Perhaps Catlabs was able to get the manufacturer to make a batch which included an adjustment of the film's tendency to curl. Definitely an improvement worth advertising!
What's going on with the left side of the negative? It looks like a piece of cellophane tape or something is covering the left one-fourth of the frame.
You're correct, the left of the neg is still in it's storage sheet. I just got it out briefly to take a photo against my living room ceiling light. There's something up with the emulsion but if this film was manufactured by Agfa and confectioned by Harman I am actually thinking any issues might be down to my handling of it....though other than travelling on two planes with it I did nothing unusual and the other films I shot came out perfect.
It's odd though. Wondering if anyone else has had anything like this with CatLabs or indeed any other film? It looks worse than the Ilford problems of a few years ago. But it only seems to affect two frames.
@Pioneer These are fantastic! Thank you for posting. It's really interesting seeing both the outdoor snowy scenes and the indoor one. You really put the film through its paces. Glad to hear you had no trouble loading onto an Arista reel. My understanding is that the Arista reels are the same as Paterson, yes? I had some unusual resistance with a Paterson reel, but no problem with Jobo 1500-series reels. One more question, since you scanned the film in, did you find it particularly easy or difficult to scan, relative to other films? I am thinking specifically of the clear base and the lack of curl. Thanks!
To me, a more troubling issue is the fogging up to at least frame #3 on many rolls that I've tested. I think most automatic cameras wind past frame #3, but it could be a problem for those of us using manual-wind cameras, risking ruining the first one or two frames.
I've finally had a bit of time to look at the negatives in question and this is what I see.
Did you change lenses for these two frames? Dust might have gotten on the film, creating those black spots. If you did not change lenses, then those are probably flaws in the film.
Agreed. This whole advertising thing really baffles me. If the CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro really is Aviphot, then they have a lot to be proud of, in my opinion. I would have thought they'd be promoting the film's provenance, focusing on some of its unique qualities, such as the clear base, the lack of curl, the very fine grain, the extended red sensitivity, the darker blue skies, etc. Even the s-shaped curves could be framed as a benefit. Instead, they promote the film as an ideal street film that can be pushed to ISO 1600. In other words, they focus on features are not really among this film's strengths.
@Huss I hope you don't take this as criticism of your earlier work, but I like these latest photographs a lot more. Frankly, they look better than those that CatLABS posted on their website. You seem to understand this film's strengths very well and are able to take advantage of that.
|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: