You are too kind!
Testing and evaluating CatLabs "X Film 320 Pro (2022 version)
-
A
- Thread starter aparat
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Royal Soft Focus 150mm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak Aerochrome 1443 Offcuts, the last I'll be selling
- Started by MCB18
Forum statistics
You are too kind!
Huss, you said that you want to make a darkroom. The above is why you should not make a darkroom. If you spend a year learning darkroom skills, you will have less time to shoot and will have fewer pictures for us to enjoy.
Thank you
If you like shooting film, I think setting up (or accessing) a darkroom and learning to print is an excellent idea. While shooting film, making digital scans, editing the resulting digital images in digital post processing software, and posting the results to the internet is a valid way of working, there is nothing quite as satisfying as holding a print that you have created in your hands. The analog full monty. It will also enhance your appreciation of film's heritage. You don't have to do one or the other; you can do both.
Last edited:
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.
I am simply curious about the specific chemical reasons why the post developer liquid colour in the case of CatLABS 320 Pro seems to vary by so much when I have seen general agreement on other film's post developer colours
pentaxuser
OP
OP
The colors vary by format, i.e., grey for 35 mm and yellow for 120. I haven't seen any evidence yet for color variation within each format. I'm not disputing that such variation exists, only that I haven't seen it yet. I also found that the grey anti-halation dye is almost certainly the same dye used by Adox, which would indicate that it's the layer coated on the non-emulsion side to prevent what Adox calls "light piping." It seems to be required for films coated on a PET base.
Thanks for that At least there is now signs of some commonality in the colour of yellow and while my experience of films and developers is largely limited to Ilford developers and films, my impression about little variation matches what I imagine to be your greater actual experience of a bigger variety of films and developers
It was the video presenter's line about the yellow colour reminding him of what he saw when he developed Rollei Retro 400S that started me wondering whether that colour was unique enough to at least indicate a link between the 2 films
pentaxuser
Wouldn't that indicate that the 35mm and the 120 were not the same film, i.e., not split from the same master roll?
It's my understanding that they have to be coated on different base stock (different thickness), which in turn requires some reformulation of the actual emulsion -- or so claimed a rep from an actual film manufacturer. Comparatively, adding or leaving off a base-side coating seems trivial...
OP
OP
@faberryman Yes, that would be my thoughts, as well.
What @Donald Qualls is saying seems consistent with what I found out from Adox. The Adox CHS 100 II 35 mm film is coated with the special "anti-light piping" layer to prevent light from entering the canister through the exposed film leader and fogging the film, in addition to the conventional anti-halation layer. The 120 film does not have that problem, but it probably has its own specific issues, hence, the two films (135 and 120) aren't likely to be 100% identical.
Also, what @pentaxuser is saying about the Rollei film agrees with some of my own findings. The more I research this thing, the more I am inclined to believe that the Rollei Retro, Adox CHS 100 II, and Catlabs X Pro 320 share some of their "DNA," which makes them likely to be manufactured by the same entity, or, at the very least, designed by the same entity.
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
Depending on the material used, 120 and 135 films don't necessarily have to be coated on substrates of different thickness.
Acetate isn't as strong as PET, and it has different susceptibility to light piping.
Typically 135 in acetate is thicker than 120 in acetate because of a greater need for 135 strength vs. a need to keep the 120 film base thin in order to fit the film and backing paper on to the spool together.
As PET film is stronger, PET substrate that is the same thickness as the 120 acetate can be used in a 135 cassette, but if you do that you have to modify it, because 135 film lacks the anti-halation benefits of the backing paper. You also have to take steps to minimize the effects of light piping.
If you put different things like dyes into the different film packages to deal with halation and light piping, it isn't surprising that the colour that washes out is different.
As aparat's extensive testing has shown, that's clearly out the window. How is it helpful for everyone to continue to underexpose and overdevelop? We've all pushed film before and know what happens. Judging by the images posted here, if you follow CatLABS instructions, you'll get high contrast negatives. Of course, you may like that look, it which case carry on. I have seen a lot of fine high contrast photographs.
Last edited:
I'm going to shoot my last two rolls this w/e but have my local shop dev them - I think they use TMAX. I want to see how different the results will be compared to my DF96 experiment. If things work out as planned. Will be at ISO 200 so I can have a direct comparison to what I have done.
MattKing
Moderator
Will you ask them to follow CatLabs' development suggestions?
Forgive me for not reading the entire thread before asking, but Catlabs is comparing this film to Panatomic X as a close look to it. Can anyone comment on this films comparison to the old Kodak film?
OP
OP
I believe that claim might have been made for the CatLabs X FILM 80, not the CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro.
No idea what those are. I ‘ll just say it was shot at their suggested iso 200.
CatLABS recommended time for TMax developer is on its website.
This is what curmudgeons do. Normally, it is not reported in these pages, other than someone might say he shoots Tri-X at E.I. 320 and develops it in Rodinal 1:50 at whatever he has determined the correct time is for his idiosyncratic processing method. Obviously, it has taken more time to figure out this film given CatLABS rather stunning unfamiliarity with the product it supposedly designed in Boston MA USA. We owe a great debt of gratitude to aparat, as well as to those who underexposed and overdeveloped the film and posted their images.
The CatLABS film seems analogous to someone rebranding Tri-X as MaxiMax, saying it has a film speed of "EI ISO 1600", and recommending you process it in D76 1:1 for 20 minutes. You will certainly get something on the film, and you may even like it. I remember the first time I pushed Tri-X to EI 1600. It was in 1973. I was working for my college newspaper, and an invited guest was speaking to the assembled students in this, shall we say, less than well lit hall. I got the photograph I needed, but I didn't think it was my finest hour. I had too much self-respect to tell the photo editor I was being artistic.
I have forgotten whether the Tri-X push processing instructions were in the datasheet or Bill Pierce told me how to do it in an article in Popular Photography magazine. This was years before the CatLABS guy was even a gleam in his parents eyes. Probably before they even met. Speaking of the CatLABS guy, I reviewed his LinkedIn page and it said he was VP of Operations. I sort of got the impression that he owned the place, but it appears I was mistaken. You can look over CatLABS guy's portfolio here:
Omer Hecht - Portfolio
Omer Hecht, Photographer, Boston, MA, USA Contact: omerhecht@gmail.com (Click on images to enlarge/browse)
omerhecht.blogspot.com
Last edited:
My contribution. First roll. I got a number of underexposed but most were fine. I rotary developed for 10 minutes in D76 1:1 but did a 5 minute borax bath after that was done - which is exactly what I do with Rollei Superpan 200 (Aviphot 200) (well, I go for 10 minutes 45 seconds with that, shot at iso160).
Canon VL. Can't remember which lens was on it for this.
Canon VL. Can't remember which lens was on it for this.
That is an authentically scary scarecrow. It’s giving me the creeps!
Excellent result!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |