Thanks. I like the tonality of this film when it hits exposure correctly. I haven't enlarged any of it, yet, though, so I'm due to get a better idea of it.
Testing and evaluating CatLabs "X Film 320 Pro (2022 version)
-
A
- Thread starter aparat
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy 120/220 backing paper
- Started by MCB18
-
Found Konica AR 24mm or 28mm lens
- Started by blee1996
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Sinar Pan-Tilt Head
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Thanks. I like the tonality of this film when it hits exposure correctly. I haven't enlarged any of it, yet, though, so I'm due to get a better idea of it.
OP
OP
Fantastic. I am not familiar with the Borax bath technique. Is it similar to conventional two-bath development? Could you please elaborate? Judging by the wonderful tonality, it must be worth the extra step.
Years ago, I was using bulk rolls of Superpan 200 (aviphot) and had a lot of difficulty finding a correct way to expose and develop it. I finally settled on iso160 as the best exposure but developing was still a problem. Following development with a water bath can tame contrast a little. But I found that following developing with a Borax bath (1/2 tsp borax in 500ml water) made the thinner parts of the negative develop more fully while not having any discernible impact on the highlights. I think it's especially effective on thinner emulsions like Aviphot and whatever the CatLabs stuff is. I judged from looking at everyone else's images that it would benefit from the borax bath.
I based the whole approach on reading something where a guy said he always followed development with a 5 minute water bath. Don't remember who it was.
When I was shooting bulk rolls of Superpan, I was reusing the same 500ml of water with borax in it. That must've been a developer all on it's own by the time I dumped it.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,188
- Format
- Multi Format
Hello,
first of all:
Thank you very much for your very detailed and time consuming work.
As someone who is running an independant, non-profit scientific photo test lab, doing such tests for decades, and being included in critical pre-production tests of new products before market introduction, I know extremely well how much work and how time consuming all that is.
To your results:
They are clearly indicating that this film is probably just rebranded Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 film. I am using that film for about 15 years now, have tested it again and again intensively as well.
The cc curves you have evaluated and the pictures above show exactly the behaviour and characteristics of Aviphot Pan 200. Same is valid for all the other pictures posted here by other members.
As I've explained here on photrio in the past Aviphot Pan 200 is designed as an aerial film, and for that purpose it is excellent. It was even used for a very long time by the German military for air reconnaissance with the Tornado jets.
But for us as "photographers on the ground" it is extremely important to know that the light sensitivity / speed rating Agfa is using for their aerial films is significantly different to our standard ISO norm we are using in pictorial photography "on the ground".
Our standard ISO rating is based on Zone I with 0.1 logD density above base fog.
But Agfa is using Zone III for 0.1 logD and sensitivity rating.
Therefore Agfa aerial films are about two stops slower / less light sensitive when you are using normal pictorial standards and classic ISO norm for photos on the ground. And even three stops if you are using Zone System standards with best shadow detail.
The reason for Agfa's different methodology is quite simple:
If you are doing photographs from 2,000m, 3,000m or higher down to the earth, the direction of your photos and the direction of the light are almost identical: You don't have deep shadows and highlights, and you have much less contrast, because of an in general flatter light.
In aerial photography to get good pictures you have to separate the midtones very good, shadows and highlights are much less important.
And that is exactly what Aviphot Pan 200 is doing:
It produces a very pronounced and strong S-shape characteristic curve: Long toe with very little shadow detail up to Zone III, then a steep curve in the midtones with excellent and strong tone separation of these midtones, and in the highlights a flattened curve with quite a lot of highlight detail, but very bad detail tone separation because of the very flat curve.
So if we compare your results so far and the results of others which have been published so far (including the video of the "Shoot film like a boss" channel) with Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 we got the following:
1. Made in EU: Check. Yes, Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 is coated by Agfa in Belgium.
2. PET base: Check. Aviphot Pan 200 is coated on PET base.
3. Extended red sensivity: Check. Avipot Pan has extended red sensivity.
4. Bit less blue sensitivity: Check. Aviphot Pan 200 has that, too. That is the reason why you get (nice) dark(er) skies in the picture.
5. Strong S-shape curve: Check. Exactly the characteristic of Aviphot Pan 200.
6. Light sensitivity / speed characteristics: Check. Exactly the characteristic of Aviphot Pan 200.
7. Colours of the AHU: Check. If you are doing a prewash, you get this dark grey / greenish colour with Aviphot Pan 200. And if you don't do a prewash and develop normally, and pour the developer out then you get this middle strong yellow colour the "Boss" has reported in his video. And that is exactly what you get with Aviphot Pan 200.
He has seen that with Rollei Retro 400S, too. And as we all know from our tests (and from confirmation of the industry), Retro 400S is just repackaged Aviphot Pan 200 (and the same is valid for Rollei Superpan 200, Rollei Infrared, meanwhile also for JCH Street Pan, two Silberra films, all are Aviphot Pan 200).
8. Agfa so far does not care about if someone is buying their film and repacking it under different names and fancy or misleading marketing.
