Cinestill BWXX: light leaks, thin negatives, and black blots near sprockets. Lab issue or did I mess up?

[Lucas Gesser]

Shot my first roll of Cinestill BWXX on a Konica A4 P&S and was not 100% happy with the results. Looking for help diagnosing what went wrong.


I contacted Cinestill before shooting and they told me that previous batches of BWXX have DX codes that read ISO 800, with an overexposure latitude of 2–3 stops — meaning a point and shoot would typically meter at 400 ISO. They also mentioned future batches would read ISO 250. Based on this, I asked the lab to develop the film at 400 ISO.

Issues with the developed film

• Light leaks on the first few frames — I've never had this with my Konica A4 before. Could this be from loading the film incorrectly?
• Overall low contrast, thin-looking negatives — the blacks look washed out, not dense. Underexposure? Wrong development?
• Black blots near the sprocket holes — not sure what could cause this.

My questions

• Could the DX code mismatch have caused the thin negatives, or was the 400 ISO dev the right call?
• Are the light leaks on the first frames likely a loading issue on my end, or could they have happened at the lab (e.g. during unloading)?
• What typically causes black blots near the sprockets — is this a lab chemistry/agitation issue, or something with the film itself?
• Any other red flags in this combo of symptoms that point to one cause over another?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[koraks]

There's a major light leakthat has only affected the start of the roll. This could have occurred in the camera, but failure of the felt light trap of the 35mm cassette is also a possibility.

The thin negatives are due to underexposure. DoubleX is an ISO250 film, period. Ignore whatever else Cinestill tries to tell you about it.

Also, welcome aboard!!

 

[Sanug]

I see the typical light leak from the felt of the canister. Did you load and unload the film in bright sunlight?

The exposure of the frames is not equal. Your camera seems not to expose properly.

 

[thinkbrown]

The thin negatives are due to underexposure. DoubleX is an ISO250 film, period. Ignore whatever else Cinestill tries to tell you about it.

Yeah, XX holds up well at 400 iso, but it starts falling apart pretty hard at 800. I've shot it at 800 occasionally but only when I had nothing faster in my bag.

 

[Lucas Gesser]

I am not sure the problem is with my camera metering, as I had never had similar issues before.

I am more inclined to think its either the problem with Cinestill loading 250 ASA film on 400-800 ASA DX coded cassetes or some lab issue (or a mix of both).

Here is Cinestills email to me and, for comparison, a roll of Kentmere 400 shot with the same camera and developed at the same lab:

" Previous batches of BwXX have DX codes that read ISO 800 with an overexposure latitude of 2–3 stops. In most cases this will make a point and shoot expose around 400 ISO with the ability to expose properly at 800 as well. Future batches will read ISO 250. Thank you."

 

[brbo]

Here is Cinestills email to me and, for comparison, a roll of Kentmere 400 shot with the same camera and developed at the same lab:

" Previous batches of BwXX have DX codes that read ISO 800 with an overexposure latitude of 2–3 stops. In most cases this will make a point and shoot expose around 400 ISO with the ability to expose properly at 800 as well. Future batches will read ISO 250. Thank you."

I wonder if Cinestill can name one P&S that can read the second row of DX code (where the latitude information is defined in the DX code) and will then base it's exposure metering on the latitude information of the DX code. I bet they can't. So, P&S cameras will expose for ISO 800 (and not 400) when DX code says ISO 800.

Your negatives are proof of that as they are underexposed. DoubleXX is not an ISO 800 film as others have said and no amount of overdevelopment will bring back the shadow information.

 

[Sanug]

The K400 is partly underexposed, too.

 

[Lucas Gesser]

I wonder if Cinestill can name one P&S that can read the second row of DX code (where the latitude information is defined in the DX code) and will then base it's exposure metering on the latitude information of the DX code. I bet they can't. So, P&S cameras will expose for ISO 800 (and not 400) when DX code says ISO 800.

Your negatives are proof of that as they are underexposed. DoubleXX is not an ISO 800 film as others have said and no amount of overdevelopment will bring back the shadow information.

