OP
OP
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
From the other side of the building so you can see bright sunshine vs shade.
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.
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
pentaxuser
OP
OP
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.
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.
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.
In more normal sunlight:
And in the shade:
And in the shade:
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
In more normal sunlight:
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.
OP
OP
@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.
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.
OP
OP
Found another one on the roll I shot the other week.
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.
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.
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
Moderator
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.
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.
Excellent shot! Exposure + processing looks great.
I wonder why that one Huss pic has a black sky but none of the others taken by Huss or others?
pentaxuser
pentaxuser
What pic? Post # would be helpful.
Must have used a red filter to darken the blue parts of the sky.
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.
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.
| 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:  |