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

[MattKing]

Can you clarify what the liquid in question, Matt, is. I assume it's the developer but I may be wrong in that assumption?

Thanks

pentaxuser

The most important liquid of all - water - also plays a role - particularly due to variation in ph.

 

[Huss]

Another one shot at ISO 200. The darker foreground area is shadow from the pier I am standing on.
Everyone as their own taste, but for me I would use this film to embrace its contrasty vibe. I don't see the point in fighting it to make it something it is not.
IMO - remember IMO! - just use a different film if you want wider exposure latitudes etc. There are so many out there - cheaper than Catlabs - that for actual use why wrestle with this one if that is the result you want?
I understand it is cool to see what can be done, but after that?

 

[aparat]

I have two more frames of the Catlabs Pro 320 to share showing how the long toe, the steep transition to the lower mid-tones, and the extended ZV and ZVI tonality can produce nice separation in dull, low-contrast scenes. These two were taken in deep shade, wide-open at f/2.8 1/60s. I really like the (unmanipulated) contrast here. In that regard, I agree with @warden that the results are similar to those of the Ferrania P30, which I shot just the other week and which I happen to really like. Its spectral response is quite different, but it's capable of producing nice contrast when needed. I also confirmed that the Catlabs film seems compatible with the Edwal Anti-Stat cleaner, which is one of my favorite darkroom accessories. It can rescue negatives from fingerprints, dust, water drying marks, even grease spots.

 

[pentaxuser]

The most important liquid of all - water - also plays a role - particularly due to variation in ph.

So water is the key particularly due to a variation in ph. If this accounts for a different colour in the post development liquid then I'd have expected users to report such differences to a much greater extent than they seem to

For instance I live in a particularly hard water area where kettles, washing machine and even the rims of taps get encrusted with limescale. All of Scotland has soft water i.e. very acidic in comparison to my water which is alkaline and yet the colour of the post development water remains the same, namely that blue colour. I use the U.K. as an example as this is where I live but this seems to be the common colour for users everywhere Foma on the the other hand seems to produce a green colour but again is used in many different areas. Some Ilford films seem to produce no colour at all irrespective of the state of the water in which they are developed

In the case of CatLABs 320 Pro the colours seem to vary much more so I was just curious about what might cause this effect of different colours when this doesn't seem to be the case with other films

Surely water by itself in terms of its acidity or alkalinity cannot be the sole reason and maybe not the main reason?

OK we only have a few reports on which we may not have enough data and certainly not enough data to even say that there is a statistically predominant colour but there does seem to be a larger variation than seems to be the case with other films

I remain curious about why that variation in colour might be

pentaxuser

 

[aparat]

Another one shot at ISO 200. The darker foreground area is shadow from the pier I am standing on.
Everyone as their own taste, but for me I would use this film to embrace its contrasty vibe. I don't see the point in fighting it to make it something it is not.
IMO - remember IMO! - just use a different film if you want wider exposure latitudes etc. There are so many out there - cheaper than Catlabs - that for actual use why wrestle with this one if that is the result you want?

In principle, I completely agree with you. I suppose most people here would choose a film and processing combination for a specific purpose or vibe to suit their creative choice. Having said that, when I set out to test this film, I had to choose a set of widely known and accepted criteria so that the results of the tests would be generalizable. If I just said, "hey, this is a punchy film" without any familiar frame of reference, such a statement would be meaningless, as it would just be an opinion.

I understand it is cool to see what can be done, but after that?

It's not about seeing what can be done, it's about seeing how the film responds to exposure and development within a broadly accepted frame of reference. After that, it's up to the photographer to decide what they do with it.

 

[aparat]

Surely water by itself in terms of its acidity or alkalinity cannot be the sole reason and maybe not the main reason?

This is a very good point. Is Catlabs using a pH indicator? Is that why the color changes? Do we know of any indicators that change color from gunmetal grey to yellow? Perhaps a chemist can chime in and help us understand what might be going on.

 

[warden]

I understand it is cool to see what can be done, but after that?

I don't think this thread is about seeing what can be done with the film, but rather trying to figure out what it is, i.e. its speed and spectral performance, in light of the fact that the marketer of this film has not disclosed that rather useful information. (Neither did Ferrania, but I don't recall anyone digging in like @aparat has done here to figure out the mystery of P30.) Without this thread we wouldn't know that this Catlabs film is a sub-100 ISO film no matter what the marketer says.

That knowledge does not stop anyone from enjoying this film at whatever ISO setting they like of course, and we are seeing quality results from several users here that are having a good time using it how they like. And it's cheap! But if it were me I'd set my camera at ISO50 and develop accordingly, so I can make contrast decisions after the negative is made instead of being stuck with baked-in high contrast on the negative that comes with pushing a slow film. But that's just me, and others are getting results that they like by doing it differently.

 

[warden]

View attachment 320634

Thanks for sharing the flag image! Here is a wet print I made while experimenting with P30. See what it does to the flag?

 

[aparat]

Thanks for sharing the flag image! Here is a wet print I made while experimenting with P30. See what it does to the flag?

It's a gorgeous print, with beautiful tonality all the way through. As to the flag, wow!

 

[Huss]

Thanks for sharing the flag image! Here is a wet print I made while experimenting with P30. See what it does to the flag?

I gotta get me a darkroom!

 

[Huss]

ISO 200 + bromide streaks.

 

[aparat]

ISO 200 + bromide streaks.

I love it! Everything works here, from location to composition, to tonality. I don't even mind the streaks. Could you reveal the part of the world this is?

 

[pentaxuser]

As the flag is relatively small I found it was difficult for me to determine if the blue on it was darker than the red or about the same but it seems to me that it is a good example of the case for a spectral sensitivity curve or information to be provided so users can determine where an appropriate filter is necessary

In the case of most films blue and red are different but if I were using this at a sports event such as soccer match I may not be able to rely on the usual difference between red and blue shirts on b&w film to show up

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

it seems to me that it is a good example of the case for a spectral sensitivity curve or information to be provided so users can determine where an appropriate filter is necessary

Yes!, and in lieu of that a simple “experiment “ as was done in post 251 gives good clues.

 

[aparat]

Yes!, and in lieu of that a simple “experiment “ as was done in post 251 gives good clues.

I will try to add some alkali to that diluted dye next time I process a roll. Has anyone taken a picture of the yellow dye? I've tried to find it in the other thread but failed.

 

[BrianShaw]

LOL… it’s easy to lose information between the two threads and the volume of posts in each. Best view of the colour was in Pentaxuser’s video recommendation. I think this will get you there

CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro now available in 35mm and 120

It's interesting, I took BrianShaw's response to Dwight's comment as being more directed to the thread in general, not Dwight in particular. Wearing my moderator hat for a brief moment here - a suggestion to everyone to pause before you assume the worst about a post. Without the benefit of...

www.photrio.com

But what would be the logic of an indicator dye built in to a film?

 

[warden]

It's a gorgeous print, with beautiful tonality all the way through. As to the flag, wow!

Thanks!

.... nice separation in dull, low-contrast scenes. These two were taken in deep shade, wide-open at f/2.8 1/60s. I really like the (unmanipulated) contrast here.

I found P30 was useful for exactly those sort of scenes as well. If you have dim lighting or overcast conditions, P30 and Catlabs 320 would both offer useful contrast if you don't mind the slow speed.

As for the Catlabs products, after your analysis I'm now wondering if X Film 320 Pro is actually slower than their own X Film 80? Now that would be ... funny.

 

[warden]

I gotta get me a darkroom!

Seriously, it's such fun. Get one!

 

[aparat]

LOL… it’s easy to lose information between the two threads and the volume of posts in each. Best view of the colour was in Pentaxuser’s video recommendation. I think this will get you there

CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro now available in 35mm and 120

It's interesting, I took BrianShaw's response to Dwight's comment as being more directed to the thread in general, not Dwight in particular. Wearing my moderator hat for a brief moment here - a suggestion to everyone to pause before you assume the worst about a post. Without the benefit of...

www.photrio.com

But what would be the logic of an indicator dye built in to a film?

Thanks! He shot the 120, and I shot the 35 mm film, so the gray dye might be the layer coated on the back side of the film to prevent fogging through the film leader sticking out of the canister. That seems to be a requirement for films coated on polyster base, according to Adox. I have an Adox film and will test this hypothesis soon.

 

[MattKing]

So water is the key particularly due to a variation in ph. If this accounts for a different colour in the post development liquid then I'd have expected users to report such differences to a much greater extent than they seem to

You are over-complicating things .
Water is a chemical, that varies from place to place. Developer is a chemical, that varies from type to type. Dyes can appear differently depending on the chemicals they encounter.
And of course, most people don't report the colour they see when they dump the pre-wash out, or the developer out.

 

[pentaxuser]

I will try to add some alkali to that diluted dye next time I process a roll. Has anyone taken a picture of the yellow dye? I've tried to find it in the other thread but failed.

The only picture I have seen of this yellow colour is in the video which I posted in the original CatLABs thread

Here's the video and the colour is at 10: 50 mins



pentaxuser

 

[Huss]

I love it! Everything works here, from location to composition, to tonality. I don't even mind the streaks. Could you reveal the part of the world this is?

Thanks! Taken by Palos Verdes Estates, which is next to Redondo Beach just south of Los Angeles.

 

[aparat]

The only picture I have seen of this yellow colour is in the video which I posted in the original CatLABs thread

Here's the video and the colour is at 10: 50 mins



pentaxuser

Thanks. I've seen it. His is from a 120 roll, mine from 35 mm. That's probably what accounts for the difference.

 

[aparat]

I put a small piece of Adox CHS 100 II in water for a couple of minutes, and got the same color dye as the Catlabs Pro 320. It would not surprise me if this film was made by the same manufacturer and/or designed by the same people, using a similar technology. I cannot recall there being a similar dye in the 35 mm films from Kodak, Ilford, or Foma. Does anyone know?

 

[warden]

Thanks! Taken by Palos Verdes Estates, which is next to Redondo Beach just south of Los Angeles.

You should be on the payrolll for their tourism bureau. Great stuff you’ve shared in this thread.