On a second note:

I have been wondering about their very popular 800T film. As I understand it, it is basically respolled Vision3 500T without a Rem-Jet layer. Does removing the Rem-Jet before exposure actually affect the the emulsion's sensibility or is it just a branding stunt ?

 

[thinkbrown]

Does removing the Rem-Jet before exposure actually affect the the emulsion's sensibility or is it just a branding stunt ?

My understanding is that C41 yields an effective film speed about 2/3 of a stop faster than ECN2 due to the difference in developing agent

 

[brbo]

My understanding is that C41 yields an effective film speed about 2/3 of a stop faster than ECN2 due to the difference in developing agent

Is that your understanding of what Cinestill has said? Or your tests? Or you can provide some other source of this information?

 

[runswithsizzers]

Overall low contrast, thin-looking negatives — the blacks look washed out, not dense. Underexposure? Wrong development?

When you say "the blacks look washed out" do you mean the black part of the negative (the highlights, when inverted)? -- Or do you mean the black part of the inverted positive (the shadows), such as seen in the photo of the cat?

All straight scans of b&w negatives have low contrast and washed out blacks when inverted without adjustments. The black point of the positive image must be set in editing software -- either as part of the scanning process, or afterwards. Are you getting lab scans or scanning the negatives youself?

 

[thinkbrown]

Is that your understanding of what Cinestill has said? Or your tests? Or you can provide some other source of this information?

Primarily based on my own experience going the opposite direction and processing c41 stuff in ecn2.

 

[brbo]

Primarily based on my own experience going the opposite direction and processing c41 stuff in ecn2.

Interesting!

I, on the other hand, have found very little to no speed loss* in processing C-41 film in ECN-2**. Can you share your results?

Top Portra 400 in C-41, middle Portra 200 in ECN-2:




* This is nowhere near anything that would be useful to determine effective film speed, but Portra 400 processed in ECN-2 actually launches up from the toe maybe 1/3 stop later than in C-41.

** And also no or very little speed bump processing ECN-2 in C-41, but again, I lack the equipment and motivation to dispel the Cinestill fairytales. I just take note that whatever they say is probably much the same as what they otherwise have to say, and that is mostly BS.

 

[IpseLux]

Well, by looking at your negatives, your flash exposure, either calculated by guide number or by auto setting on the flash head got you the best exposures of the roll. So the film, and the processing might be ok. Or at least better than all else going on here. A slower shutter speed could gain you one stop more light on these, on the background, if your flash speed allowed it for handholding.
Everything else, especially early on is underexposed.
I imagine the flash sync disregards any exposure input from the camera…. Maybe your in camera meter is off. Maybe the film was pushed properly, but if there is no detail in the shadows, (no images there) there’s nothing extra developing can do.
On the positive side, the opposite is true. If you have something there, maybe digital processing can get you workable prints. Choose your middle gray on the most important parts of your negatives with detail, and consider the blown highlights what they are.
As others have stated, there is a light leak at the beginning. I believe I’ve read somewhere recently that Cine 800 film often can do that if loaded into the camera in bright light. Not saying that is what happened, but just an observation.
Sorry your roll turned out this way.
But any images with some density are salvageable.

 

[Lucas Gesser]

When you say "the blacks look washed out" do you mean the black part of the negative (the highlights, when inverted)? -- Or do you mean the black part of the inverted positive (the shadows), such as seen in the photo of the cat?

All straight scans of b&w negatives have low contrast and washed out blacks when inverted without adjustments. The black point of the positive image must be set in editing software -- either as part of the scanning process, or afterwards. Are you getting lab scans or scanning the negatives youself?


View attachment 426348

View attachment 426349

Thank you all so much for the warm welcome and the helpful responses. I'm really glad I found Photrio. It's been many years since I've been involved in analog photography, and having this as a resource is super cool.

And yes, when I said "the blacks in this roll look washed out," I was referring to the blacks as they appear in the scans I received back from the lab. I was hoping for denser blacks straight out of the scan, especially given that the film was pushed in development.

After reading everyone's replies, I'm now fairly confident the thin negatives came down to a combination of factors:

First, it was the issue with thjs Cinestill quirk of loading 250ASA film in 800 ASA DX-coded cartridges, so any DX-reading camera would have metered and exposed it as 800 ISO.

Second: I made some poor exposure choices. I shot several scenes without flash even when my camera's light meter was telling me to use one, and I leaned heavily on the emulsion's toe dynamic range to handle strongly backlit, high-contrast scenes. That was overconfident of me.

All in all, a genuinely good learning experience.

 

[mshchem]

Welcome to Photrio!!!

 

[mshchem]

I am not sure the problem is with my camera metering, as I had never had similar issues before.

I am more inclined to think its either the problem with Cinestill loading 250 ASA film on 400-800 ASA DX coded cassetes or some lab issue (or a mix of both).

Here is Cinestills email to me and, for comparison, a roll of Kentmere 400 shot with the same camera and developed at the same lab:

" Previous batches of BwXX have DX codes that read ISO 800 with an overexposure latitude of 2–3 stops. In most cases this will make a point and shoot expose around 400 ISO with the ability to expose properly at 800 as well. Future batches will read ISO 250. Thank you."


View attachment 426323

I agree with your assessment. The Cinestill is in the wrong cassette. Which is totally unexceptable. I've been shooting Kentmere 200, developing in XTOL stock, Jobo, room temperature (20°C) 8 minutes I get nice "vigorous, brilliant " negatives. Probably should reduce the time a bit but I am getting nice results.

 

[MattKing]

Does removing the Rem-Jet before exposure actually affect the the emulsion's sensibility or is it just a branding stunt ?

If you remove anti-halation components like Rem-Jet, in some circumstances the film ends up being essentially exposed twice by the light incident on it - first from the front, and then from the light bouncing off the back as the halation occurs.
It is sort of like increasing the sensitivity by pre-flashing the film - which is a technique which ads in some ways, and detracts in others.
Of course, when you make such a radical change in a film stock, you generally need to adjust metering in order to respond to that change. Changing the EI setting on a meter to reduce the light from the front by 2/3 of a stop in order to compensate is one such approach.

 

[mshchem]

Throw away the Cinestill Double X doesn't have remjet, not sure if Cinestill does anything to alter the regular Kodak Double X cine camera film other than in desperation or error use the wrong DX coding on the finished cassette.
Use a handheld meter, or sunny 16. ISO 200.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I was hoping for denser blacks straight out of the scan,

Another way to look at it:
If the lab moves the black point too far to the right on the histogram, then some shadow detail will get clipped off. It is probably better if they leave a little room, and let the photographer decide where to draw the line between deep blacks and faint shadow details. Same with the highlight details. Personally, I would much rather work with a scan that is a little flat and not too contrasty so I can dial in the final adjustments myself.

 

[MattKing]

Throw away the Cinestill Double X doesn't have remjet, not sure if Cinestill does anything to alter the regular Kodak Double X cine camera film other than in desperation or error use the wrong DX coding on the finished cassette.

FWIW, the reference to Rem-Jet was in relation to a different product offered by Cinestill.
And while I expect that any issues with faulty felt light trap cassettes came from the supplier, user mishandling can also be a factor.

 

[mshchem]

FWIW, the reference to Rem-Jet was in relation to a different product offered by Cinestill.
And while I expect that any issues with faulty felt light trap cassettes came from the supplier, user mishandling can also be a factor.

Do you think that Cinestill will have Kodak coat the a special version of new Vision 3 AHU without the AHU feature? I've thought that part of the marketing for Cinestill color negative films was the "glow" from eliminating the Remjet. I have no idea if it's more work to change the new undercoat than eliminating Remjet??

There's probably 100 zillion sq meters of the no Remjet old version stuck away in a freezer.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I see the underlying issue as reliance on DX coding...the AI of photography of the 1990's.
Just sayin'.

 

[mshchem]

I see the underlying issue as reliance on DX coding...the AI of photography of the 1990's.
Just sayin'.

Sure, I hear you. However I use the DX code with chrome films, really everything when I'm shooting my F5. I tend to use a handheld meter for medium format film. The weird coding seems unacceptable to me. (I'd ask for a refund)

 

[Saganich]

I'm leaning towards cassette light leak on this one. XX is good at 200-250 tops in D76 or D23 family but works well at 400 in Diafine type developers.