Testing and evaluating CatLabs "X Film 320 Pro (2022 version)

[aparat]

However it would appear to have a different spectral response in that P30 seems very close to being ortho with reds being very dark whereas CatLABS 320 Pro is sensitive to red according to aparat's findings

pentaxuser

That's correct. In my experience, the Catlabs Pro 320 is at least a stop more sensitive towards the red part of the spectrum than green.

 

[aparat]

I am attaching my final report on the performance of the Catlabs Pro 320 film. It is a an eighteen-page PDF document, which contains only an abbreviated report, but I think it has almost everything that I thought was useful. I would be more than happy to share all the rest of it, so please DM me if you're interested. Thank you all for your help, your comments, and all the awesome photographs shared in this thread.

 

[warden]

However it would appear to have a different spectral response in that P30 seems very close to being ortho with reds being very dark whereas CatLABS 320 Pro is sensitive to red according to aparat's findings

pentaxuser

Yes that’s why I mentioned only speed and contrast.

I remember making a print with P30 that had an American flag in it, and the flag was white, black and black. ;-)

 

[Huss]

 

[Huss]

 

[aparat]

This lonely angler photograph makes me think of the insignificance of a person's existence compared to the timelessness of nature, with a strong dose of foreboding. I think your choice of composition and deep contrast helps convey the theme perfectly.

 

[Huss]

This lonely angler photograph makes me think of the insignificance of a person's existence compared to the timelessness of nature, with a strong dose of foreboding. I think your choice of composition and deep contrast helps convey the theme perfectly.

Thank you. But I think he is wondering if he should cancel his CatLabs order as he uses DF96 Monobath as his developer.

 

[aparat]

Thank you. But I think he is wondering if he should cancel his CatLabs order as he uses DF96 Monobath as his developer.

Please, do not take my comment as criticism of your process, only curiosity. In the picture showing the hatted man sitting with a beach ball, the texture in the sky and the shadows seems to show, what looks like to me, rather pronounced grain or some sort of artifact (from scanning?), in addition to bromide drag. In my experience, processing the Catlabs Pro 320 in D76, grain is very fine for a film marketed as ISO 320. Could you please elaborate/speculate as to nature of this texture? Is it increased grain or is it just part of bromide drag? Aesthetically, I rather like it. It adds to the mood of the photograph.

 

[faberryman]

The question I have about the man on beach ball (or whatever it is) photo is whether the tone of sky results from the use of say red and graduated neutral density filters or other analog means, the spectral sensitivity of the film, or digital post processing. As aparat noted, it is also quite grainy. Is that the DF96 developer?

 

[Donald Qualls]

CatLABS 320 Pro is sensitive to red according to aparat's findings

In fact, based on Shoot Film Like a Boss YouTube tests (dropped a couple days ago), the CatLABS Xfilm 320 Pro has reduced blue sensitivity -- he shot portraits of the same subject on 5222 and 320 Pro, and the blue eyes printed much lighter with the XX than with the 320 Pro. Of course, this could also be read as extended red sensitivity, which we might expect from a relabeled surveillance emulsion.

 

[aparat]

In fact, based on Shoot Film Like a Boss YouTube tests (dropped a couple days ago), the CatLABS Xfilm 320 Pro has reduced blue sensitivity -- he shot portraits of the same subject on 5222 and 320 Pro, and the blue eyes printed much lighter with the XX than with the 320 Pro. Of course, this could also be read as extended red sensitivity, which we might expect from a relabeled surveillance emulsion.

Sensitivity is lowest to green, then blue, then highest to red. But those are only very rough estimates. I am still putting together a better test of spectral response, but it'll be at least a few weeks before I am able to return to it.

 

[Huss]

Please, do not take my comment as criticism of your process, only curiosity. In the picture showing the hatted man sitting with a beach ball, the texture in the sky and the shadows seems to show, what looks like to me, rather pronounced grain or some sort of artifact (from scanning?), in addition to bromide drag. In my experience, processing the Catlabs Pro 320 in D76, grain is very fine for a film marketed as ISO 320. Could you please elaborate/speculate as to nature of this texture? Is it increased grain or is it just part of bromide drag? Aesthetically, I rather like it. It adds to the mood of the photograph.

Oh no, I took it as a compliment! Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. I was making a joke because DF96 seems to lose its potency very quickly with this film. Resulting in the bromide drag. But the DF96 itself is fine because the roll of Acros I developed immediately after this had no issues.
Increased grain - I don't see that on the real images, it seems that Flicker's resizing algorithms often introduces artifacts when displaying images.

Bottom line is I only got results I was happy with when I used a fresh bottle of DF96, so I don't recommend it for Catlabs 320 pro as DF96 is a reusable solution.

Here is a pic from the Acros roll I developed in the same DF96 after the CatLabs roll. No issues.

 

[aparat]

This is perhaps the world's most boring, unimaginative, blandest photo ever. It's the Catlabs Pro 320 35mm film dye dissolved in a two-minute pre-wash cycle water. I would call this color a dark cyan-grey.

 

[Oldwino]

This is perhaps the world's most boring, unimaginative, blandest photo ever. It's the Catlabs Pro 320 35mm film dye dissolved in a two-minute pre-wash cycle water. I would call this color a dark cyan-grey.
View attachment 320596

That’s pretty much the color I got from my pre-wash in the film.
Yet, others get a bright yellow. Are we dealing with perhaps multiple available
versions of this film?

 

[pentaxuser]

That’s pretty much the color I got from my pre-wash in the film.
Yet, others get a bright yellow. Are we dealing with perhaps multiple available
versions of this film?

Well if we aren't then there has to be some other explanation that reconciles these quite different colours but what it might be is beyond me

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I've already given an explanation.
The colour comes from the dyes reacting with the liquid.
And the liquid varies.

 

[aparat]

I tried to find out more about these new films coated on a PET base. However, I cannot be sure that any of it pertains specifically to the Catlabs Pro 320, so all of it is just speculation. Still, there are very few film manufacturing lines in Europe coating on PET, so there's a decent chance that the Catlabs film is made in such a manner and the information is at least partially relevant.

The dye is most likely from an anti-halation layer coated on the back of the film. The layer is also supposed to help protect the film against the lightpiping effect, to which these PET films are susceptible. Essentially, the film has to be protected from fogging via the film leader sticking out of the canister. I found that the Catlabs Pro 320 has about 10-15 centimeters of semi-fogged film inside the canister. I found out the hard way, exposing a fogged strip from the beginning of the roll in a sensitometer. This happened twice. Eventually, I learned my lesson. There's also, possibly, another anti-halation layer coated between the base and the emulsion. Apparently, this layer makes such films potentially incompatible with tanning and staining developers, as they may cause parts of the emulsion to peel off. I think we saw a couple of frames with the emulsion having little flecks/spots, which might have been an example of that effect. I cannot find that photograph now, but I will keep looking.

I agree with @MattKing regarding the color variation in the dye released in the first bath cycle.

 

[aparat]

I have gotten around to developing some actual pictures I took on the Catlabs Pro 320 with my Minolta SRT102 and a 35mm f/2.8 lens. To start, I wanted to do a crude ring-around with a somewhat typical, late afternoon, seven-stop scene, with some nice shadow, some mid-tone, and some highlight information. Super boring, but it could be informative, at least to me. I based my exposure and development on the results of my curve family and tone reproduction analyses. I set my Gossen Luna-Pro Digital F incident meter to ISO 64, then I made subsequent frames at ISO 40, ISO 100, ISO 160, and ISO 250. I processed the film in Kodak D76 1+1 for 5:45 min at 20C in a rotary processor.

Here's a picture of the negatives on a light table. I was pleased to find out that the results corroborated my earlier findings and the experiences of some of the other forum members who posted in this thread. In order to get ample shadow detail, ISO 64 is a good starting point, going as low as ISO 40, if necessary. From ISO 100 onward, you start losing quite a bit of shadow detail, which you cannot get back by increasing development time. Highlights are nicely contained by this film. The bench is painted bright white, is in full sunlight, and it, nevertheless, retains texture nicely. Whether highlight compression is a merit or a flaw is up to interpretation, but, it can be helpful at times. In the next few days, I will digitize some of the other pictures from this roll. By the way, in the ISO 100 frame, there's some glare from the light table. I noticed it too late to fix it.

 

[albada]

I have gotten around to developing some actual pictures I took on the Catlabs Pro 320 with my Minolta SRT102 and a 35mm f/2.8 lens. To start, I wanted to do a crude ring-around with a somewhat typical, late afternoon, seven-stop scene, with some nice shadow, some mid-tone, and some highlight information. Super boring, but it could be informative, at least to me. I based my exposure and development on the results of my curve family and tone reproduction analyses. I set my Gossen Luna-Pro Digital F incident meter to ISO 64, then I made subsequent frames at ISO 40, ISO 100, ISO 160, and ISO 250. I processed the film in Kodak D76 1+1 for 5:45 min at 20C in a rotary processor.

