35mm C41 Film Selling Very Well

[Huss]

Whenever Fuji C200, 400 or Lomo 800 (one of my favourite films) comes in stock I always buy a batch.
C200 and 400 always seems to be a lot cheaper in the 3 pack than singles.

 

[MattKing]

this all pre-dates the distribution issues caused by the pandemic.

I don't attribute the distribution issues to just the pandemic. In Canada, as an example, the distributors who buy from Kodak Alaris and sell either to other distributors or the retailers themselves are a real problem - expensive, high minimum volumes, slow service times being a few parts of the problem.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

@braxus you can dial in any colors you want after scanning. Color negative film, when scanning is your workflow, does not lock you in any kind of "palette". You simply get a slightly different starting point for your edits, that's all.

This is something I realized only recently. I started shooting, developing and scanning my own color film only in 2020. Must admit, I was also initially brainwashed by "internet people" proclaiming that "Ektar delivers cooked skintone" or for landscapes "Fuji green" is hard to beat. All of that is utter nonsense. They're basically talking about Noritsu/Frontier defaults from their labs.

If you are scanning, any color negative film can look exactly how you want it to look like. A well done color negative scan is quite similar to a RAW file from a digital camera. Sure, cameras have slightly different color science, but any competent Lightroom/CaptureOne user can get the look they want out of any RAW file.

Give me scans of Gold 200, Fuji 400H, Portra 400 and Cinestill 800T and I will make them all look exactly the same. Price, grain and speed are the only 3 variables worth paying attention to. Maybe latitude too. But a color palette - nope.

[EDIT] formatting.

I still like my Velvia 50 over Provia 100 and Ektachrome 100. True they're positive chromes, but still.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yep that is why my go-to is Fuji C200. I scan it myself and can make it look like anything I want. Love this film. I'll let others pay $12/roll for the fancy stuff that looks exactly the same.

The one difference I will point out, because you mentioned Cinestill 800T, is that 800T halos around light sources very noticeably. That is unique and something that I cannot recreate with other colour films.

I think that has to do with the fact the film has no antihalation layer. The light reflects off the back layer without it. Why they do that, I don;t know.

 

[Moose22]

I think that has to do with the fact the film has no antihalation layer. The light reflects off the back layer without it. Why they do that, I don;t know.

Cinestill is movie film. They have to remove the outer layer so you can process it with normal c41 chemicals, and the antihalation is lost in the process.

I tried it once after reading about the halos. Hated them. Good on Cinestill for trying something different, though, but I'm not their demographic.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Cinestill is movie film. They have to remove the outer layer so you can process it with normal c41 chemicals, and the antihalation is lost in the process.

I tried it once after reading about the halos. Hated them. Good on Cinestill for trying something different, though, but I'm not their demographic.

Why do they do that?

 

[MattKing]

They have to remove the outer layer so you can process it with normal c41 chemicals, and the antihalation is lost in the process.

Why do they do that?

The anti-halation material used with movie film is rem-jet. It is a black coating on the back of the film that also ads lubrication and anti-static behaviors that are important for film moving at 24 fps through a camera.
If you have remjet on the back of the film and then put it through a C-41 machine, the remjet comes off and gets over EVERYTHING. And your lab will hate you!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The anti-halation material used with movie film is rem-jet. It is a black coating on the back of the film that also ads lubrication and anti-static behaviors that are important for film moving at 24 fps through a camera.
If you have remjet on the back of the film and then put it through a C-41 machine, the remjet comes off and gets over EVERYTHING. And your lab will hate you!

I'm confused again Matt. I thought this film had NO anti-halation but you say rem-jet is antihalation material on the film. So why do you get halos?

 

[MattKing]

I'm confused again Matt. I thought this film had NO anti-halation but you say rem-jet is antihalation material on the film. So why do you get halos?

The actual, out of the box standard Kodak film is in long (400 feet or longer) rolls and has the rem-jet anti-halation on it.
Initially, Cine-Still bought the standard long film from Eastman Kodak and they themselves went through the process of removing the remjet mechanically and then cutting it into short roll lengths and packaging it into individual cassettes.
As I understand it now, Cine-Still is big enough to be able to afford to contract with Eastman Kodak to buy even larger rolls, where Eastman Kodak has done a separate run of product with the rem-jet anti-halation omitted from the manufacturing process.
For best, most accurate photographic results the Cine-Still film actually should be used in its Kodak formulation - with the rem-jet on until after exposure and processed in ECN (not C-41) process, and then either optically printed on to projection stock for projection, or scanned and digitally processed for either digital display, or digitally printed on to projection stock.
The ECN process includes a step to remove the rem-jet before development (or in some cases after). It is done mechanically, with air jets, blades and sponges.
The movie camera film is lower in contrast than most still films, due to the expectation that they will be printed on to projection stock.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How does Hollywood deal with halos then when they use this film?

 

[MattKing]

The problem with remjet is entirely related to the processing. If you could find a motion picture lab (ECN processor) willing to develop short rolls, then the motion picture film could be used as it was intended, with remjet in place when the film is in the camera.
The motion picture lab would then remove the remjet as part of its normal process.
With great trepidation I will observe that Kodachrome also was always inherently a motion picture film - it also used remjet, and removal of that remjet was part of the process.
A very high percentage of the Kodachrome processed was movie film, and the processors were essentially motion picture film processing machines until very near the end - developing a spliced together roll of customer's films (a mile long roll in fact) at a time.

 

[AgX]

The anti-halation material used with movie film is rem-jet. It is a black coating on the back of the film that also ads lubrication and anti-static behaviors that are important for film moving at 24 fps through a camera.

