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

[Dwight Anderson]

If you have not shot and developed the film, then post in the other thread. Unless you have actual information to share like Henning Serger.

By the way, I developed in HC 110 without a prewash, the yellow color seems about the same whether it is 35mm or 120.

 

[warden]

sufficient from now on? What do you all think?

I think it’s worth doing the one final test like Henning suggested, assuming you are up for it. That test would put the issue to bed for good, or who knows, maybe a surprise is lurking? I don’t think there are any surprises coming, but it would be nice to bookend your hard work with a definitive match.

 

[Henning Serger]

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.
View attachment 321007

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?

Yes, we can totally confirm that Rollei Superpan 200 is Agfa Aviphot Pan 200. Not only confirmed by countless tests that were done over the years, but also directly by the supplier Maco Photo Products (the company which has licensed the right to sell films as Rollei-Film). Their CEO at that time confirmed it at Photokina fair, at German film photography events, and in German photo forums.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[ags2mikon]

Thank you Henning. I'm not surprised at all.

 

[faberryman]

If CatLABS X Film 320 Pro is Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 aka Rollei Superpan 200 and perhaps aka others, perhaps that explains why CatLABS recommends that it be exposed at EI 200. It does not explain why CatLABS has given it a a film speed rating of "EI ISO 320".

 

[MattKing]

The other thread is about its introduction.

Funny. I thought the other thread was about why you wouldn't buy it.

Yes, because of the way it was introduced, many people would choose not to buy it.
To a great extent, this thread is intended to give people a chance to learn more useful information about the film, to make it easier for them to decide based on practical data and other people's varied uses of it.
So I would again suggest that those who have or will be using the film, use the information in this thread and try things with the film and show us the results.
And if there are other useful technical tests to be done by those who are prone to doing that sort of thing, please feel free to contribute those as well.
But please, if you want to post about the original marketing and the back and forth in that other thread, either have second thoughts, or post in that other thread. Save this thread for the film itself.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I processed a test roll of CatLABS 320 Pro in 120 size today in Rodinal 1:50.
The used developer was a lovely mango/salmon color when poured out of the tank.
I shot 2 rolls under identical conditions.
Color patches similar to a MacBeth, Kodak Grey scale, grey card, black fabric, and items of various colors.
One roll I sent to a lab that uses F76...I included the box for their reference.
The other roll I developed myself in Rodinal 1:50
To the eye, the negs look similar.
I'll work up a comparison as soon as I get some free time.

 

[aparat]

If CatLABS X Film 320 Pro is Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 aka Rollei Superpan 200 and perhaps aka others, perhaps that explains why CatLABS recommends that it be exposed at EI 200. It does not explain why CatLABS has given it a a film speed rating of "EI ISO 320".

Yes. I guess that's some justification. However, if the CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro is an aerial film, and it is beginning to look like it is, then the general-purpose film speed ISO standard does not apply, technically speaking. There have been separate standards for aerial film speed and for determining effective aerial film speed. I have come across three different ones proposed/applied to aerial films over the years, and @Henning Serger mentioned yet another one used by Agfa. In the Aviphot 200 PDF, Agfa lists the film speed as "AFS/ISO," which, as far as I understand, is specific to aerial films, only.

Perhaps this is just too much of a rabbit hole, trying to tease apart the meaning of film speed. Perhaps this is off-topic altogether. I'll let the moderator decide that.

 

[aparat]

I processed a test roll of CatLABS 320 Pro in 120 size today in Rodinal 1:50.
The used developer was a lovely mango/salmon color when poured out of the tank.
I shot 2 rolls under identical conditions.
Color patches similar to a MacBeth, Kodak Grey scale, grey card, black fabric, and items of various colors.
One roll I sent to a lab that uses F76...I included the box for their reference.
The other roll I developed myself in Rodinal 1:50
To the eye, the negs look similar.
I'll work up a comparison as soon as I get some free time.

Fantastic! I am looking forward to seeing them. It's awesome that you also took pictures of color chars. Not the most glamorous subject, but very useful. Could you also post the Rodinal 1:50 time and temperature? I am curious because I like to use Rodinal as an alternative to D76.

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps this is just too much of a rabbit hole, trying to tease apart the meaning of film speed. Perhaps this is off-topic altogether. I'll let the moderator decide that.

If you want to dive down that aerial film speed rabbit hole, it sounds to me like it deserves its own thread - assuming the discussion applies to more than just this film.

 

[aparat]

If you want to dive down that aerial film speed rabbit hole, it sounds to me like it deserves its own thread - assuming the discussion applies to more than just this film.

Thanks, Matt. It's okay. Let's just stick to evaluating the film. I have another roll with photos I've taken this weekend. I'll post them when they're developed.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks, Matt. It's okay. Let's just stick to evaluating the film. I have another roll with photos I've taken this weekend. I'll post them when they're developed.

You are welcome. If you change your mind, and decide to start a thread about aerial film speed, perhaps we could call it the Peter Rabbit Aerial Film Speed thread

 

[Don_ih]

But please, if you want to post about the original marketing and the back and forth in that other thread, either have second thoughts, or post in that other thread. Save this thread for the film itself.

