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

aparat · Nov 25, 2022

Huss said:
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.

Agreed. Even more dramatic with an R72 filter.

Huss · Nov 26, 2022

From the other side of the building so you can see bright sunshine vs shade.

faberryman · Nov 26, 2022

Huss said:
From the other side of the building so you can see bright sunshine vs shade.

Interesting. The sky is not dark in this photograph.

Huss · Nov 26, 2022

faberryman said:
Interesting. The sky is not dark in this photograph.

It wouldn’t be because the building is in shade and the exposure is based on that, the direction of the light is different.

pentaxuser · Nov 26, 2022

That is amazing Huss for a sky in which no filter was used. It has as black a sky as I'd want and being able to already appears to have a hint being able to give that shining white gleam. I wonder of a red 25 might be enough to lighten foliage to give a pseudo "Wood" effect?

pentaxuser

aparat · Nov 26, 2022

pentaxuser said:
That is amazing Huss for a sky in which no filter was used. It has as black a sky as I'd want and being able to already appears to have a hint being able to give that shining white gleam. I wonder of a red 25 might be enough to lighten foliage to give a pseudo "Wood" effect?

pentaxuser

Yeah, @Huss has captured some beautiful skies. I think this film, much like other aerial films, has the unique ability to "cut through" haze and capture a clear blue sky beautifully. It's also very good in deep shade, where contrast is very low. It can create some separation in the lower part of the curve, given enough exposure.

I am not sure I know what you mean @pentaxuser when you say the pseudo wood effect. Could you please explain? I have a #25 red filter so I can try to capture this effect, if I can.

Moose22 · Nov 26, 2022

It sort of cuts the haze, but... well, it's different. It makes weird light a little weirder, and the shadows block quickly.

LOVES to be well exposed in lower contrast though. But for contrasty scenes you're gonna get drama.

Know how to use it and I am guessing you can get good skies. These were in xtol, and I was trying to shoot at 200.

Moose22 · Nov 26, 2022

In more normal sunlight:

And in the shade:

Huss · Nov 26, 2022

Moose22 said:
It sort of cuts the haze, but... well, it's different. It makes weird light a little weirder, and the shadows block quickly.

LOVES to be well exposed in lower contrast though. But for contrasty scenes you're gonna get drama.

Know how to use it and I am guessing you can get good skies. These were in xtol, and I was trying to shoot at 200.

Love the detail in the clouds

Huss · Nov 26, 2022

Moose22 said:
In more normal sunlight:

Got some serious side eye stink eye from that little girl.

Moose22 · Nov 26, 2022

Huss said:
Got some serious side eye stink eye from that little girl.

I was going for the lady behind with the Family Faith Flags Friends and Firearms t-shirt, but when I got the stinkeye I had to take the shot.

Kids staring at me is a thing. Most people ignore me, children stare.

aparat · Nov 26, 2022

@Moose22 Gorgeous photographs! I like your commentary on this film's performance. It is consistent with sensitometric analysis and other photographs we've seen in this thread.

Once again, I am baffled by CatLABS and its marketing strategy. This film has some clear, legitimate advantages, or features, that photographers can exploit creatively. We've seen the unique spectral response, the ability to cut through haze, a sense of clarity (in some light), lifts contrast up in inherently dull scenes, has respectable IR performance, is easy to work with, and scans easily, has very small grain, dries very quickly, etc., etc. However, CatLABS never mentions any of those strengths, instead focusing on "street" photography and recommends pushing the film to EI 1600, neither of which this film does well. Still, CatLABS must have its reasons for marketing the film the way they do. I am not questioning their approach, I simply do not understand it.

Huss · Nov 26, 2022

@Moose22 that last pic of the guitar player is excellent

Huss · Nov 26, 2022

aparat · Nov 26, 2022

Found another one on the roll I shot the other week.

Moose22 · Nov 26, 2022

Huss said:
@Moose22 that last pic of the guitar player is excellent

Thanks. Buddy of mine who doesn't play like he used to since he had a stroke some years back. Took me a while to convince him to start playing again. Love to get pics of him when he's jamming and he was having a good time that weekend.

