And you can't develop each frame of a roll of film individually. Every 35mm or 120 shot is a compromise in exposure. You make a choice. Then you try to recover when enlarging.
Testing and evaluating CatLabs "X Film 320 Pro (2022 version)
-
A
- Thread starter aparat
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Minolta DiMage Elite 5400 with issues
- Started by Saganich
-
For Sale Kodak 2422 direct positive film, already cut, ready to ship
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale Konica AS2(no meter)
- Started by Acere
-
Want to Buy 120/220 backing paper
- Started by MCB18
-
Found Konica AR 24mm or 28mm lens
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
And you can't develop each frame of a roll of film individually. Every 35mm or 120 shot is a compromise in exposure. You make a choice. Then you try to recover when enlarging.
That's why I gave a general answer: to make the print look how you want it to look. There might be no problem with the negative but you still choose to dodge or burn some areas.
Right. So the blown highlights and empty shadows are the technical limitations in film, processing, enlarging paper, processing that necessitate dodging and burning.
Right. So the problem with the negative is a technical limitation, say a lack of dynamic range. Actually, now that I think about it, the problem is probably fitting the wide dynamic range of film in the more narrow dynamic range of enlarging paper.
Sorry for the diversion. Back to CatLABS film.
Last edited:
Since it is a slow day for CatlABS posts, I thought I would go out to the greater World Wide Web to see if anything has been posted recently anywhere else.. The last post I found other than on Photrio was on October 17, 2022. So three weeks ago. I could find no images taken with CatLABS film posted anywhere, other than the images CatLABS posted with its press release, and who knows if they were taken with CatLABS film. It would appear Photrio has an exclusive.
Disclaimer: My Google Search skills may be lacking in sophistication.
One reason why there may not be much buzz about CatLABS' new offering is that the name of the film closely resembles the name of its previous film, which was rebranded Kodak 5222, so the new stuff might not even be registering in anyone's consciousness, or to the extent it is, it is being associated with Kodak 5222, and therefore nobody is getting very excited about it. Also, the name isn't very catchy, like say FPP's monster series films Wolfgang, Dracula, and Frankenstein, the packaging for which draws on the movies made in the 1930s and 1940s, and so attracts a younger audience. A new hire in CatLABS' marketing department might be in order.
Disclaimer: My Google Search skills may be lacking in sophistication.
One reason why there may not be much buzz about CatLABS' new offering is that the name of the film closely resembles the name of its previous film, which was rebranded Kodak 5222, so the new stuff might not even be registering in anyone's consciousness, or to the extent it is, it is being associated with Kodak 5222, and therefore nobody is getting very excited about it. Also, the name isn't very catchy, like say FPP's monster series films Wolfgang, Dracula, and Frankenstein, the packaging for which draws on the movies made in the 1930s and 1940s, and so attracts a younger audience. A new hire in CatLABS' marketing department might be in order.
Last edited:
I think this is typical for film based on PET.
The time had the same issue, i wanted to develop a Kodak HIE. I was not able to load it in a Paterson reel.
In a german forum I got a hint to solve the issue:
Place the reels in clear water to which you add a few tablets of denture cleaner.
Leave the reels in the cleaning solution for 24 hours. Rinse with clear water.
After the reels are dry, spooling PET film is a breeze.
It sounds strange, but it works.
This actually makes sense. Those cleansing tablets are meant to remove organic residue from plastic (dentures are usually acrylic). That's exactly what they're doing in this application. It also matches what I do, which is to run over the grooved side of each plate with a toothbrush under running water before putting the reels up to dry after use.
What exactly is the gunk people are getting off their plastic reels with toothbrushes and denture tablets? I've never had any gunk on my stainless steel reels.
The most accepted hypothesis seems to be wetting agent residue -- effectively dried-on detergent.
I guess that's why Jobo recommends to not put their reels in a tank containing wetting agent.
Since switching to their reels, I open up the reel after washing the film and dump the film roll into a glass container holding the distilled water/wetting agent mixture used for the final rinse. So far no buildup of anything on the reels.
OP
OP
Yes. That's what I do with Jobo reels, too. I had a hard time with a Paterson and Arista reels, which i haven't used for a while. I should have cleaned them throughly first. I will try the method recommended by @Klaus_H
MattKing
Moderator
Part of the gunk on the reels is probably gelatin.
By the way, blown out highlights aren't a technical deficiency if printing longer gives you detailed and well rendered highlights. The same applies to poorly rendered shadows that look good if you print less.
When you have a subject that gives you a print that has one or both of the above, it just means that the SLR/SBR of the scene doesn't match exactly the optimal range of the film or paper. Dodging and burning are the tools that one uses to adjust between the ranges - sort of like a transmission in a car.
By the way, blown out highlights aren't a technical deficiency if printing longer gives you detailed and well rendered highlights. The same applies to poorly rendered shadows that look good if you print less.
When you have a subject that gives you a print that has one or both of the above, it just means that the SLR/SBR of the scene doesn't match exactly the optimal range of the film or paper. Dodging and burning are the tools that one uses to adjust between the ranges - sort of like a transmission in a car.
Just finished scanning a roll of CatLabs 320 "Pro". Developed in Diafine. Shot at 160 based on @aparat 's findings regarding actual film speed (80-ish), and assuming the film gets a 1-stop boost in Diafine. Negatives look good and contrast is on the higher side of "normal", so pretty nice. I think this is the combination that works for me.
I've attached a few samples, taken in a variety of lighting conditions.
I've attached a few samples, taken in a variety of lighting conditions.
More CatLabs in Diafine @ 160
One more...
That's pretty grainy, but not nearly as contrasty as most of the other images posted.
Last edited:
Yikes, that is unpleasant looking grain structure.
@ Oldwino, Is the grain we are seeing in the film or scanner aliasing? I think that you have produced good tones with your process with diafine. I used diafine with aviphot 80 and EI 50. It also had the same look as this stuff. It will have a place for some.
I think it is partially my quick and dirty scans this morning, and partially being resized/downsized for Photrio. The full sized scans look better.
Diafine is a high acutance developer so grain is emphasized.
OP
OP
I really like the tonality and detail you got, in addition to composition and subject matter. It looks like you found your "Goldilocks zone" with this film and developer combination. May I ask how Diafine works out in terms of efficiency and shelf life? The price for a gallon seems pretty high, but the results speak for themselves.
Well, I just mixed up a fresh batch about 3 weeks ago. My previous batch was mixed in 2014. Shelf life is pretty good.
Folks that shoot more than me say they get approx 250 rolls per gallon batch.
As long as you don’t contaminate the part A, it seems to rival Rodinal.
One thing I noticed but forgot to mention in my previous post was that the film didn't have much, if any, curl when removed from the backing paper.
I am used to film curling up on itself when removed from the backing paper, and having a small roll of raw film in one hand when loading the film onto the reel.
Maybe this might be part of the reason folks are having trouble loading reels?
I am used to film curling up on itself when removed from the backing paper, and having a small roll of raw film in one hand when loading the film onto the reel.
Maybe this might be part of the reason folks are having trouble loading reels?
It would seem that lack of curl is one of the advantages/plus points that this film has
I have no idea if grain comes from the negative or the scanner but some of Huss' examples seem particularly grainy while others much less so
pentaxuser
I have no idea if grain comes from the negative or the scanner but some of Huss' examples seem particularly grainy while others much less so
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:  |