Summary:
The results so far are giving quite strong indications to being Aviphot Pan 200 the original film.
To be 100% sure, a direct comparison is necessary: Exposing both films exactly in the same way, developing them also together in one tank, evaluating the characteristic curves of both identical exposed and developed films.
Best regards,
Henning
So this data sheet will satisfy the needs of those needing a data sheet?
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,188
- Format
- Multi Format
Hello,
as explained in my detailed posting above, the colour difference is caused by the fact that you are doing a pre-wash (no developer involved, only water), and the others don't do a pre-wash and are pouring out the used developer.
If the hypothesis is right that it is just Aviphot Pan 200 film, then there is no difference in 135 and 120 format, because both formats will be confectioned from the same jumbo-roll (master-roll).
Agfa is offering this film on a 100 micron thick PET base, and 100 micron PET can be used without any problems both for 135 and 120 format.
All the other Aviphot Pan rebranders who offer both formats (see my post above) are doing exactly that. Confectioning from the same base material/ same jumbo-rolls.
Best regards,
Henning
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,188
- Format
- Multi Format
Yes, I do know.
As I've seen one of the involved factories from the inside and talked directly to the engineers.
And tested and used both films intensively.
Based on the hypothesis that the CatLabs is just rebranded Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 film (see above), both films are completely different:
- much different spectral sensitivity
- much different real / effective light sensitivity / speed
- much different characteristic curves = tonality
- different resolution and grain
- designed / developed by different engineers in different factories
- emulsion production and coating in different factories.
Best regards,
Henning
I also noticed the developer poured off quite yellow.
And, just like Aviphot 200, shadow detail is very easily lost. I assumed, looking at the results other people posted, that if this film wasn't Aviphot 200, it was a very close copy.
And, just like Aviphot 200, shadow detail is very easily lost. I assumed, looking at the results other people posted, that if this film wasn't Aviphot 200, it was a very close copy.
An off brand black and white film being aerial surveillance film. Who could have possibly guessed?
I was watching this show the other night and one of the characters said: "Clever people always think other people are stupid." Seems sort of apropos.
I was watching this show the other night and one of the characters said: "Clever people always think other people are stupid." Seems sort of apropos.
Last edited:
Yes I think we have enough evidence of a great similarity in the yellow colour to state that this is the colour to which to compare other film's similar post development liquid
faberryman has indicated it is aerial surveillance film based on what Don Heisz may be saying so Don, just so I can be sure, is the colour the same as you have found when developing what I assume to be Aviphot aerial surveillance film which in turn seems to be what Rollei Retro is?
Sorry if this seems to be obvious, Don, but sometimes we can make assumptions based on words that in fact were not meant to extend to extend to mean something as a fact
Thanks
pentaxuser
OP
OP
Thank you for this! It's very useful to know this information. As I was working on an unrelated project (comparing D76 and ID-11), I processed and plotted the Adox CHS 100 II, and the curves do look different than the CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro. Also, the Adox film, so far, seems about 1/2 of a stop slower than the CatLABS film, but that's just preliminary stuff. And, by the way, the Adox film curls a lot more, even when dry. I will post the curves, once I am done with that test. I haven't yet tested spectral response, but probably will.
More soon...
Last edited:
I have a lot of Aviphot film - with Aviphot on the label. I cut down 70mm to put on 120 spools. I've used 5 or 6 100' rolls of Superpan 200, also - which is known to be Aviphot. The CatLabs 320 seems to be exactly the same.
So, it seems the CatLabs film has been proven to not be a new film. But did anyone expect it could be? (which is not to dismiss the efforts in this thread to test the film and show the findings - which is valuable and impressive)
Last edited:
No. It seems unlikely (to say the least) that a film manufacturer would go through the R&D investment required to make a truly new film only to hamstring it by marketing it solely at a used camera storefront in Boston at a very low price.
But rebranding film makes a lot of sense in this case, and it does seem that is what has been done, marketing claims notwithstanding.
So, since these films mentioned are all the same, I guess it boils down to which one is the cheapest at the time. I'm shooting Rollei Superpan 200 at the moment, but will shop around when I run out of that. I rather like the rendering (sky) myself, and mid-tones seem well separated also. Actually suits my style better than Ilford FP4+, but that's just me. Different strokes for different folks!
I didn't expect this was "new-4-years-in-the-making" film and said more than a month ago that this Catlabs 320 looks exactly like Rollei Retro 400S (=Superpan 200).
And then I (and everybody else who dared to question the story Catlabs were peddling) was insulted in every possible way.
Not by me, that's for sure. I'm a firm believer in facts and truth. Unfortunately, we have very little of the latter in this country lately. Especially when it gets close to election time. As Sgt. Friday would say, “Those are the facts, ma'am"!
Welcome to the Curmudgeon Club. We meet every morning for coffee down at the donut shop. Walkers and oxygen tanks welcome. One hint: stub your toe on the sidewalk on your way in so you are extra grumpy.