I posted nothing in this thread until I posted a photo. Then someone asked about the development.

Anyway...

Another photo, but with odd exposure, same roll as the previous shot. This was at 7:30 am, when it was still pretty gloomy (obviously, the sun is in the photo). I wanted to get the jet trail against the sky. The ground is probably 2 stops under what it should be to look like the ground and it's almost completely disappeared. You wouldn't call it shadow detail.

.

 

[BrianShaw]

Another photo, but with odd exposure,

Even so… love the mood! With a crop to square, perhaps…

 

[faberryman]

Another photo, but with odd exposure, same roll as the previous shot. This was at 7:30 am, when it was still pretty gloomy (obviously, the sun is in the photo). I wanted to get the jet trail against the sky. The ground is probably 2 stops under what it should be to look like the ground and it's almost completely disappeared. You wouldn't call it shadow detail.

With those dark skies, Ansel Adams would have loved this film. And you don't even need a red filter. I noticed this effect with some of Huss's images too.

 

[aparat]

Yes, we can totally confirm that Rollei Superpan 200 is Agfa Aviphot Pan 200. Not only confirmed by countless tests that were done over the years, but also directly by the supplier Maco Photo Products (the company which has licensed the right to sell films as Rollei-Film). Their CEO at that time confirmed it at Photokina fair, at German film photography events, and in German photo forums.

Best regards,
Henning

Thank you!

 

[MattKing]

I posted nothing in this thread until I posted a photo. Then someone asked about the development.

That question is great here - it is a thread about results, so asking about the details about how you got there is more than fine. The same would apply to a question about what the ambient light at the scene was like. As would questions about mood and how you visualized the result. All ingredients in the information soup.

 

[aparat]

In the interest of being thorough, I tried to load the CatLABS film onto a Paterson reel and an Arista reel, and, just like @Huss I found it difficult to do. After about 10-12 inches, the film and reel started giving an unusual amount of resistance. I had to start over as I was worried the film was getting stuck in the reel somehow. The second time around, I relaxed my grip and was able to spool the film onto the reel, but the slight resistance persisted. It's not a major issue, but I thought I'd mention it. Perhaps it's best to practice first before developing a roll of critical importance. Has anyone tried loading the film onto a stainless steel reel?

 

[removedacct1]

If CatLABS X Film 320 Pro is Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 aka Rollei Superpan 200 and perhaps aka others, perhaps that explains why CatLABS recommends that it be exposed at EI 200. It does not explain why CatLABS has given it a a film speed rating of "EI ISO 320".

Simple: because its easier to sell a 320 ASA film than a 200ASA film.

 

[faberryman]

Simple: because its easier to sell a 320 ASA film than a 200ASA film.

Shocking.

I guess I should post a CatLABS photo but I don't have any. I am sure I could dig up some scans, jimmy around with them in Lightroom to remove shadow detail and add contrast, and post them. Probably no one would know the difference. I posted a question a while back to ask if anyone had jimmied around with their CatLABS photos in post processing software before posting them, but no one responded.

On another forum, the members are obsessed with showing photos made with certain lenses, many of which are old and/or obscure and/or made by Leica. Threads are dedicated to them. Often hundreds of photos are posted, all of which look different, so it is impossible to discern the character of the lens, if it actually has any. But mostly it is about telling everyone you have a copy of the lens and therefore are in the cool club. I have thought about posting photos in those threads made with any old lens just for fun, but it would be too much work. I mean there are scads of them. Thank goodness we don't have any of that nonsense going on around here.

 

[Don_ih]

ask if anyone had jimmied around with their CatLABS photos in post processing software before posting them

I adjusted contrast - not even as much as I would adjust it to print. I would usually dodge and burn any print 8x10 or larger - I don't do that to a scan. I don't sharpen or anything weird like that, either. But there's no "straight" scan - the scanning software has its own settings.

Incidentally, I adjust contrast because I change the scanner settings to stop it boosting contrast. So my scans are lower contrast than Epson would choose.

 

[faberryman]

I adjusted contrast - not even as much as I would adjust it to print. I would usually dodge and burn any print 8x10 or larger - I don't do that to a scan. I don't sharpen or anything weird like that, either. But there's no "straight" scan - the scanning software has its own settings.

I have often wondered why you have to dodge and burn when making prints. Is there some technical defect in the process somewhere along the line between camera lens and print developer that makes it necessary? Or is it all artistic expression?

 

[Anon Ymous]

I have often wondered why you have to dodge and burn when making prints. Is there some technical defect in the process somewhere along the line between camera lens and print developer that requires it? Or is it all artistic expression?

Artistic expression. What can you do if given a desired print contrast results in blow highlights or empty shadows? The information is there in the negative, but clipped in a straight print.

 

[Don_ih]

I have often wondered why you have to dodge and burn when making prints.

To make the print look how you want it to look. There is, however, a limit to how much you can do with dodging and burning without making things look bad. Dodging someone's face, for instance, is very easy to overdo.

 

[faberryman]

To make the print look how you want it to look. There is, however, a limit to how much you can do with dodging and burning without making things look bad. Dodging someone's face, for instance, is very easy to overdo.

I understand all that. It was more an overarching question.