All three effects can be obtained otherwise, even better, and b&w cine-filme have not and never had such carbon layer, but it became industry standard for colour-negative cine camera films. And used at Kodachrome too.

 

[brbo]

One would think that Kodak would have gotten rid of rem-jet if there was a cheaper way to make cine film with such properties, no modification was required in processing such film and no way for still photographers to (easily) use and process such cine film that is (or needs to be for movie industry to stick with film) a LOT cheaper than regular C-41 film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's a comparison of Cinestill 800T vs. Tmax that Nick Carver did on Youtube.


Here's the photoshoot comparison of CInestill vs Portra, a separate video he did beforehand. YOu can really see the halo effect with lighting.

 

[MattKing]

One would think that Kodak would have gotten rid of rem-jet if there was a cheaper way to make cine film with such properties, no modification was required in processing such film and no way for still photographers to (easily) use and process such cine film that is (or needs to be for movie industry to stick with film) a LOT cheaper than regular C-41 film.

Regular C-41 film would be equally cheap if people bought twenty 400 foot rolls of film (without edge numbering or cassettes) all at the same time .

 

[braxus]

I bought a roll of Cinestill 50D just to try it out. But from the videos I've seen on Youtube of Cinestill, the color is really off with these films. It just looks weird to me. I'll eventually shoot that roll, but I dont plan on buying more of it.

 

[braxus]

Just checked B&H. They still have stock of 35mm Color Plus 200 and Pro Image 100 in 5 paks. So not everyone is completely sold out.

 

[koraks]

I bought a roll of Cinestill 50D just to try it out. But from the videos I've seen on Youtube of Cinestill

Be careful of comparing apples & oranges. E.g. in one of the YouTube vids above I see a comparison between 800T and Portra 400 - evidently, the 800T shows a very cool/blue color cast, which makes sense, as it's a tungsten balanced film being compared against a daylight balanced film. However, 50D is daylight balanced, just like all C41 film in current production. So carefully look at the T / D that comes after the number. It denotes Tungsten or Daylight.

To complicate matters a little further: I found the crossover issues with daylight balanced Vision3 film (Cinestill, but without the fiddly fingers of Cinestill actually touching a perfectly fine product and destroying it) to be unacceptable, at least when printing onto RA4 paper - which is the only reason I shoot color negative film anyway. So for me it was a no-go, after having done dozens of trials. YMMV.

 

[braxus]

It was the 50D I was looking at, as that is the film I was interested in. I want to see how it compares against Ektar 100. But again the colors I've seen off 50D just seem a bit off to me. I'll have to shoot the roll I have to see if this is indeed the case, or someone who just doesn't know how to color correct scans properly.

 

[koraks]

the colors I've seen off 50D just seem a bit off to me

It's because they are off, of you compare against C41. Individual channel gamma's are different for ECN2 film stocks, because the characteristics of the duplicating medium are different from the response curve of RA4 paper. Translated into today's world of scanners and digital processing: all (consumer) film scanners expect C41 curves, but ECN2 curves are quite different. This results in color accuracy problems with most scanners and software used. In principle this can all be corrected in digital post processing, but it's quite a chore to set up a reliable color profile for this. Hence the many examples of oddly greenish ECN2 scans, weird magenta/green crossover etc. I haven't seen 'good' ECN2 scans so far (apart from at the movies!), but I have to admit I haven't looked for them in the past 2 years or so anymore.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It's because they are off, of you compare against C41. Individual channel gamma's are different for ECN2 film stocks, because the characteristics of the duplicating medium are different from the response curve of RA4 paper.

It seems much more straightforward to use C-41 film for colour negative originated stills photography.

 

[koraks]

It seems much more straightforward to use C-41 film for colour negative originated stills photography.

It is. Being the experimental type of person, I tried all sorts of things, but if somewhat accurate color reproduction is desirable, simply shooting C41 (or E6) is the easiest solution.
Kodak Vision3 appeals to some due to its low cost if you buy it on longer spools (400ft or so), but it's a hassle to work with. I sold or donated (can't remember which) my remaining stock to someone who wanted to experiment. I had my fill after a couple of months of fidgeting with it and went back to having fun with C41 film and RA4 paper.

 

[Henning Serger]

I was trying to get some Portra 160 and Ektar 100 in 35mm 5 paks. One store has one, but not the other. Another store has neither. Seeing down the list many color 35mm films are out of stock. Is this because of Covid, or more because Millenials are shooting this stuff like crazy now, along with us only diehards? I was forced to choose some rolls in 120 instead, which is still in stock.

As market research in this field is one part of my professional work (I am running an independent market research company, among other activities) I can ensure you that it is mainly the strong increasing demand for 35mm colour negative film (especialy amateur colour negative film) which causes these supply shortages.
But there are also two other contributing factors:
- international shipping problems (due to the pandemic)
- problems to get enough of certain decisive raw materials.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Mostly supply issues it seems.

No, it is mostly the strong increasing demand we are seeing since 2018. In 2016 and 2017 we've seen also already increasing demand for colour film, but with lower growth rates. From 2018 on the growth speed significantly accelerated up to 30-40% growth p.a.

Note that Fuji has been steadily getting out of C41 with a recent blow being the discontinuing of Pro400H.

Fujifilm is not getting out of CN film. The PRO 400H discontinuation was due to lack of raw materials for the 4th layer technology. I would not be surprised at all if Fujifilm would bring back a modified PRO 400H version without 4th layer in 2022 or 2023.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

"35mm film selling very well"... at you YOUR shop.

No, at all shops who are dedicated to classic film photography. No matter to whom you talk in the industry, all are confirming the same: Strong increasing demand.
And I as an independent market researcher have the numbers "on my desk" and can confirm it as well.

Best regards,
Henning