Last edited:
Great work from the Curmudgeonly Detective Squad. Free donuts for all!
MattKing
Moderator
This thread is on the verge of requiring extensive moderation.
Shall we move all the posts that are about the other thread to that thread, or shall we delete them?
Because this thread is about the film itself, and what people have learned about it, and what people are doing with it.
The other thread is about its introduction.
Shall we move all the posts that are about the other thread to that thread, or shall we delete them?
Because this thread is about the film itself, and what people have learned about it, and what people are doing with it.
The other thread is about its introduction.
All of the posts on this page seem to be about what we have found out so far about the film, except for my admitted diversion to the donut shop. But that was merely intended as a humorous way to say that what we have found out so far though the efforts of those roundly abused for asking for datasheets and other technical information is that the film apparently is not what it was portrayed as by the seller. That seems appropriate for the thread.
Last edited:
Henning, many thanks once again for your comprehensive remarks and observations. While following this thread and at the same time following Huss and his photographs, I started wondering about JCH Street Pan 400, which I fiddled with some years ago as my images were very like what Huss and others were showing.
I did in fact purchase some more of JCH Street Pan 400 and finalised on 100/125 ASA as what worked best for me.
Here is a link (I hope) to an earlier thread, these images were exposed around noon on a super clear hot summer day in December 2016.
www.photrio.com
I did in fact purchase some more of JCH Street Pan 400 and finalised on 100/125 ASA as what worked best for me.
Here is a link (I hope) to an earlier thread, these images were exposed around noon on a super clear hot summer day in December 2016.
StreetPan400 JCH
Yep, should have read the fine print more closely, thanks for that. Thinking out loud here, if the base is transparent, would there be any chance of piping happening, like that on Kodak IR film? I telephoned the Melbourne bricks and mortar store, they have stock and are open from 1200 to 2000...
www.photrio.com
OP
OP
Sorry to bring this issue up again, but I had a moment today to test the idea posted by @Donald Qualls to add alkali to the dye solution to see if it would change color. I added some borax to the solution, and the color remained unchanged. I kind of expected that, but I just wanted to be thorough.
I am wondering if it would be interesting to test CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro against Aviphot Pan 200. Can you guys confirm that the Rollei Superpan 200 is Aviphot Pan 200? If so, I might order a couple of rolls and test the film against CatLABS X FILM 320, as @Henning Serger suggested (huge thanks for their contribution to this thread). By the way, I looked at the spectral response plot of Aviphot Pan 200, and it does look consistent with what I, and others, found so far about the Catlabs film. Sensitivity towards the red end of the spectrum seems up to about 1.6 stops higher than green, which is almost exactly what I found.
On the other hand, if there's already consensus that CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro is, indeed, Aviphot Pan 200, then perhaps there's no more need for sensitometry. Maybe posting photos is sufficient from now on? What do you all think?
I am wondering if it would be interesting to test CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro against Aviphot Pan 200. Can you guys confirm that the Rollei Superpan 200 is Aviphot Pan 200? If so, I might order a couple of rolls and test the film against CatLABS X FILM 320, as @Henning Serger suggested (huge thanks for their contribution to this thread). By the way, I looked at the spectral response plot of Aviphot Pan 200, and it does look consistent with what I, and others, found so far about the Catlabs film. Sensitivity towards the red end of the spectrum seems up to about 1.6 stops higher than green, which is almost exactly what I found.
On the other hand, if there's already consensus that CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro is, indeed, Aviphot Pan 200, then perhaps there's no more need for sensitometry. Maybe posting photos is sufficient from now on? What do you all think?
Last edited:
Funny. I thought the other thread was about why you wouldn't buy it.
Your "blind" testing of the catlabs film has been worthwhile, even if someone already knew it was Aviphot 200. The fact is, there was no possibility that it could be a new film - or CatLabs would need to charge $100 a roll to recover research and tooling costs. But, in my opinion, Aviphot is a good film when used well. And your research adds to the knowledge base for how to use it.
Matt, it's always difficult to determine when a thread like this needs modification and I appreciate that but certainly until recently i.e. the last 12-15 hours or so we've had several contributions from Henning about his ideas and a continuation of responses to my request for the post development colour of CatLABS 320 Pro on which there now seem to be some consensus
This request was made because of a comment that was made by a presenter of a video about what he thought was a colour that he had seen with another named film
Yes this plus Henning's comments have inevitably led to us homing in on a specific film but surely that is part of the legitimate search for what film this is. It's still a search form information, surely?
Is it your intention to lift what you consider to be posts that cover most of what has been discussed in the last 24 hrs to the other thread but in manner that enables those who wish to find out as much as possible about what CatLABS 320 Pro actually is, not to have that quest nullified?
Perhaps you'd like to indicate what recent posts belong in the other thread which I cannot now find anyway. Maybe it has come to its natural end. So if the offending posts once we know what they are, are moved Doesn't this simply stir up that thread with no benefit to it or to those here who still seek infomation
pentaxuser
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |