If that is the way the film was intended to be, you'd think that is the way CatLABS would have marketed it. But I don't know much about marketing, other than it is the practice of psyops on the consumer.
Last edited:
I think a lot of the new films we are seeing, whether actual new emulsions or simply rediscovered old ones, come about because of the shift in how people work with images, and expect images to look. The decline of the darkroom and the ascendence of digital photo manipulation, plus the general look of digital photography (higher native contrast, sharpness and acuity), mean that there is more room now for what many would deem "experimental" films. The overall look of CatLabs 320 is one example - it has an inherent graphic, high contrast look. It is not meant to faithfully record a scene (that requirement is met by a phone camera nowadays), but rather to convey an emotion.
These film are popular because they look "sort-of" digital (they have a familiar contrast structure), and they have a built-in "filter". Part of the charm and attraction may be that this "filter" (look) is somehow predetermined by the film and not by the users choice - in other words, you can have a cool looking shot "straight out of the camera" instead of with an Instagram filter. That makes it seem more legitimate to some.
I think a lot of the new films we are seeing, whether actual new emulsions or simply rediscovered old ones, come about because of the shift in how people work with images, and expect images to look. The decline of the darkroom and the ascendence of digital photo manipulation, plus the general look of digital photography (higher native contrast, sharpness and acuity)...
These film are popular because they look "sort-of" digital (they have a familiar contrast structure), and they have a built-in "filter".
I hope this is not off topic. If it is, perhaps the moderator can move it to another thread or delete it. I've been away from Photrio for a few years. Before I left, I thought, perhaps erroneously, that, in the Photrio community, the "gold standard" for evaluating film performance was in terms of producing an excellent silver gelatin (or alternative process) print of an average scene, in a straightforward manner (i.e., without film masking, etc.). So, film speed, for example, would have to be considered within that context, i.e., to obtain minimum exposure required for a beautiful print. Sensitometric testing is meant to give us an generalizable, empirical account of film performance with regard to that goal. After all, we cannot test each film by doing a proper psychometric study of print quality judgments across a sizable, randomly sampled population. Is that still the broadly held belief around here? I learned a lot from Photrio members over the years!
There are always new people showing up so things have to be re-taught over and over. Usually the same stuff since Jones and Nelson.
What can be new is computer analysis and interpretation. For example my spreadsheet was created over ten years ago and is cumbersome to use.
It's 2022 and I still jot down densitometer readings with a pencil.
Did you read the whole of my post?
Okay, to bring this thread back to its original topic (I apologize for my earlier departure), I have a first curve with, what seems to be, the right amount of exposure. The toe is what I intended, which means the first two steps of the step tablet are B+F density, and then it starts climbing. This was 8 minutes in D76 (Kodak) 1+1 at 20C in a rotary processor. This is just raw data, no analysis, yet. This is it from me for now. More, hopefully, next weekend.
You might consider doing this test with a properly developed negative, rather than a 20% underdeveloped oneHowever, that kind of film use might require a different set of diagnostic criteria.
Are the developing times specified on your website intended for a rotary processor?You might consider doing this test with a properly developed negative, rather than a 20% underdeveloped one
Well, I wasn't going to say anything but here's a shot of part of my desk at this very moment.
View attachment 319268
although at the current price I cannot recommend to buy it
Are the developing times specified on your website intended for a rotary processor?
And this is exactly why people need proper technical information provided by the film manufacturer!You might consider doing this test with a properly developed negative, rather than a 20% underdeveloped one
So I guess you are joking again, judging by the smiley face. I should probably just ignore this, but there are other forum members reading this thread so I will reply.You might consider doing this test with a properly developed negative, rather than a 20% underdeveloped one
Okay, to bring this thread back to its original topic (I apologize for my earlier departure), I have a first curve with, what seems to be, the right amount of exposure. The toe is what I intended, which means the first two steps of the step tablet are B+F density, and then it starts climbing. This was 8 minutes in D76 (Kodak) 1+1 at 20C in a rotary processor. This is just raw data, no analysis, yet. This is it from me for now. More, hopefully, next weekend.
View attachment 319269
Based on this graph, the CI between zones 2 and 8 is about 0.71, so it appears that the roll was overdeveloped, because ISO CI is 0.58 (IIRC). Interpolation of CI-values suggests that 6.5 minutes will yield a CI close to 0.58.
Also, I presume your table has 0.15 steps, but the red dots in the graph are spaced slightly closer together. Any idea why?
Thank you! I also found it at a public library website, so should be able to borrow a copy. It promises to be a great resource.You can read the book online (free, but requires an account):
Wow. I think I've seen one of those on eBay some time ago. Mine (X-Rite 810) has what looks like an old serial port connector at the back, but I doubt I could connect it to a modern PC.I have a small collection of various sensitometers and densitometers. I do have a X-Rite 890 Densitometer that will suck in the strip and read all the steps automatically, but it needs a special leader exposed to the front of the strip. Maybe someday I'll get around to making a single leader I can tape to any strip to get it to read.
And is your estimated film speed still ~80?
After reading what Matt wrote about more exposure and less development, and watching the second John Finch video, I wish I had also shot the last third of a roll and developed with a shorter time
You guys have to explain something to me. From the little I understand in this thread, tests you're doing show this film to have a film speed around 80, but my experience with it in the street gave me perfectly workable negatives at 200, developed in XTOL at the recommended time. I know one user's experience is anecdotal, but yet, still begs the question: if the science doesn't match the experience, surely, the science must be wrong, no?
You guys have to explain something to me. From the little I understand in this thread, tests you're doing show this film to have a film speed around 80, but my experience with it in the street gave me perfectly workable negatives at 200, developed in XTOL at the recommended time. I know one user's experience is anecdotal, but yet, still begs the question: if the science doesn't match the experience, surely, the science must be wrong, no?
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?