Any ideas why this roll looks hideous?

josiah.m.e · Mar 15, 2017

Hey guys, just shot a roll of cinefilm800 with a canon A1 which came back looking particularly rough. As you can see it's pretty grainy & dirty without a whole lot of definition, and the black point is way off. I did shoot 2 stops under to avoid the bright lights blowing out, would that explain a bit of it?

Would light leak have something to do with the lightness on the edges and maybe how washed out it looks? Are those dark blotchy patches on the edges a result of bad drying after development?

Attached is a quick reference snap of the scene through the viewfinder of my hasselblad (still haven't developed that roll). Also the film I used was tungsten balanced (hence the colour shift).

Where did this go wrong?

josiah.m.e · Mar 15, 2017

Sorry stock was Cinestill 800T!

Les Sarile · Mar 15, 2017

You cannot avoid blowing out lights especially when all else is dark. Since the scenes are 2 under, the autoexposure of the scan did poorly which greatly exaggerated grain.

adelorenzo · Mar 15, 2017

Underexposed for sure. Common wisdom with negative films is expose for the shadows, they have plenty of latitude for highlights.

With a portrait all that matters are the skin tones. I would have a) spot metered on the model's face and opened up one stop or b) used an incident meter held under the chin.

Marcelo Paniagua · Mar 15, 2017

Agree. Underexposed. That or expired film?

Regards.

Marcelo

Gerald C Koch · Mar 15, 2017

It's Cinestill, what would you expect! When you repurpose a film for other than its intended purpose you are not going to get good results. What you are getting with this film is a tungsten balanced film sold for use in daylight. Then to further confound things it is an ECN film cross processed in C-41 chemistry. And then as a final flip of the finger it is not sold at a bargain price. I have developed quite a bit of cine color film but used the correct film (D or T) and processed it correctly in ECN chemistry. Color balance was what it should be.

If the film appears dirty then it might be that Cinestill botched the remjet removal.

markbarendt · Mar 15, 2017

That look is typical of what I have seen when there has been an underexposure that is being tried to fix digitally.

josiah.m.e · Mar 15, 2017

adelorenzo said:
Underexposed for sure. Common wisdom with negative films is expose for the shadows, they have plenty of latitude for highlights.

With a portrait all that matters are the skin tones. I would have a) spot metered on the model's face and opened up one stop or b) used an incident meter held under the chin.

Yeah I figured that might be the case. Shooting under was a deliberate stylistic choice but my experience is digital, film behaves very differently. Probably better to shoot for maximum latitude and adjust in post.

Thanks for all of the feedback guys!

josiah.m.e · Mar 15, 2017

Les Sarile said:
You cannot avoid blowing out lights especially when all else is dark. Since the scenes are 2 under, the autoexposure of the scan did poorly which greatly exaggerated grain.

Would that explain the black point as well? Would a rescan compensate for some of the grain and the washed out blacks?

josiah.m.e · Mar 15, 2017

Marcelo Paniagua said:
Agree. Underexposed. That or expired film?

Regards.

Marcelo

It's definitely not expired but as Gerald pointed out the stock has been through a few reincarnations, it's a bit of a frankenfilm by the time you buy it. Even still I didn't expect it to be this grainy judging by comparisons online.

Underexposure seems to be the main culprit, any ideas about the lightness around the edges of the frame?

twelvetone12 · Mar 15, 2017

Did you develop it yourself or a lab did it? Could you post a photo of the negatives?
This film is actually 500 iso (it is Vision3 500T), so underexposing it two stops from 800 iso pushes it to its limits.

removed account4 · Mar 15, 2017

josiah.m.e said:
Yeah I figured that might be the case. Shooting under was a deliberate stylistic choice but my experience is digital, film behaves very differently. Probably better to shoot for maximum latitude and adjust in post.

Thanks for all of the feedback guys!

next time you use it, bracket your exposures
so do a meter reading and since you already know
what it looks like UNDER exposed ... so OVER expose it 1, 2, 3, 4 even 5 stops and
see what your film comes out like.

negative film is diffrent than chrome ( slide ) film and slide film works like digital.
i wouldn't worry about the scanner and its black points
i'd work on getting enough information on your negative so you can get effortless results !

good luck
john

josiah.m.e · Mar 15, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
It's Cinestill! When you repurpose a film for other than its intended purpose you are not going to get good results. What you are getting with this film is a tungsten balanced film sold for use in daylight. Then to further confound things it is an ECN film cross processed in C-41 chemistry. And then as a final flip of the finger it is not sold at a bargain price. I have developed quite a bit of cine color film but used the correct film (D or T) and processed it correctly in ECN chemistry. Color balance was what it should be.

If the film appears dirty then it might be that Cinestill botched the remjet removal.

twelvetone12 said:
Did you develop it yourself or a lab did it? Could you post a photo of the negatives?
This film is actually 500 iso (it is Vision3 500T), so underexposing it two stops from 800 iso pushes it to its limits.

It was a lab development, I'll try and post some photos of the negatives when I get a chance.

Yeah from what I've read here and elsewhere 2 under was a huge overcompensation, especially with that film. It's marketed as being designed for low light, pulling it in the other direction does seem pretty dangerous in retrospect. It's pretty difficult to find tungsten balanced 35mm though, hence why I grabbed it.