That was the IIIf and my first roll of Catlabs320 at 200. I got some of him with the 15mm, but they have my thumb in them, because... well, that's a tiny baby camera and the lens is ridiculously wide. I think I shared another off that roll elsewhere:

That's well in the shade and, aside from my finger being in the shot there, the contrast this film brings works for me. And the grain is nice and unobtrusive.

aparat said:
recommends pushing the film to EI 1600, neither of which this film does well.

Once I saw your curves and the ones Matt (or whoever it was) posted from the original datasheets, it totally made sense to me. Red sensitive, 200 feels like a push with the contrast. The roll I shot at 320 and developed by taking my 200 time x 1.2 was unimpressive. Too dark in shadows, too contrasty for my taste. I can't really imagine pushing it 2 or 3 stops and being pleased, though I admit I haven't tried.

At 200 you get the darker skies and can retain some shadow, though it's still contrasty.

I have more, so I'll keep experimenting, but I do find the look interesting.

pentaxuser · Nov 27, 2022

aparat said:
I am not sure I know what you mean @pentaxuser when you say the pseudo wood effect. Could you please explain? I have a #25 red filter so I can try to capture this effect, if I can.

I was referring to the experience I had with Ilford SFX and a red 25 in which whites began to glow and green foliage appeared to be going the same way but that was in the U.K.

I know that the skies in most of the U.K. are not clear enough or the sun's angle steep enough to produce the effect Huss achieved with no filter but clearly a sky as black as in Huss's picture without any filter and the effect that appeared to be happening in the green foliage put the thought in my mind that an attempt with a red 25 might be worthwhile to see its effect in the area of the U.S. where Huss resides

pentaxuser

MattKing · Nov 27, 2022

The Wood effect is named after Robert Williams Wood, and references the fact that a lot of foliage strongly reflects IR radiation.
Ilford SFX does have some sensitivity in the near infrared, so you can see some Wood effect with a 720nm filter. You won't see any with a #25 filter though, because that filter transmits too much visible light, which will overwhelm any results from the near IR radiation present.
The red #25 may lighten the look of the foliage though - perhaps that is what is meant by "pseudo Wood" effect.

Huss · Nov 27, 2022

aparat said:
Found another one on the roll I shot the other week.
View attachment 322786

Excellent shot! Exposure + processing looks great.

pentaxuser · Nov 28, 2022

I wonder why that one Huss pic has a black sky but none of the others taken by Huss or others?

pentaxuser

Huss · Nov 28, 2022

pentaxuser said:
I wonder why that one Huss pic has a black sky but none of the others taken by Huss or others?

pentaxuser

What pic? Post # would be helpful.

Chuck_P · Nov 28, 2022

pentaxuser said:
I wonder why that one Huss pic has a black sky but none of the others taken by Huss or others?

pentaxuser

Must have used a red filter to darken the blue parts of the sky.

pentaxuser · Nov 28, 2022

Huss said:
What pic? Post # would be helpful.

Sorry my fault, Huss. I read your quote about no filter but it was in a post reproduced by aparat with his pic underneath using an R72. I conflated the two together wrongly. Your shot which I have found now was of a darkish sky with no filter but certainly not a black sky

So yes the film does seem to have the ability to render a blue sky the way I'd not expect to be able to do without probably an orange filter at my latitude in the U.K.

pentaxuser

Huss · Nov 28, 2022

pentaxuser said:
Sorry my fault, Huss. I read your quote about no filter but it was in a post reproduced by aparat with his pic underneath using an R72. I conflated the two together wrongly. Your shot which I have found now was of a darkish sky with no filter but certainly not a black sky

So yes the film does seem to have the ability to render a blue sky the way I'd not expect to be able to do without probably an orange filter at my latitude in the U.K.

pentaxuser

Ah ok! Yeah, aparat used an R72 filter, to emphasize the clouds. This film has excellent cloud/sky separation without using any filters, unless you are looking for a dramatic effect.

Donald Qualls · Nov 28, 2022

Film-Niko said:
Less than 1/4 stop difference in film speed means in all practical terms film speed is identical.

I've only got one camera capable of altering exposure by less than 1/3 stop, and that only in certain shutter speed ranges. I'm referring to my Speed Graphic; the focal plane shutter in its slower ranges is able to produce some pretty fine gradients in exposure time. Nothing else I own can divide a stop any finer than 1/3 stop, and most of my cameras only do half stops.

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

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency