Cinestill 800T - Film Review, images please.

[IpseLux]

The old adage, that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks is not true. I’m about to order some Cinestill 800T - Film and was wondering if those who’ve used it, would like to share some images, along with their experiences.
There’s quite a bit of script on the internet about it, so I’m really interested in images taken by you.
My intent, night city shots, cars at night, daylight shots without a correction filter….
Thanks in advance.

 

[koraks]

I shot one roll of it, in 120 (received as a gift), under tungsten illumination. I never repeated the experience; there just wasn't anything there that I was looking for. It's a tungsten-balanced film and has no antihalation. Neither of those aspects appeal to me. The film as such worked OK within its specifications/limitations. I processed it ECN2 and printed optically onto Fuji color RA4 paper. There was heavy crossover with very cool/blue shadows. Part of this was lighting, part was consistent with what I got back then when I enlarged Kodak Vision3 (which this film really is) onto RA4. For some reason, I no longer get that heavy crossover today, but I also only use the daylight balanced Vision3 films currently.

If you rely on lab scans, you may get wonky colors since this is not a C41 film. This may be even more pronounced if you have it cross-processed in C41.

If you use this film for your intended purpose, i.e. featuring bright highlights in otherwise dark scenes, you will notice the strong red halation artifacts this film is known for - unless Cinestill has by now replaced their original offering of a remjet-free Vision3 stock to the newer 'AHU' Vision3 film. I don't think that's the case (yet), though.

 

[originalwinslow]

In my opinion, vision 3 500T is the most flexible color film stock available. It can serve you well in low-light scenarios where additional iso is helpful, and can also look great on a sunny day without a filter. This is with the caveat that its flexibility mostly depends on proficiency in digital post-processing and correctly adjusting white balance to arrive at your final image. Some labs may put in the time to do this, others won't. There is a large contingent of people out there saying they "don't like the colors" of 500T to which I say they simply did not process it correctly. I am also in the camp that insists running it through the native ECN-2 developer gives a better result. It was not designed as a "daylight" film and the tendency to shift towards blue can give you washed out and/or color-shifted results under cooler lighting conditions. Of course, this could be desireable. This can be particuarly helpful while shooting at golden hour and wanting to keep the orange/yellow tones in check, as this is the color temperature it was designed for.

Cinestill 800T is the same film, but with some downsides. The lack of anti-halation is a no-go for some, others love the effect. There are also significant light leaks in many of the rolls I have seen, specifically in the first few frames. Whatever equipment they are using to remove the remjet or respool the original film is not completely light-tight. It also has a higher likelihood of sitting on un-refrigerated shelves and degrading. Cine film is designed to be cold stored, shot and developed as soon as possible.

If you are interested in trying this film without the halation effect I would suggest going for the original 500T (or perhaps the new AHU variant) and developing ECN-2. I realize this is less accessible, though. You can also develop the cinestill version in ECN-2.

I have shot over 100 rolls of the stuff over the past few years in just about every lighting scenario imaginable. It took some getting used to, but it is still my go-to film for most scenarios. If you want to shoot low-light scenes or don't mind a slight cooling effect it's a no-brainer.

 

[MattKing]

@originalwinslow ,
FWIW, for the last few years Cinestill has been buying large roll batches of special run Vision films from Eastman Kodak that are manufactured without remjet.
So they haven't had to remove remjet for some time.

 

[originalwinslow]

@originalwinslow ,
FWIW, for the last few years Cinestill has been buying large roll batches of special run Vision films from Eastman Kodak that are manufactured without remjet.
So they haven't had to remove remjet for some time.

I've heard this. The light leaks must be from the re-spooling process. They are quite consistent.

I wonder if the new cine film reseller Candido has a similar agreement since they are running the same CS playbook in terms of bulk respooling.

Cinestill has been fighting for years to maintain exclusivity with Kodak while at the same time trying to convince the market that their products are somehow proprietary. The 800T lawsuit and insistence that their 400D was a "new" stock come to mind. I frankly find their business model a bit distasteful. They do nothing but slap their branding other companies' products/formulas at high margins. Albeit quite successfully.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shot a roll in 35mm just to see, tired it at night for city scrapes thinking that as a tungsten balanced film it would be really good. If I had gone back in time 40 years maybe, but now city lights are mixed so it did do all that well. I bought mine with the ramjet backing and had it processed at a lab with ENC 2 chemistry. Perhaps if I had scanned so I could use PS in post I could improved on it. Saying that as noted by MattKing, for some it works really well.

 

[bfilm]

One use I can see for CineStill 800T is that there is a unique and nice quality that you can get in skin tones using tungsten film + 85B filter. This is something many movies have made good use of over the decades, as they would often use the tungsten-balanced film even for the natural light scenes, with the appropriate filter.

One interesting example to note is the movie Out of Africa in 1985. It was recorded on Agfa XT 320 and Eastman 100T film stocks and won the Academy Award for Best Cinematography in 1986. A further reason it is an interesting example is that the overall look was influenced by promotional photographs that Douglas Kirkland was making for the movie...

"Occasionally, a cinematographer has also adopted something Kirkland has done, which happened with David Watkin, BSC on Out of Africa. Kirkland recalled, 'I was shooting Kodachrome at the time because it was just the best for clarity and saturation, but I wanted to give the images something of a sepia look. So even though Kodachrome was daylight balanced, I shot with an 85 filter. When David saw the pictures, he liked the look so much he decided to give the whole film a warmer look. That was very flattering!'"

 

[Lachlan Young]

Portra 800 is not much more expensive than most of the commercially re-rolled 500T, and much less trouble overall, unless you're working at 24/25fps. It's sharper at low frequencies (better for stills) than 500T and handles today's mixed lighting pretty well. It also pushes well (and was designed to, which is part of the cost).

I do wonder if at some point, Kodak are going to do a rebalancing of 500T and end up with 800D instead (by way of explanation, Portra 100T was a rebalancing of 160).

 

[IpseLux]

In my opinion, vision 3 500T is the most flexible color film stock available. It can serve you well in low-light scenarios where additional iso is helpful, and can also look great on a sunny day without a filter. This is with the caveat that its flexibility mostly depends on proficiency in digital post-processing and correctly adjusting white balance to arrive at your final image. Some labs may put in the time to do this, others won't. There is a large contingent of people out there saying they "don't like the colors" of 500T to which I say they simply did not process it correctly. I am also in the camp that insists running it through the native ECN-2 developer gives a better result. It was not designed as a "daylight" film and the tendency to shift towards blue can give you washed out and/or color-shifted results under cooler lighting conditions. Of course, this could be desireable. This can be particuarly helpful while shooting at golden hour and wanting to keep the orange/yellow tones in check, as this is the color temperature it was designed for.

Cinestill 800T is the same film, but with some downsides. The lack of anti-halation is a no-go for some, others love the effect. There are also significant light leaks in many of the rolls I have seen, specifically in the first few frames. Whatever equipment they are using to remove the remjet or respool the original film is not completely light-tight. It also has a higher likelihood of sitting on un-refrigerated shelves and degrading. Cine film is designed to be cold stored, shot and developed as soon as possible.

If you are interested in trying this film without the halation effect I would suggest going for the original 500T (or perhaps the new AHU variant) and developing ECN-2. I realize this is less accessible, though. You can also develop the cinestill version in ECN-2.

I have shot over 100 rolls of the stuff over the past few years in just about every lighting scenario imaginable. It took some getting used to, but it is still my go-to film for most scenarios. If you want to shoot low-light scenes or don't mind a slight cooling effect it's a no-brainer.

Thank you for your thoughtful and complete response O. Nice images make your point quite visible.

 

[IpseLux]

I've heard this. The light leaks must be from the re-spooling process. They are quite consistent.

I wonder if the new cine film reseller Candido has a similar agreement since they are running the same CS playbook in terms of bulk respooling.

Cinestill has been fighting for years to maintain exclusivity with Kodak while at the same time trying to convince the market that their products are somehow proprietary. The 800T lawsuit and insistence that their 400D was a "new" stock come to mind. I frankly find their business model a bit distasteful. They do nothing but slap their branding other companies' products/formulas at high margins. Albeit quite successfully.

Distasteful? And yet many enjoy and use their film products. I certainly will. The more films out there the better, as far as I’m concerned.
Thank you for your response.

 

[originalwinslow]

Distasteful? And yet many enjoy and use their film products. I certainly will. The more films out there the better, as far as I’m concerned.
Thank you for your response.

I agree that making cinema film commercially available for 35mm stills is a net good, as EK does not distribute this product in this manner. However, not so long ago, anybody could buy bulk cinema film and re-spool it to bring their cost-per-roll down significantly. I believe EK's recent restriction regarding selling bulk 35mm cinema film to laypeople was at least partially related to their strategic partnership with CS.

It's been a successful business and created good will in the community, but is ultimately a drag on the market in the long term IMO.

Enjoy your cinema film! It is unique.

 

[koraks]

Distasteful?

What people balk at is if a company sells film and says "Look, we made this, it's unique" while everyone knows that (1) they didn't really make it and (2) it's sold under different names as well. Especially in the recent period until Kodak effectively blocked sales of motion picture film to still photographers, you could get a technically superior product at a significantly lower price directly from Kodak and it's MP distribution channels. That created a decent bit of skepticism.

 

[IpseLux]

What people balk at is if a company sells film and says "Look, we made this, it's unique" while everyone knows that (1) they didn't really make it and (2) it's sold under different names as well. Especially in the recent period until Kodak effectively blocked sales of motion picture film to still photographers, you could get a technically superior product at a significantly lower price directly from Kodak and it's MP distribution channels. That created a decent bit of skepticism.

K, my father taught me a great many lessons, one was to pick my battles. By this I mean I find great offense in unjust war, starvation, poverty, rampant health crisis, environmental degradation, racism, fascism, capital greed and so on…. I imagine most of us do.
Cinetel film, and its apparently great skin color rendition, cool specular highlight renditions, and as you say, dubious marketing is not one.
But I respect that others might. A great tragedy would be to me if this and other films did not exist.
Boycotting them, along with bad publicity may make them disappear. They nearly went extinct once in my lifetime. Hate to see it happen.
Kind regards.

 

[koraks]

A great tragedy would be to me if this and other films did not exist.

Well, you have a good sense for drama.

 

[brbo]

Vision3 films make sense, in a way. Cinestill films don't. For me. But if others like shooting defective film, it's their choice.

Anyway, you came here for photos and so far got zero (0) shots on Cinestill films. How do you like us at Photrio?

 

[originalwinslow]

For me it was a great tragedy when EK made the decision to restrict bulk cinema film sales. I find it antagonistic for the community as a whole that a third party re-seller would support or push for that policy in order to maintain their market share and keep prices for art materials artificially inflated. If CS did not sell re-spooled cinema film, then another company surely would spring up to fill that gap. Others such as "Candido" already have. CS tried to copyright the "800T" name to ostensibly make themselves the only company that could sell a product that they didn't create and don't manufacture.

It seems to me that such a practice is anti-competitive and bad for us film shooters who seek greater availability and lower prices for these products. I would love to see film become less of a niche market and more ubiquitous once more.

Anyway, I didn't mean to go so far off topic. Heres an example of 800T halation in low-light.

 

[MattKing]

Why do people think that it is Cinestill that is restricting sales, and not Kodak Alaris, who actually have a contract providing them with valuable rights of exclusivity - subject to some specific and apparently expanding exceptions?

 

[originalwinslow]

It was my understanding that EK retained rights to distribution for the cinema division while alaris managed still films.

I'm not saying that CS explicitly made that policy decision for the company, but they do have a vested interest in maintaining market share of their best selling product. Considering their close ties with EK I don't find it unreasonable that they were likely part of the conversation. What other company gets specially made film directly from the factory? Exclusive rights to distribute patented EK chemical formulas?

That along with past anti-competitive moves...I think it's a decent assumption to make.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak Alaris had, until recently, an exclusive world wide right to all distribution and marketing of still films branded as Kodak. Those rights were sufficiently broad and deep to give them the right to demand that Eastman Kodak cease and desist selling the cinema films in the form that Kodak made them for repackaging and selling as still films - whether or not those films were originally made to be used as still films, or as motion picture films - e.g. Ektachrome.
Covid disrupted everything.
Negotiations resulted in a bit more leeway, and that leeway allowed Eastman Kodak to sell specially modified (no remjet ever applied) film to Cinestill, in master roll amounts.
Further disruptions have occured since, along with more negotiations. I'm not entirely sure, but it may be that Eastman Kodak is now providing contract finishing (edge printing, cutting and packaging) services to Cinestill as well. Eastman Kodak are available to provide those services on a contract basis for films not manufactured by them as well.

 

[IpseLux]

Well, you have a good sense for drama.

Ha! Ha! Moderator and Commisar of character?
Thanks for the laugh.

 

[brbo]

What other company gets specially made film directly from the factory?

Fuji, Lomography, Optic OldSchool...

Exclusive rights to distribute patented EK chemical formulas?

Which chemicals (with still valid patents)?


Anyway, Kodak has much more to lose with their cine films freely available to still photographers than Cinestill. Cinestill is a silly company (if you need to have FAQ like this), but I'm pretty sure you are giving them more saying on the matter than they really have.

 

[koraks]

Ha! Ha! Moderator and Commisar of character?
Thanks for the laugh.

Just commenting on the hyperbole. In the order of things you mentioned, the lack of this or any other film appears to be a minor ripple.
But I get what you say; I don't get worked up about Cinestill's marketing either. They're just a business trying to make a buck, like everyone has to. You either buy it or you don't.

Cinestill is a silly company

Cinesilly? I wouldn't call them that though. They appeared to have established as a successful business within a short period of time. Some of the information in the FAQ you linked to is evidently rather silly. Then again, many businesses engage in silly behaviors to convince people to give them money. We live in a pretty silly world.

 

[MattKing]

CineStill are the worldwide distributor for Kodak branded still film photo chemicals made by Photo Systems. They also provide the customer support.
Reminds me of pre-bankruptcy Eastman Kodak, pre-bankruptcy Tetenal .....
Most people seem to concentrate most on the manufacturing parts of these companies.
In many cases, that is only a portion of what they do - and probably not where most of their resources are.

 

[IpseLux]

CineStill are the worldwide distributor for Kodak branded still film photo chemicals made by Photo Systems. They also provide the customer support.
Reminds me of pre-bankruptcy Eastman Kodak, pre-bankruptcy Tetenal .....
Most people seem to concentrate most on the manufacturing parts of these companies.
In many cases, that is only a portion of what they do - and probably not where most of their resources are.

Yes.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Slightly back on topic...I wonder if CineStill's "new" 800T will be the new 5219 with the anti-halation undercoat, or if Kodak will continue to make batches of the "original" 800T (ii.e. rem-jetless version of the original 5219).