Issues with the new CatLABS X 80 film . . .

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

All evidence from people who have used the film, points to the tape. The tape is too short. The corners are snagging as the film is advanced. If it were me, I'd take one of those buggered rolls, retape the end properly, and run it through my Mamiya RB to see if it jams.

 

[John Galt]

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.

Have you experienced the CatLABS film issues personally Pieter?

I thought so . . then STFU.

 

[AgX]

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.

-) 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.

 

[Film-Niko]

My Densitometer has a standard variation (=given tolerance by the densi manufacturer) of 0.1.

Sorry for the typo: It must be 0.01 of course.

 

[Pieter12]

Have you experienced the CatLABS film issues personally Pieter?

I thought so . . then STFU.

I have.

 

[Pieter12]

-) 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.

The backing paper, perhaps? The tape adhesion, rather than length? Quality control in general?

 

[John Galt]

I have.

Then accept my apology for my sarcasm.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think there is probably a good reason why film manufacturers who care about QC, use long piece of tape...and backing paper with the right finish to hold the tape and film down. Shorter piece, even if the backing paper is top notch, will allow the film corners to bend, possibly catching onto something. I'll bet that CatLab stuff would bung up my Holga!

 

[Pieter12]

I recently processed a roll of CATLABS 80 as well as a roll of Ilford Delta 100 Pro. The backing paper from both was still in the trash can in my darkroom, so I fished it out to see if there were any differences. The CATLABS paper is very pulpy and relatively easy to tear. It was quite obvious where the tape had been, the surface was torn away (so tape adhesion strength is probably not the problem, although paper surface integrity might well be). The Ilford paper is much smoother and feels a bit more resistant to tearing. There was no obvious mark left where the tape had been. I could not identify which scrap of tape came from which roll of film, it was wadded up. This is a very small sample, and the roll of CATLABS did not give any problems in-camera. I do have a roll that would not advance properly in the camera (Rollei 6008, a pretty simple film path). I will examine that one to see what happened.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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...

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[John Galt]

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??

 

[MattKing]

I thought B&W film in general is sensitive to most safelights . . . so wouldn't you have to do this in complete darkness??

Yep - but it requires the same sort of dexterity as loading reels for developing.

 

[John Galt]

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...

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I thought B&W film in general is sensitive to most safelights . . . so wouldn't you have to do this in complete darkness??

Yes. I thought about mentioning that, but I figured you lot would already know that... You could also do it in a changing bag.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

I 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?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

That looks like it was stuck on by hand!

 

[John Galt]

I 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?

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

 

[Pieter12]

Yep - but it requires the same sort of dexterity as loading reels for developing.

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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

 

[John Galt]

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

That is EXACTLY what I experienced on my 2nd roll through the Hasselblad A12 magazine . . . I also use an ELX . . . thank goodness I was not using it, the motor drive would have probably broken something . . . possibly trashing the body and/or the magazine . . .

Yep . . . as an experienced business owner, I think we will see this film at less than $4 a roll soon . . .

Fuck me . . . I paid almost $6 plus shipping for 20 rolls . . . all because I was suckered by the Panatomic X marketing angle . . . I'm a Leo, so sometimes emotion trumps logic . . LOL!

 

[John Wiegerink]

[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

EXACTLY what I experienced on my 2nd roll through the Hasselblad A12 magazine . . .[/QUOTE]
John,
Well that tells me the film hasn't changed one bit since they shut production down and restarted. This should have been fixed by Shanghai Film Company (whatever their name might be) way more than a year ago. I think CatLabs ought to really put the pressure on them to make this right. We shall see if the honorable Chinese do the right thing or not. JohnW

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have a question for all those involved in this thread. Has anyone here bought Shanghai GP3 from eBay instead of CatLabs? The reason I ask is I'm wondering if CatLabs might have made a sweet deal on the remaining stock that was on hand when the factory shut down for rebuilding or whatever. Maybe the eBay sellers are getting an upgraded film in the way of backing paper and tape??? I don't know and that's why I ask if there is a difference between CatLabs stock and eBay sellers stock. Just curious?? JohnW

 

[AgX]

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.

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.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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

I’ve shot and processed several rolls and it does dry ridiculously flat.