I’m teased… and waiting with bated breath!Just a teaser for tomorrow,
I also did not control any of the default Vuescan settings, so please, take this with a grain of salt.
Vuescan default settings apply fill light for shadows and compression for highlights. They are by no means a flat scan, it has a lot of software "improvements". It is the something I reallly don't like about Vuescan.
For those here who have used this film can I ask that you take a quick look at a video review I have posted on the other thread i.e. the original one started by CatLABS. It was done in the U.K. The presenter makes an interesting but not necessarily valid comparison of sorts towards the very end of the video
Why this rather cryptic message? Well I want to ensure that I maintain a distance between what this thread is about compared to the other and I fear that if I put video here and ask for answers it may cause deviation from this thread's purpose. If it were to start the "cut and thrust" here that exists on the other thread I'd feel responsible for it
Thanks
pentaxuser
So what might it be about the CatLABS film that may cause bromide drag that doesn't cause this with Acros?CatLabs 320 in DF96. ISO 200. Severe bromide drag on this roll, but when I developed a roll of Acros II after this, using the exact same technique and the same bottle of DF96 - no bromide drag. These pics show it far less than most of the others on this roll.
So I cannot recommend CatLabs to be developed w DF96 Monobath.
Huss,
Do I recall correctly that none of the other black and white films you use with DF96 are on polyester base? I ask because it may be that the base material is an important contributor to bromide drag when using a monobath.
So what might it be about the CatLABS film that may cause bromide drag that doesn't cause this with Acros?
I know nothing about emulsion technology to even hazard a guess as to why Acros emulsion is resistant to bromide drag in DF Monobath not CatLABS 320 Pro
pentaxuser
In my experience, the dye released in the processing is somewhat dark, coolish, grey.It would make more sense just to ask your question here about what others have observed about the colour of the pre-wash or developer when they are dumped out.
This thread is about people's experience with the film.
It would make more sense just to ask your question here about what others have observed about the colour of the pre-wash or developer when they are dumped out.
This thread is about people's experience with the film.
Our first attempt, my wife was shooting a Fuji GS645S. It has center weighted metering and we set it at 200 ISO as recommended for HC110.
Thanks Dwight for sharing your experience. If you don't mind, I'll add the name of the film somewhere in your post, so that if the post is quoted elsewhere - it happens - the context will be clear.
Matt has a good suggestion that it may be the thinner polyester base that CatLabs uses. It's not just Acros that is more 'resistant', I have not had this issue w/ Ilford, Kodak, Foma etc products.
The lower slope in the right third of this graph means the film is "self-compensating" (a term I just invented). That means to get compensation, you don't need to use Diafine; this film compresses highlights for you. That aspect of this film could be beneficial because the human eye is less sensitive to shadow contrast than highlights. Therefore, it's best to have more contrast in the shadows, as that curve portrays. If that curve retains its shape when the film is not overdeveloped, I'll be tempted to buy some.
Yes he may be right but unless it is a thinner polyester that is unique to this film I'd have thought that by now other users of DF 96 Monobath would have seen the same bromide drag with similar thickness polyester base film?
Maybe we don't have enough users of DF96 here on Photrio to know?
pentaxuser
I don't know whether it is the thickness of the polyester base that matters.
I would think that that the permeability and "slipperyness" and other physical characteristics of the material would be more important when it comes to evaluating how fluids flow around the substrate when it is sitting in the monobath.
Bromide drag is, after all, rather physical.
Perhaps those physical characteristics are also the reason why this film dries so flat and clean, without nasty drying marks?
For our next attempt at shooting Catlabs 320 Pro, I decided to over expose and under develop, at least based on the box recomendations. Meters were set to 100 and developing time was reduced 20% to 8:15 in HC110. I should note that in all of the rolls I have developed in HC110 the grain is very fine.
I shot my Dora Goodman 6x6 3d printed camera with a Tessar 100mm F3.5 mounted. It's from a Graflex XL and the Synchro Compur has been tested to be accurate. I used a phone app for metering, who knows how accurate that is, but I've been happy with the results. My wife was shooting her Pentax ZX5n with a Pentax 35-70 F3.5-4.5 zoom. She was using matrix metering. It was a bright sunny day with no clouds, late in the afternoon.
I was very happy with the scans, the histograms looked normal, some peaking in the shadows, some in the highlights, but good midtones on every shot. The only adjustments made were to bring the highlights down to the top of the histogram results. I would definitely shoot and develop it this way again. It still has a moody look, but much denser negatives with more detail in the shadows.
Some of my wife's photos, I think the vignetting is from an old hinged lens cap that is intruding:
View attachment 320468
View attachment 320469
View attachment 320471
And some of mine, scale focusing a 100mm lens is a leap of faith.
View attachment 320472
View attachment 320473
View attachment 320474
View attachment 320475
The last photo has white concrete in full sunlight and completely shaded overhang with plenty of detail.
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?