, you could re-tape it, but at $6.00 a roll it's certainly not worth the effort. $2.80 a roll, maybe???? JohnW

 

[Pieter12]

Wow. Without any real evidence, the forum has decided the tape is cheap and too short and is the sole cause of the problem with certain cameras that have a sinuous film path.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, maybe that's your way forward: sell or trade the film to those who have medium format cameras that don't use complex and expensive magazines.

What?? I don't what that stuff to ruin my Holga!!