CatLabs X 80 Film

I remember reading about this film over a year ago, and quickly forgot about it. Freestyle has just added this to their menu of films, and I'm curious about using it. They haven't received their stock in yet, but apparently other stores have received some rolls. I saw a short YouTube video of it by one guy. They claim this film is close in look to the old Kodak Panatomic X. The Pan X film is one of my favorites, so having another film close to it interests me. They have the new film available in 120, 4x5, and 8x10. And the pricing for it is really very reasonable compared to other films. Im curious how it will also look compared to Adox CHS II 100.

 

Has anyone used the new CatLabs X 80 film yet? If so, show some samples and explain how you like it.

 

I started to do some Photography video blogging on YouTube, so I may just get some of this film, and shoot it along with some Pan X film I have in my freezer to compare. Somehow I think it might be hard to still beat Kodaks old film. After all- 32 ISO and 80 ISO are marked changes. But I'd like to give it a shot (literally).

Edited January 14, 2020 by 25asa

CatLABS X 80 Film Review — The Codex

If you try it, give us your own review. There are (were) a lot of us who used Panatomic X when we were starting out, :(

CatLABS X 80 Film Review — The Codex

The examples on that site all have blocked up shadows. Revealing one of 3 things:

The film isn't really 80 ISO, or the developing time given was too long, or the reviewer's scanner or scanning technique was lousy. Or maybe a combination of any 2 or 3 of those things.

The samples I am seeing coming from various sources using various developers are about what I expect until people work the bugs out. I had to do the same with Ferania P30. Some shots show high contrast...others show medium. I have some coming to review myself. I was also doing a test with Kodak P3200 at 6400 and 12,800 for street photography.

Here's some less contrasty pics, flat if anything but they look ok to me, a little post processing could change them to suit taste. As with any B&W film, experimentation with exposure, developers and times, come into the equation for personal requirements

 

Link ....

CatLABS X FILM 80 is a New B&W Negative Film

Here's some less contrasty pics, flat if anything but they look ok to me, a little post processing could change them to suit taste. As with any B&W film, experimentation with exposure, developers and times, come into the equation for personal requirements

 

Link ....

CatLABS X FILM 80 is a New B&W Negative Film

 

Based on the increasing number of samples, the film looks pretty good. Iso 80 does seem valid. Can’t wait for my order to arrive

Here's some less contrasty pics, flat if anything but they look ok to me, a little post processing could change them to suit taste. As with any B&W film, experimentation with exposure, developers and times, come into the equation for personal requirements

 

Link ....

CatLABS X FILM 80 is a New B&W Negative Film

Yep, they're flat, but there's still little to no shadow detail.

 

Reminds me of some horrible eastern european film I tried back in the 1970s. The best part of that film was the bakelite screw-topped canisters that the (120) rolls came in. I bought 2 rolls and modified both exposure and development after the first - then promptly went back to FP4 and Tri-X.

 

Once T-Max 100 came along, why would anyone waste time with any slower film that had a less fine grain? OK the first release of T-Max 100 had a weird tone curve in D-76, but the revision and other developers have since cured that.

 

Chopping and changing films and developers is the worst enemy of good, consistent results. So why welcome every unknown film with open arms? Even if it is dirt cheap.

Yep, they're flat, but there's still little to no shadow detail.

 

Reminds me of some horrible eastern european film I tried back in the 1970s. The best part of that film was the bakelite screw-topped canisters that the (120) rolls came in. I bought 2 rolls and modified both exposure and development after the first - then promptly went back to FP4 and Tri-X.

 

Once T-Max 100 came along, why would anyone waste time with any slower film that had a less fine grain? OK the first release of T-Max 100 had a weird tone curve in D-76, but the revision and other developers have since cured that.

 

 

Chopping and changing films and developers is the worst enemy of good, consistent results. So why welcome every unknown film with open arms? Even if it is dirt cheap.

 

Why? Because different films have different looks. Why would anyone want a slower film than TMax with grain not as fine? Because the grain and look of the film is different than TMax. Why would I want consistent results when I am shooting different subject matter? We choose different films to create the vision we want. I can think of nothing more boring for b&w as someone's always using TMax with the excuse of wanting "consistent" results.

Yep, they're flat, but there's still little to no shadow detail.

 

(snip)

 

Once T-Max 100 came along, why would anyone waste time with any slower film that had a less fine grain? OK the first release of T-Max 100 had a weird tone curve in D-76, but the revision and other developers have since cured that.

 

Chopping and changing films and developers is the worst enemy of good, consistent results. So why welcome every unknown film with open arms? Even if it is dirt cheap.

 

When I was young and believed that ASA numbers were set in stone, except for the

magic of Diafine, I used to use Panatomic-X (ASA 40 from Freestyle)

at EI 160 or 250, as it says on the Diafine box.

 

More recently, since it isn't so new, I have used Panatomic-X in HC-110, which also works.

 

Or maybe it is just the challenge of using a low speed film.

I've never had an issue using Pan X at box speed, even today. It certainly doesn't age or fog like other films, other then grain might get larger over time.

 

I received my boxes of Catlabs X 80. Now to find a day when it isn't raining here and a day off, to go and shoot the two rolls to test.

I've never had an issue using Pan X at box speed, even today. It certainly doesn't age or fog like other films, other then grain might get larger over time.

 

I received my boxes of Catlabs X 80. Now to find a day when it isn't raining here and a day off, to go and shoot the two rolls to test.

 

I have some 79 year old Panatomic-X sheet film.

 

I will not be surprised if it works fine after 80 years.

I have some 4x5 Pan X from 1969. I have high hopes its still good. Yet to dig into it.

 

I shot my two rolls of film (Pan X and Catlabs X80). So now I just have to get them developed and scanned to see if there is a difference. My Pan X roll was dated 1991.

I shot three rolls of 120 CatLabs and was impressed with it. Good skin tones, shadow detail and fairly fine grain. I rated it at 64 and developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 12 minutes @ 68 degrees.

 

I never developed any Panatomic in Rodinal so I can't comment on how similar CatLabs 80 is to that film, but it's worth a try. I'll probably shoot a few more rolls of it later this year to see how it looks developed in FX-39.

Another review of the film:

Film Review Blog No. 45 - CatLABS X Film 80

Someone who uses this film, please be brave and put some pictures up !!! The above referenced "reviews" leave me with no reason to try it. . .real film, real people (here) might change my tune. Aloha, Bill

Well I shot one roll of it so far on my 6x7 camera. But I bracketed some shots, so I really only got a few real images from the roll. Im waiting till I can afford to send all my rolls in for developing. That will take some time, as I have other things on my plate at the moment.