I am happy with the pallette though, attached is a very quick digital retouch that's a little more in line with what I was expecting (despite the noise & dirtiness) for anyone who's curious

josiah.m.e · Mar 15, 2017

jnanian said:
next time you use it, bracket your exposures
so do a meter reading and since you already know
what it looks like UNDER exposed ... so OVER expose it 1, 2, 3, 4 even 5 stops and
see what your film comes out like.

negative film is diffrent than chrome ( slide ) film and slide film works like digital.
i wouldn't worry about the scanner and its black points
i'd work on getting enough information on your negative so you can get effortless results !

good luck
john

Will do! We're probably going to reshoot, I'll definitely see how it behaves in the other direction. It's probably worth tracking down some lower iso tungsten film with less past lives as well, if that exists somewhere on planet earth

Alan W · Mar 15, 2017

You could try a non tungsten corrected film and use an 80b filter.

Alan W · Mar 15, 2017

Or 80a,colour filters are cheap these days.

Pentode · Mar 15, 2017

I know it wasn't your intended result, and I can definitely relate to the disappointment of a roll not turning out as planned but, just for the record, I happen to think the second frame (8252) looks pretty great. Intentional or not, it's a really cool look!

josiah.m.e · Mar 15, 2017

Alan W said:
You could try a non tungsten corrected film and use an 80b filter.

Yeah that seems like a good option. I usually prefer to try and avoid colour filters when possible but in this instance it makes a lot of sense

josiah.m.e · Mar 15, 2017

Pentode said:
I know it wasn't your intended result, and I can definitely relate to the disappointment of a roll not turning out as planned but, just for the record, I happen to think the second frame (8252) looks pretty great. Intentional or not, it's a really cool look!

Thanks! That is probably my favourite from the roll as well. I am pretty happy with the creative, the artist I'm shooting for is in love with the images as well, I'm A little disappointed that it's lacking on the technical side.

This thread has been really helpful with troubleshooting though, there's a lot of good knowledge being thrown around. I appreciate the support as well!

Les Sarile · Mar 16, 2017

josiah.m.e said:
Would that explain the black point as well? Would a rescan compensate for some of the grain and the washed out blacks?

I believe if they can turn off autoexposure that would address those issues. It may still be darker then you imagined. I am guessing that you are going for low key of the model so you need to make sure she - or that part of her that is the point of focus, has to be properly exposed and let the blown out light fall wherever it goes. Of course only you can be the judge of that.

btaylor · Mar 16, 2017

I don't know why you would try to avoid colour filters? Color correction filters were very commonly used in the old film days to correctly balance color, especially tungsten/daylight issues. They are very accurate. Your other option is to gel the lights with the appropriate correction gels. I too morn the loss of tungsten balanced films as I usually work with hot lights. Rather than deal with all the cinestill issues, why not get some nice Portra 400, gel your lights, expose normally and process your negs appropriately in C41? Your results should be spot on.

markbarendt · Mar 16, 2017

josiah.m.e said:
Yeah I figured that might be the case. Shooting under was a deliberate stylistic choice but my experience is digital, film behaves very differently. Probably better to shoot for maximum latitude and adjust in post.

Thanks for all of the feedback guys!

With digital you're shooting direct to positive, in negative found under exposure is a cardinal sin.

Negatives work differently you can shoot at a normal exposure level and then you adjust for effect when printing the positive.

josiah.m.e · Mar 16, 2017

btaylor said:
I don't know why you would try to avoid colour filters? Color correction filters were very commonly used in the old film days to correctly balance color, especially tungsten/daylight issues. They are very accurate. Your other option is to gel the lights with the appropriate correction gels. I too morn the loss of tungsten balanced films as I usually work with hot lights. Rather than deal with all the cinestill issues, why not get some nice Portra 400, gel your lights, expose normally and process your negs appropriately in C41? Your results should be spot on.

Yeah for something as colour dependent as this idea that makes sense. With most of my work (mostly digital) I try and achieve as much as possible through the lens, the less glass and general inhibitors between the lens itself and the subject has always been a bit of a priority for crystal clear sharps and colour retention so far. This shoot's been a bit of a learning curve

josiah.m.e · Mar 16, 2017

markbarendt said:
With digital you're shooting direct to positive, in negative found under exposure is a cardinal sin.

Negatives work differently you can shoot at a normal exposure level and then you adjust for effect when printing the positive.

Yeah from what I've been reading that was a bit of an oversight on my part. Shooting under with digital usually offers inky blacks and rich muted colours, film it seems like it's just less definition and information

MattKing · Mar 16, 2017

josiah.m.e said:
Yeah from what I've been reading that was a bit of an oversight on my part. Shooting under with digital usually offers inky blacks and rich muted colours, film it seems like it's just less definition and information

If you are using negative film, it is relatively easy to achieve "inky blacks and rich muted colours" by making adjustments at the printing stage.
It is the two stage nature of the process that gives you great control.

Any ideas why this roll looks hideous?

josiah.m.e

Attachments

josiah.m.e

Les Sarile

adelorenzo

Marcelo Paniagua

Gerald C Koch

markbarendt

josiah.m.e

josiah.m.e

josiah.m.e

twelvetone12

removed account4

josiah.m.e

Attachments

josiah.m.e

Alan W

Alan W

Pentode

josiah.m.e

josiah.m.e

Les Sarile

btaylor

markbarendt

josiah.m.e

josiah.m.e

MattKing

Moderator

Any ideas why this roll looks hideous?

Attachments

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency