One film I don’t hear that much about — which is a shame — is an interesting one from CatLABS, called X FILM 80. This traditional slow-speed film is supposedly modeled after Kodak’s iconic Panatomic-X black and white film, which has been discontinued for decades now. Many forum posts seem to effectively dismiss this film as an imposter — Shanghai GP3 in a different box — but it’s among my favorites at the moment.
CatLABS isn’t necessarily known for film. They are primarily known as a specialist in large format, as well as the US distributor of Jobo processing systems. But they’ve dabbled in film as well, obviously contracting with other companies to manufacture the products.
Their X FILM 80 is marketed as a fine grained, high silver content, traditional low speed film stock, that “follows in the footsteps of Kodak’s famous Panatomic-X” with a “unique and classic look.” At ISO 80, it’s a daylight film, supposedly offers wide exposure latitude, and flexibility in processing.
I just said “ISO 80” there; in truth, CatLABS never says the film is ISO 80; rather, the box says “IE 80” (or on their site, “IE of 80 ISO”). That may be a typo; it’s generally referred to as EI for Exposure Index, but nevertheless, technically speaking, EI and ISO are actually slightly different things. Perhaps that’s one reason people believe it’s merely Shanghai GP3 (which is ISO 100) in a different box? Who knows; I’m no doubt splitting hairs here.
In any case, at this writing, X FILM 80 is offered in 120 and sheet formats, which means 135 shooters are left out of this one. I shoot both, but the medium and large format snobbery of it is sort of appealing on some level.
What I Like
There’s a lot to like about CatLABS X FILM 80. Among them:
- Stunning results!
I’m getting ahead of myself here; you can see the images below. But I never cease to be amazed by how well this film delivers — roll after roll after roll. In my view, it’s a lovely film. - Lowish cost
Priced at an interesting $5.55 per roll, it’s pretty reasonable price-wise. You can buy it directly from CatLABS at that price, or bigger retailers online such as B&H or Freestyle. CatLABS does offer quantity discounts, so if you end-up wanting a brick, you can save some money. - Beautiful contrast and tonality
True to the marketing, the contrast and tone of X FILM 80 is pretty impressive. While some shots are more impressive than others (lighting, exposure, etc. always play a role), on balance, I really like the appearance of my shots on this film. - Processes nicely at home
At this writing, I use Kodak HC-110 developer exclusively, and Dilution B at the CatLABS-recommended 8:45 works nicely. When I have the time and patience, I go for Dilution H at 17:30 to make my chemicals go farther, and give me more margin for timing errors. Both deliver really solid results, and frankly,I can’t really perceive any difference in contrast, grain, or detail. I also like that there areno anti-halation dyesin X FILM 80, and the film develops with a nearly crystal-clear substrate — no gray, pink or purple tinge. (NOTE: See an update at the end for corrections on the strikethrough items above.) - Barely any curl
Another boon if you process at home: X FILM 80 barely curls. Unlike most films, it comes-off the roll fairly straight, so it’s easier to load into a Paterson tank when home developing. When it comes out of the tank, there’s only a very moderate longitudinal curl, and no lateral curl. If you use a weighted clip at the bottom, it’ll dry even flatter. That means it scans easily and stores nicely as well. - Works great in old 620 cameras
Old box cameras such as the Duaflex or Brownie that require 620 film are generally designed for ISO 100 (well, it was ASA 100 back then) film. But re-rolling X FILM 80 onto 620 spools and shooting it in such cameras results in amazing results. You can see some in my Duaflex album on Flickr.
What I Don’t Like
CatLABS X FILM 80 is not perfect, and there are a few things I don’t much care for, including:
- Manufacturing variances
The three rolls of X FILM 80 I’ve shot in my Hasselblad at the time of this writing have behaved differently in terms of the registration of frames against the film. In one roll, I lost pretty much the entire last frame, other than about 10mm of it. On another, it was the other way around; I had most of the last frame except for around 10mm of it. On the third roll, I got all 12 shots in full. Hasselblad backs are start line loaders, meaning you load the film, and wind it forward until the start arrows on the backing paper align with a mark on the magazine’s film insert.
In examining the backing papers, the tape removal marks on them reveal that the point at which the film strip is taped-on does occasionally have some variance. That may not be ideal, but I’m also not ready to dismiss this film because of it. The great results are more important to me. (NOTE: See my update on this at the bottom of this review.) - It stinks
No, not figuratively — literally. As in, the film has a very strong odor. I have no idea if it’s the odor of the inks on the backing paper, the paper itself, the substrate of the film, the emulsion, or what… But, it smells very strongly to the point that it’s a bit off-putting. Once processed and dry, the odor is gone from the resulting negatives. But wow… Stinky! - No rebate markings
I’m sure it’s a cost saving measure, but there are absolutely no markings on the film rebate. No film codes, no branding, no exposure numbers — nothing. I truly just don’t care, except that I use the rebate markings to know which side is up and which edge is the top edge when I go to scan, so that my frames are scanned and numbered in the same order as my shooting log. It’s pretty easy to identity the emulsion side of a negative, so I’m not scanning upside down. But it’s really tough to know which edge is the top edge in the absence of the rebate markings when you’re dealing with a cut, three-shot strip of film. Again, not enough to turn me away, and I’ve gotten better about how I pull and hang my films after processing, so frame 1 is always at the bottom — easy to know where you’re starting when I get to the scanning.
The Proof
Larger versions of these images can be found on my Flickr photostream. There are images developed in both HC-110 Dilution B, and Dilution H, as noted in the captions. I believe all of these particular images were shot with my Hasselblad 503CW. But I particularly liked the results when I re-rolled this film onto a 620 spools, and shot it in my Kodak Duaflex II.
The Verdict
While I’ve been mildly frustrated by the lost shots in my Hasselblad as mentioned earlier, I continue to really like the results I’m getting with CatLABS X FILM 80. I couldn’t care less if it’s something else repackaged, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the shots I’m getting are absolutely delicious.
In my view, more people need to know about and try this film. Economy is reason enough, but the results delivered are superb.
Processing Notes and Development Times
- HC-110 Dilution B, 8:45 minutes at 20°C (CatLABS’ own recommendation).
- HC-110 Dilution H, 17:30 minutes at 20°C.
- Stop, fix, rinse, hypo clear, wash and surfactant as normal / desired.
Additional Thoughts: March 2020
Since writing this review in November 2019, I’ve shot considerably more of the film, and have also started using it in 4×5 sheet format.
First off, to correct what I said initially, the film does actually have an anti-halation dye, and if you do a pre-soak or pre-wash of the film before souping it, you’ll see its vivid blue color as you pour it off. It would certainly appear that if you simply don’t bother with that, the developer neutralizes the dye — something that doesn’t happen in, say, Fomapan (where you need to do a thorough pre-wash or pre-rinse before or after the developer, or you’ll color-pollute the chemicals that come after).
Secondly, I tend to believe now that HC-110 Dilution H delivers slightly better results than Dilution B. It’s hard to see from the example images above, and I’ll just say now that it could just as easily be agitation during development that accounts for the differences that I think I see. More testing is probably justified, and if I get adventurous, I might even shoot two rolls of the same shots on two similar cameras, soup one in B and the other in H, and just see for myself. What I’m seeing so far doesn’t justify one approach over the other, necessarily, but I likely will just use Dilution H and its painfully long development times vs. getting impatient and using Dilution B.
Thirdly, I’ve not had a single additional case of the misaligned film strip issue I mentioned above. It was easy to overlook in the first place, and it’s easier to do so now given the track record.
Lastly, I may post a separate review of the 4×5 version at some point, but in truth, everything I said about CatLABS X FILM 80 in this review holds true of the 4×5 as well. There appear to be some differences in the films, as with the 4×5, when you pour-off the developer, it’s pink in color, whereas the 120 roll film pours-off in what I might call “dilute urine gold.” Regardless, the processing times and the results are the same, and the bottom line is the same for me: I truly love this film.
