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

[MattKing]

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?

I'll let the scientists get down into the weeds on this, but basically what is being said is that the under-exposure of the film is being heavily compensated for by a large increase in the contrast of that part of the image that does make it to negative.
Basically the logic behind "push" processing.
The compromise of course being truncated shadow detail and truncated highlight detail. But it is certainly possible that the non-truncated detail in the middle is rendered in a way that you find pleasing and totally useful.
Of course, if you start from a negative that doesn't truncate as much, you can probably attain the results that you like from it too - using printing or post-processing controls available to you. And most importantly, if the extra detail is there in the first place, you can choose between using that additional detail, or discarding it, as needs require.
One other point - a "Fred Picker" film speed would almost certainly be one using Zone system methodology, which by definition is 2/3 of a stop less than an ISO speed, due to the differences in methodology.
And that ISO methodology is based on a large number of visual evaluation of un-manipulated prints, rather than a simple density measurement.

 

[aparat]

Well, I did my version of a film test yesterday. I divided up a 35mm roll into three cannisters and shot one roll using the method of determining ISO in the John Finch video linked to earlier. But I don't have any paper on hand to run that test so that will have to wait. Then I shot a sequence of what I thought would be a wide range of light values in one image. It was a lightly overcast day with occasional moments of direct sunlight. The scene is on the shaded side of the house with the post at the bottom of the stair in direct sunlight. All photos were taken while the sun was shining directly on the stair post.

I set my ISO manually to 200 based on the recommendation in the box label for use with HC110 and used the compensation dial on my Pentax ZX5n to go from a -.5 to a +3 in half stop increments as shown in the photos below. The Pentax was set for matrix metering. I developed the film in HC110 for 10.5 minutes as recommended.

Notable colors in the scene: The sky is lightly overcast, so mostly white. The house is a medium blue. The house across the street is a dark brown. The tree on the left has turned a bright yellow. The chair behind the railing gate is dark brown, with a woven texture that is visible starting with the 200 ISO setting. The railing is a smooth white pvc plastic.

I scanned the negatives on an Epson v850 with no adjustments. I find I like the moodiness of the 200 ISO shot, but the 200 +.5 is probably most accurate. The longer exposures have blown out highlights and darker elements such as the house across the street are too light. Of course, everyone's monitor is different, so you may come to a different conclusion. In fact, now when I view these on my phone, I would choose the 100 and 100 +.5.

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.

These are fantastic! Thank you for posting. I think your progression illustrates very nicely how the shadow and mid-tone information is rendered by each exposure and film speed rating. Highlights can be controlled with development time.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I asked this very question earlier in the thread. People much smarter than me answered this question long ago, because this "problem" has existed in photography forever, really. Industry standards, such as the ISO 0.1 over B+F film speed criterion, are very specific, which is, partly, what makes them standards. How they reconcile with real-world experience is up to each individual photographer to figure out. But, crucially, these are not mutually exclusive.

I will quote Fred Picker on this very subject - I do this from memory so I apologize if I misquote him. By the way, he found Kodak Tri-X to be EI 140: "Film speed is based on exposure for Zone I, which is minimum printable density or 0.1 over film base + fog. Manufactures have determined that it is best for the world out there, but experienced photographers want to control their exposures better."

Thanks, aparat.

 

[pentaxuser]

Dwight thanks for the series of shots. It looks as if the sun was out and quite strong when you took the series of the same scene. On that basis the shadow detail seems best at 100 +.5(so 80?) but it may be that until you complete both parts of the John Finch test for speed and development it will be difficult to tell.

pentaxuser

 

[albada]

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.

Actually you can connect a serial cable to any modern PC. You must buy a serial-to-USB adapter for 10-20 USD, and then your X-Rite should be able to squirt measurements directly into a text-file or spreadsheet.
Here are the adapters available on Amazon.

 

[warden]

Well, I did my version of a film test yesterday.

Thank you!

 

[aparat]

Actually you can connect a serial cable to any modern PC. You must buy a serial-to-USB adapter for 10-20 USD, and then your X-Rite should be able to squirt measurements directly into a text-file or spreadsheet.
Here are the adapters available on Amazon.

Awesome! Are you familiar with this connector form factor? It is larger than the standard PC serial port, or am I misremembering?

 

[albada]

Awesome! Are you familiar with this connector form factor? It is larger than the standard PC serial port, or am I misremembering?
View attachment 319305

Wow! That's a blast from the past! Assuming that's RS-232 (serial), you can buy an adapter to convert this ancient large connector to a modern small one. Here's an example.

 

[Dwight Anderson]

I appreciate all your replies. One thing we should remember is that we are all viewing and rating photos on this website based on what we see on our monitors, phones or tablets. I have my laptop hooked up to an external monitor and usually view this site on it. But if I view my test photos on my laptop screen, my preferred exposures would be a full stop slower, and a couple of people have also noted the same exposure. But the detail is in the scan regardless of how our screen displays it. The only way to positively agree on an exposure is to be in the same room looking at a print under the same lighting.