Here's a picture of the negatives on a light table. I was pleased to find out that the results corroborated my earlier findings and the experiences of some of the other forum members who posted in this thread. In order to get ample shadow detail, ISO 64 is a good starting point, going as low as ISO 40, if necessary. From ISO 100 onward, you start losing quite a bit of shadow detail, which you cannot get back by increasing development time. Highlights are nicely contained by this film. The bench is painted bright white, is in full sunlight, and it, nevertheless, retains texture nicely. Whether highlight compression is a merit or a flaw is up to interpretation, but, it can be helpful at times. In the next few days, I will digitize some of the other pictures from this roll. By the way, in the ISO 100 frame, there's some glare from the light table. I noticed it too late to fix it.
View attachment 320608

Your SRT-102 has a harmless light-leak at the sprocket. I once had this happen with a Yashica rangefinder; it turned out that light was sneaking past the rewind button on the bottom.
Judging by shadow detail in the shrubbery, I'd say ISO 64 is borderline and ISO 40 is fine. As you said, ISO 100 upward loses considerable shadow detail. It would be interesting to photograph this same scene on an Ilford or Kodak film to see when its shadow detail vanishes.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Your SRT-102 has a harmless light-leak at the sprocket. I once had this happen with a Yashica rangefinder; it turned out that light was sneaking past the rewind button on the bottom.
Judging by shadow detail in the shrubbery, I'd say ISO 64 is borderline and ISO 40 is fine. As you said, ISO 100 upward loses considerable shadow detail. It would be interesting to photograph this same scene on an Ilford or Kodak film to see when its shadow detail vanishes.

Nope, it's not a light leak, it's the untinted, clear polyester base that does this. I always see this happening with Rollei Retro 80S.

This is perhaps the world's most boring, unimaginative, blandest photo ever. It's the Catlabs Pro 320 35mm film dye dissolved in a two-minute pre-wash cycle water. I would call this color a dark cyan-grey.
View attachment 320596

That's pretty much what I get when I prewash the Rollei Retro 80S I mentioned earlier. I haven't used any of the Retro 400S/IR/Superpan 200.

 

[aparat]

I have a few pictures to share. They are meant to be test shots, nothing more. All scanned with an ancient scanner with Vuescan's default settings, which means there's some inevitable processing involved behind the scenes. The sky was light blue, the sun fairly low in the sky. Shot at ISO 64, unless otherwise noted. All processed in D76 1+1 for 5:45 minutes at 20C in a rotary processor.

Picture #1 is meant to show color response. Red is lighter than blue. Despite the sky being much brighter than the flag, the blue sky is about the same shade of grey as the red stripes.



Picture #2 is shot at ISO 40. There's nice shadow detail, low contrast, but it probably could be printed on grade 2 fairly easily. Picture #3 is at ISO 64. There's some shadow detail loss in the bushes behind the bench, but the contrast is nicer. Again, probably some Vuescan processing involved. but even so it can't bring back the lost shadow detail. The bench, despite being bright white, has a lot of texture, which is to be expected given the shape of the 5:45 minute curve and the amount of highlight compression present.



Picture #4 is blue sky against red bricks, also to show spectral response.


Picture #5 was taken in deep shade, with very low contrast, and yet, it rendered the scene nicely. Yellow flowers are very pale and so are the red apples, as expected, showing response to blue and red light, respectively. I think this film would be great for low-contrast scenes in shade or on heavy overcast days. It has some inherent compression in the lower part of the curve, which may come in handy for scenes like that.

 

[aparat]

Nope, it's not a light leak, it's the untinted, clear polyester base that does this. I always see this happening with Rollei Retro 80S.

I am relieved to hear it, as the camera just came back from shutter repair and CLA.

That's pretty much what I get when I prewash the Rollei Retro 80S I mentioned earlier. I haven't used any of the Retro 400S/IR/Superpan 200.

I only had experience with the Rollei 80s, and there are some similarities with the Catlabs film, except the Rollei film curls more, if my memory serves me well.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I am relieved to hear it, as the camera just came back from shutter repair and CLA.


I only had experience with the Rollei 80s, and there are some similarities with the Catlabs film, except the Rollei film curls more, if my memory serves me well.

The fogging around the sprocket holes is exactly what happens when I use Retro 80S, every time, regardless of camera. By the way, Retro 80S dries dead flat in my experience.

 

[pentaxuser]

I've already given an explanation.
The colour comes from the dyes reacting with the liquid.
And the liquid varies.

Can you clarify what the liquid in question, Matt, is. I assume it's the developer but I may be wrong in that assumption?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

This is perhaps the world's most boring, unimaginative, blandest photo ever. It's the Catlabs Pro 320 35mm film dye dissolved in a two-minute pre-wash cycle water. I would call this color a dark cyan-grey.
View attachment 320596

People who've reported yellow have shown it in poured-off developer -- which makes me think the dye here might have some indicator action. It'd be interesting to add some alkali to this pour-off and see if it changes to yellow.

Also, Roger (at Shoot Film Like a Boss) said he recalled a similar yellow in pour-off developer from Rollei Retro (80 or 400, I don't recall). Might be a hint to Catlabs' source...