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.sufficient from now on? What do you all think?
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?
The other thread is about its introduction.
Yes, because of the way it was introduced, many people would choose not to buy it.Funny. I thought the other thread was about why you wouldn't buy it.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even so… love the mood! With a crop to square, perhaps…Another photo, but with odd exposure,
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.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.
Thank you!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
I posted nothing in this thread until I posted a photo. Then someone asked about the development.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?