Given today's scanning technology and software, I could have adjusted any of the photos in my test to produce an acceptable image, and I think that's what most young photographers expect to do these days. So having an exact ISO evaluation isn't as important.

 

[aparat]

Wow! That's a blast from the past! Assuming that's RS-232 (serial), you can buy an adapter to convert this ancient large connector to a modern small one. Here's an example.

Fantastic. You are right. I just confirmed it by opening up the manual, which has been sitting on the shelf all along. So all I need is a RS-232 to serial cable plus a serial-to-USB adapter, yes? I owe you one. This is going to simplify things a lot. Thanks!

 

[MattKing]

Given today's scanning technology and software, I could have adjusted any of the photos in my test to produce an acceptable image, and I think that's what most young photographers expect to do these days. So having an exact ISO evaluation isn't as important.

Exactitude may not be necessary, but it is generally handy to have a reasonably accurate guess - at least for the purposes of making a buying decision or sharing information about the film with the people with whom we like to share information about films - and not just on the internet.
I bet most of the retailers who sell this stuff also like to at least have the option to quote something standardized - at least to the portion of their customer base who do care.
And yes, us long time darkroom users may now be far from the average. But those I've encountered who are newer to this stuff seem far from identical in the things they want, need, appreciate and dislike.

 

[Dwight Anderson]

Exactitude may not be necessary, but it is generally handy to have a reasonably accurate guess - at least for the purposes of making a buying decision or sharing information about the film with the people with whom we like to share information about films - and not just on the internet.
I bet most of the retailers who sell this stuff also like to at least have the option to quote something standardized - at least to the portion of their customer base who do care.
And yes, us long time darkroom users may now be far from the average. But those I've encountered who are newer to this stuff seem far from identical in the things they want, need, appreciate and dislike.

I'm not trying to defend Catlabs, the large number of typos and inconsistencies on their website and box info leaves me wondering about their attention to detail. I didn't know HC110 was an Ilford product for example. But if I had not been on this website and instead purchased it through a link from 35mmc, I would have followed their recommendations for HC110 and gotten results similar to their samples. Which would mean shadows without detail and blown highlights. But if you're looking for that "moody" effect you'd be satisfied. If you're looking for film with a full tonal range this ain't it. Maybe with some tinkering we can fix that, but that's on us. Back before digital, I would have looked at the negative and thought it was a bit thin for printing and changed my ISO, without consulting the internet, which didn't exist.

Frankly I got the film because 34 pages of internet jousting got me curious as hell, it's not the look I usually go for. Probably just give it to my wife, she loves shooting the oddball stuff.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

You can read the book online (free, but requires an account):

Controls in black and white photography : Henry, Richard J. (Richard Joseph) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

270 p. : 28 cm

archive.org

Thanks for the link.

@MattKing: is there a resource page for important books on analog photography to which the above link can be added?

 

[MattKing]

s there a resource page for important books on analog photography to which the above link can be added?

Not that I am aware of.

 

[albada]

Fantastic. You are right. I just confirmed it by opening up the manual, which has been sitting on the shelf all along. So all I need is a RS-232 to serial cable plus a serial-to-USB adapter, yes? I owe you one. This is going to simplify things a lot. Thanks!

It's not entirely true, but for most people, RS-232 is a synonym of serial. Around 1980, serial devices used that big connector, and later, folks switched to the smaller connector. So that 25-to-9 cable plus a serial-to-usb adapter should get the data across, relegating your fountain pen to the display case. But I suggest reading whatever the manual says about serial-transfer to see whether X-Rite put any gotchas in there. It should also specify baud rate, data bits, and parity-bit settings to use.

Then you will be ahead of me. A few minutes ago, I entered some densitometer measurements of print densities using pen-to-paper and then transcribing them into the computer, because my densitometer has no output-connector.

 

[bernard_L]

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

My densitometer is a Macbeth TR1224. It can output measurements on a serial port. Apparently the intent was that the operator at a local laboratory would measure process control strips and send them via modem to central quality control.
Anyway, I rigged a serial-USB converter and each time I make a measurement, one line with the RGBV data is added to a text file. Then plotting and automated analysis with a Matlab script.

Edit: I missed that albada had provided a similar hint. Possibly I might help you avoid some issues.

• nonstandard connector (mine had RJ-22)
• better/worse serial/USB adapters, depending on the embedded chip
• TTL-level serial link (0V/+5V) and true RS-232 (+/-12V typically) share the same protocol but different electrical levels
• software on your PC to capture the serial data stream

 

[brbo]

Just to mention here, I once saw a video where X-Rite 310 densitometer was sending measurements to an iPhone via bluetooth. Now, that obviously meant that there was a Arduino/Raspberry Pi with bluetooth or something connected to serial port and then transmitting data with bluetooth.

Video was from colorlab. It's probably their propriety solution and used for their internal workflow but might be worth asking if they can share knowledge or even build and sell the device. Maybe starting from scratch is not needed...

