None taken! Different environment plus this film works so much better in Tmax. Really fine grain at iso 200. Still very contrasty and works better overexposed if you want shadow detail.
Light piping is a real issue, but I think this film is a good value at $6.99/roll and the correct developer!
Nice job on these Huss.
I should mention that I did not see any light piping problems with my first roll but I will keep an eye out for it as I continue to work with the film I have.
Nice job on these Huss.
I should mention that I did not see any light piping problems with my first roll but I will keep an eye out for it as I continue to work with the film I have.
difference in curling / flatness between the CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro and Rollei Superpan 200
Yes, I have thought of that. I suppose it's possible that the film will curl more after it's spent a few years rolled up inside a canister. I tried measuring base thickness but my caliper is only accurate down to 0.01 of a millimeter, so it's not accurate enough for this purpose. All the edge markings, except the branding, are identical, they line up perfectly when you sandwich the two films together and put them on a light table.That will be entirely due to the age of the Superpan 200 - which is likely nowhere near as fresh as the CatLabs.
I have had lightpiping in Superpan. Don't load the film in sunlight.
May I ask how far, roughly, you wind at the start of the roll? I found I needed to move past frame 1 on my Minolta SRT101. But I guess everybody winds their film on slightly differently, right?
Have you compared your ISO curve of CatLABS with the AGFA AVIOPHOT spec sheet curves, and how did it compare? If you did I seem to have missed it in the richness of content in this thread.This is a comparison of the estimated ISO curves of the CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro
Perhaps we should have listened
First of all, it seems likely that the CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro is based on the Aviphot 200 emulsion. It doesn't seem to be exactly the same film, as the edge markings and the polyester base itself appear to be unique to the CatLABS film...
Thank you for the clarification!You can't conclude anything from the edge markings, because the raw material supplied by Agfa doesn't have any. Those who convert it apply them.
But anyway, keep up the good work!
I finally received some Rollei Superpan 200 for comparison. I haven't run the test yet, but, upon visual inspection, I agree with @Don Heisz that the two films appear very, very similar. If I had to testify under oath, I'd say that the Rollei might curl just a tiny, tiny bit more. I tried to capture the emulsion side of the two films with my phone. I apologize for the poor quality of this image, but here it is.
View attachment 322098
The CatLABS film is definitely different from the Rollei Superpan 200, at least in terms of the base. The Rollei base looks and feels like a more conventional PET base, whereas the CatLABS film feels thinner and flimsier. My caliper is not accurate enough to measure the difference in thickness reliably.
This is a comparison of the estimated ISO curves of the CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro (blue) and the Rollei Superpan 200 (red). These ISO curves are curves that comply with the ISO film speed standard, i.e., they have the Average Gradient, Ḡ, of around 0.62. This plot is meant to show the relative difference in film speed between the two films. The Rollei Superpan 200 is a bit faster in this test (by less than 1/4 of a stop).
Less than 1/4 stop difference in film speed means in all practical terms film speed is identical.
I am convinced that a film manufacturer is satiesfied when the film batches of different coating runs are in a range of less than 1/4 stop difference.
We should not forget that camera manufacturers generally accept a tolerance of their shutters of 1/3 stop. Same is valid for exposure meters.
What'd you shoot this at? 200 ?
Yes, tmax developer by my lab w no input from me.
Also no filter. I love the way this film captures clouds against blue sky even if they are very wispy, with no need to use a yellow or red filter.
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?