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.
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.
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.
My Densitometer has a standard variation (=given tolerance by the densi manufacturer) of 0.1.
I have.Have you experienced the CatLABS film issues personally Pieter?
I thought so . . then STFU.
The backing paper, perhaps? The tape adhesion, rather than length? Quality control in general?-) what other cause for the described camera malfunction and loss of film is imagable?
-) a film to jam a major camera, necessitating partial disassembly of it, is utmost faulty, whatever the cause is.
The situation would be different if the film would have been marketed as budget film, especially apt to feed plain box cameras and a warning about use with certain film transport designs.
I am willing to stand corrected.
Then accept my apology for my sarcasm.I have.
I thought B&W film in general is sensitive to most safelights . . . so wouldn't you have to do this in complete darkness??Sounds like CatLabs is not being very cooperative, or very concerned about this issue, and I know it's a bit of a pain, but for the remaining rolls that you have, you could unroll them, and stick on a longer piece of tape, then re-roll it. I've re-spooled many a roll of 120 onto 620 spool...
Yep - but it requires the same sort of dexterity as loading reels for developing.I thought B&W film in general is sensitive to most safelights . . . so wouldn't you have to do this in complete darkness??
Andrew, the analog community is relatively small so as the saying goes . . . "Bad news travels fast". They are sitting on 10,000 rolls of this stuff (120), as a former entrepreneur and business (several) owner, this is the stuff nightmares are made of.Sounds like CatLabs is not being very cooperative, or very concerned about this issue, and I know it's a bit of a pain, but for the remaining rolls that you have, you could unroll them, and stick on a longer piece of tape, then re-roll it. I've re-spooled many a roll of 120 onto 620 spool...
I thought B&W film in general is sensitive to most safelights . . . so wouldn't you have to do this in complete darkness??
Andrew, the analog community is relatively small so as the saying goes . . . "Bad news travels fast". They are sitting on 10,000 rolls of this stuff (120), as a former entrepreneur and business (several) owner, this is the stuff nightmares are made of.
The roll that wouldn't advance properly...the tape and backing are still intact, not sure why I had a problem with this. But the tape IS short.
View attachment 224783
Andrew my order was for 20 rolls :/ . . . I shot and processed roll #3 yesterday successfully (Hasselblad) so far I have a 33% failure rate . . . hoping for better luck. I like the look of the film, it has ZERO curl after processing so that is indeed two things in it's favor. I process it in Rodinol 1+50I agree. And if they want to continue in this line of work, they'd listen to us customers, and do something about it. How many rolls are you stuck with?
You would only have to unroll the backing until you reach the first inch of film, something you could feel in total darkness. The difficult part would be applying a piece of tape that would almost go edge-to edge of the film but not overlap the backing paper edges. I guess you could trim the excess off at that point, but I think it might be hard to do, and over-trimming might introduce yet another problem in a finicky camera or magazine. I still think the Shanghai/CATLABS paper is an issue. I just looks and feels suspicious to me.Yep - but it requires the same sort of dexterity as loading reels for developing.
When I was using the last of good GP3, before the plant shut down, I respooled several rolls for my Kodak Medalist II and Kodak Monitor 620. I can honestly say that the tape was not as adhesive as Ilford or Kodak. It wasn't bad, but was much easier to pull off the film. Why did I say "pull of the film" instead of pull off the paper backing? If I tried to pull the tape off the paper it would bring some of the rough backing paper with it and that meant I couldn't reseal the tape to the backing paper again. So I would remove it off the film and then press the tape to the backing paper and apply my own pre cut "long" piece of tape. One of the rolls that went bad in my Hasselblad back let the backing paper [feed normal, but took the tape right off the backing paper. It would feed norbally for about 6 or 7 shots and then stopped. I was stumped as to why I couldn't wind on. It took me a good long while to get that back opened and cleaned out. I'm glad I was using my old trusty 500C instead of my 555ELX. That motor drive would have really screwed things up.
If CatLabs is setting on 10,000 rolls and all of us, plus many others, know of the feed problem I think we just might see a price reduction pretty soon. A restaurant can only serve nasty tasting food just so long. Word does get around. JohnW
[QUOTE="John Wiegerink, post: 2184386, member: 33580"One of the rolls that went bad in my Hasselblad back let the backing paper [feed normal, but took the tape right off the backing paper. It would feed norbally for about 6 or 7 shots and then stopped. I was stumped as to why I couldn't wind on. It took me a good long while to get that back opened and cleaned out. JohnW
If you got a pair of scissors with true straig branches you can press the film strip against one of the branches, using it as guide, and then cut.The difficult part would be applying a piece of tape that would almost go edge-to edge of the film but not overlap the backing paper edges. I guess you could trim the excess off at that point, but I think it might be hard to do, and over-trimming might introduce yet another problem in a finicky camera or magazine.
Andrew my order was for 20 rolls :/ . . . I shot and processed roll #3 yesterday successfully (Hasselblad) so far I have a 33% failure rate . . . hoping for better luck. I like the look of the film, it has ZERO curl after processing so that is indeed two things in it's favor. I process it in Rodinol 1+50
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?