 

[albireo]

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're saying you're getting out there and actually doing some photography with this film? Are you mad?

But seriously, to answer your question: there is no science in amateur densitometry/sensitometry tests. It's a festival of spurious correlations, unaccounted-for covariation, and measurement+operator variance so big it can be seen by one those swarms of Elon Musk satellites.

None of this stuff would even remotely get through the editor of (let alone be considered for peer review by) the journal of South Surinamese and Peloponnesian Gender Studies.

Enjoy this new film, not sure where to find it in Europe, and if they'll distribute it here I will buy my usual 100/200 test rolls for sure and optimise the film for my workflow. Seems like great stuff based on @Huss samples.

 

[pentaxuser]

I thought this thread was an attempt to find out things about this film that CatLABs has not told us. It has no other aim.

I hope it doesn't degenerate into a version of the other CatLAB's thread. The one thing we already know from the other thread and on which there is no dispute is that some like this film and do not have any concerns about the lack of information whereas others do have concerns about that lack of information and seek here to do something about finding out

pentaxuser

 

[brbo]

Enjoy this new film, not sure where to find it in Europe, and if they'll distribute it here I will buy my usual 100/200 test rolls for sure and optimise the film for my workflow. Seems like great stuff based on @Huss samples.

You can buy it at Catlabs (Catlabs says shipping for 100/200 rolls is negligible). You can also buy it at Fotoimpex or Maco.

 

[aparat]

You're saying you're getting out there and actually doing some photography with this film? Are you mad?

But seriously, to answer your question: there is no science in amateur densitometry/sensitometry tests. It's a festival of spurious correlations, unaccounted-for covariation, and measurement+operator variance so big it can be seen by one those swarms of Elon Musk satellites.

None of this stuff would even remotely get through the editor of (let alone be considered for peer review by) the journal of South Surinamese and Peloponnesian Gender Studies.

Enjoy this new film, not sure where to find it in Europe, and if they'll distribute it here I will buy my usual 100/200 test rolls for sure and optimise the film for my workflow. Seems like great stuff based on @Huss samples.

Thank you for your comments. I am going to assume that you are trying to make a bona fide contribution to this thread. I apologize if I misread your post, as English is not my first language.

Nobody has made any claims here to produce work suitable for a peer-reviewed journal. In fact, I have stressed, repeatedly, that these results are not going to be "accurate," but, rather, are meant to give a kind of approximate, or "ballpark" estimate of the film's performance, esp. in how it compares to other popular films. Having said that, I have tried to control the process as much as is reasonable in an amateur setting. For example, my sensitometer, densitometer, and thermometer are calibrated and certified, very recently (2 months ago). The certification is valid for 12 months. The equipment was calibrated by the same professionals, to the same professional standards as most, if not all, currently operating film testing labs in the US. In fact, the equipment is meant to be used by lab personnel with very basic training and diagnostic skills, without requiring a Ph.D. to run. There's one button, that's it. You put the film in and you push the button. It would be hard to screw it up, but, yes, it is possible. I only ran the full test twice, plus spot-testing the third time. I'd need at least 100 trials to have any kind of statistical certainty. I also said that I'd make the raw data available, so you're welcome to use them, run your own analysis, and tell me where the errors are. I'd love to have constructive, substantive feedback!

The algorithms implemented here have been peer-reviewed many, many times over, since most of them have been around since the 1950s. And, yes, they do account for variance. That's the whole point. None of the results are "eye-balled" or "guesstimated."

Finally, your point about buying 100-200 rolls is spot-on. I cannot afford to buy that many, but perhaps you'll make a contribution to this thread with your own data coming from those rolls. That would be awesome.

 

[miha]

I thought this thread was an attempt to find out things about this film that CatLABs has not told us. It has no other aim.

I hope it doesn't degenerate into a version of the other CatLAB's thread. The one thing we already know from the other thread and on which there is no dispute is that some like this film and do not have any concerns about the lack of information whereas others do have concerns about that lack of information and seek here to do something about finding out

pentaxuser

+1

 

[miha]

You can buy it at Catlabs (Catlabs says shipping for 100/200 rolls is negligible). You can also buy it at Fotoimpex or Maco.

Interesting if true, and if indeed it is true, then this Agfa film leads an interesting life!

 

[warden]

CatLABS does not specify the mode of film processing. The development times shown are for the film shot at "EI 320". Just as with film speed, there is no explanation of the methodology CatLABS used in arriving at its recommended times for development in the various developers.

That's odd, considering they sell Jobo equipment along with this film. You would think they would want to give instructions for this film to their Jobo customers, but no matter. It sounds like the absence of that information doesn't affect the testing in this thread anyway.

I'm learning a lot in this thread so thanks to all who are participating.

 

[faberryman]

That's odd, considering they sell Jobo equipment along with this film. You would think they would want to give instructions for this film to their Jobo customers, but no matter.

As I understand the argument, only curmudgeons would think that, which explains why Photrio is utterly irrelevant. Did I mention the film is only $6.99?