Analog Therapy/Film Test: CatLABS X Film 320 (120), A Stubborn Photographer, and 2 Rolls.

I will start with something about CatLABS X Film 320 that I said about Foma Fomapan Retro 200 Black & White and Kentmere Pan 100 120.

What is that you say? Lower price and acceptable results?

Yes, please.

Did not hurt that both Katherine and Dillon at my local camera shop recommended it. So I recently added these…

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Eric L. Woods (@ewoodsphoto)

…as an early birthday or as a late part of my Father’s Day film haul.

I started with the 120 variant and one of my favorite camera and lens combinations, the nearly bulletproof Pentax 645N and 75mm f/2.8.

So what of the stubborn photographer part? Welp.

CatLABS representation please avert your eyes…

I did not follow development instructions.

From their website:

Processing Instructions (at 20° C) EI 320 :

MOST RECOMMENDED DEVELOPER – click below to buy:
510Pyro 1+100 13.5 min

I considered this. Even had it in my cart. But I wanted to see what would happen if I used my easy, go to, stand by Cinestill df96. It reminded me of a recent suggestion I received on one of my 35mmc posts. They suggested that I try another black and white developer. That it would not be much more difficult. A fine suggestion. But after much deep thought and introspection I decided against it. My reasoning…

I do not want to.

More? Ok.

• Variety. Cinestill has formal listings for a fine selection of black and white films to choose from that are compatible with df96.
• Value. Monobath costs less than $20. And that is all that you will need. While it would not cost much more if I bought the recommended developer I would have to buy additional chemistry. Again, not a lot but more than what I buy now.
• Simplicity. I really like having a simple one bath solution.
• Familiarity. I am very comfortable with df96 and I am happy with the results.
• Impatience. I have the bottle of df96 sitting right here. No shipping. No trip to the camera store.

But will it work here? No idea.

But at around $7 a roll, I am willing to take a chance on a sample roll so here we go.

After a brief Googling fit I read an article that claims CatLABS X 100 is actually Kodak 5222 Double-X. This is still not listed on Cinestill’s film list. Then after a bit of further Googling I found a development database that said that Kodak Double-X 5222 could be developed with df96. All the push I needed to move forward.

Chose ISO 200 for the test roll. Result? Eh. Images were technically captured. A bit dark if I am honest. Saw it as soon as I took the thinner than I would have liked to see negatives out of the tank. And a bit cloudy… hazy?… upon scanning. Here are a few of the less offensive images.

Completely non-sanctioned use case user error. Not the film’s or developer’s fault. But you know what? I still kind of like it. Definitely could have been much worse. At this point, I could have done one of two things.

• Punt. Call it a day and either purchase the recommended developer or turn it in at my local camera shop to have it developed.
• Charge forward. More light.

If you have read a few of my posts you should know that reasonable camera related decisions are not really my thing so I chose:

More light!

I chose to use ISO 100 for the next roll to offset the dark negatives from the first roll. Result? Pretty awesome if I say so myself. I could tell from my first glance at the negatives that there was a better result.

Here are sample images from the second 120 roll.

Much, much better. I really like the look of this film. I had thought this would be another test and further adjustments would need to be made, but this result was obtained by using the standard Cinestill df96 instructions.

Could I have gotten better results is I had followed CatFILMS’ suggestion?

Most likely, yes.

What “advice” do I have to offer after this experience/experiment? Welp:

• Don’t be like Eric.
  • Follow their home development recommendations or leave it to the professional. A roll of film and a bit of time could have been saved and the images may have come out cleaner/sharper. Would also allow one to use a higher ISO. Taking those interior shots of the cars above required a slow shutter speed. While I braced myself as best as I could I am honestly surprised they turned out as clean as they did. Especially the pic of the car’s trunk.
• Do not reference yourself in the third person.
  • Makes you sound a little crazy.

But as for this here less than rational man I have two rolls of 35mm to go and I can already tell you that they will be shot at 100 in some manner of light proof box with a shutter button and a lens hanging off of the front end of it. More to come.

-ELW