Cinestill 800T Issues

[chromacomaphoto]

Finally found a dealer for this stuff in the country where I live, looking forward to seeing how it turns out. I've learnt a lot from this thread already.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I wouldn't bother with Cinestill, especially if you're going to develop it at home.
I got a few rolls of cine short ends from the classifieds here, so far only shot the Vision2 250D.
Shot at EI200 , developed in Digibase C41 by the book, then a bit of wiping with PecPads (while it was drying) to remove the last of the remjet.
Colours were a bit washed out (it was also fairly expired), but exposure was perfect.

The only advantage of Cinestill is that you can take it to a regular lab and tell them it's C41, and they'll be none-the-wiser. If you give them regular stuff they may complain that floaty bits of the remjet has borked their chemicals (whether it does or not is debatable, but they may want to ditch everything and clean their tanks and charge you for wasted chems).
If you're doing it at home, just roll your own.

As to the original problem, ECN film at box EI in C41 chems to C41-times may be fairly good. But there's a good chance that pushing ECN-in-C41 doesn't have the same times as pushing C41-in-C41. Shoot box speed and try again.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Many years there was a company in Seattle, WA that sold cine film respooled in cassettes. However processing was included in the film price using the correct ECN chemistry. You were returned the negatives and color slides. It's a pity the Cinestill doesn't use the same business model.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Many years there was a company in Seattle, WA that sold cine film respooled in cassettes. However processing was included in the film price using the correct ECN chemistry. You were returned the negatives and color slides. It's a pity the Cinestill doesn't use the same business model.

So they actually reversed it onto print film for you too? That's very cool, but is there any print film still left?
Given that Cinestill's business model seems to be built around 'lomo kiddies don't mind / actively want colour crossover and light bleeds', I don't think that this would work well for them, actually making real quality prints.
The biggest problem would be scale, almost every ECN developer (of the few that are left) would only be set up to take 400/1000' rolls of the stuff, doing 35mm cassettes just isn't possible with their machinery
But someone else with an ATL or something who can get their hands on some chems might think to offer it...

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is plenty of the print film that is matched to Vision film. There is also an internegative film and an interpositive film for doing special effects. Up to 13 generations are used for some SFX movies, probably more.

PE

 

[AgX]

So they actually reversed it onto print film for you too? That's very cool, but is there any print film still left?

That was a practise on some markets. They found a niche by selling cine camera-films to consumers and thus binding them to their lab and returning prints, and even slides by using cine print-film.

Just these dasys I came across a small ad on this even in a west-german photo magazine in the mid-80s.


But one should not forget that even then there was no supply of colour paper complementary for cine camera-film.


Agfa and Kodak manufacture colour cine print-film.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Here's a write up on the company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_FilmWorks

 

[Gerald C Koch]

That was a practise on some markets. They found a niche by selling cine camera-films to consumers and thus binding them to their lab and returning prints, and even slides by using cine print-film.

Just these dasys I came across a small ad on this even in a west-german photo magazine in the mid-80s.


But one should not forget that even then there was no supply of colour paper complementary for cine camera-film.


Agfa and Kodak manufacture colour cine print-film.

The color papers of the day were a little off for ECN negatives but only by 10CC. You had a choice shadows could have a 10M cast or highlights a 10Y cast. Really not very noticeable.

 

[AgX]

I did not think of the colour, but the gradation.

 

[MattKing]

If you had any transparencies made by Seattle Film Works, they were made on the same projection print stock as was used for the distribution of motion pictures to your local theatre.

Which means that, most likely, those transparencies have deteriorated greatly since then.

Long term keeping was not a design goal when it came to projection print stock.

Local labs used to hate Seattle Film Works, because the film cassettes were fairly similar to regular, C41 (and C22?) cassettes, but the remjet would cause a great mess if one got into their machines.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The color papers of the day were a little off for ECN negatives but only by 10CC. You had a choice shadows could have a 10M cast or highlights a 10Y cast. Really not very noticeable.

There was still a contrast mismatch.

And the positive prints did deteriorate a LOT. Of course, they were only intended for temporary theater projection, not long term room keeping in the dark.

PE

 

[Athiril]

Use Portra 800. The data sheet also gives expected curves for +1 and +2 push.

 

[Rudeofus]

For all those recommending alternatives to Cinestill 800T: unless one has the means to spool Vision 500T stock, there is really no alternative. Not even close. In tungsten light you need to expose Superia 800 and Porta 800 at EI 200 to get reasonable density in the blue channel, an this already assumes that these are true ISO 800 emulsions. At least with Superia 800 it has been stated that it is ISO 640, no idea where Portra 800 stands.

Of all the strengths we like to attribute to analog film, high ISO in tungsten light is not one of them. Vision 500T and its derivatives at least allow me to get borderline acceptable hand held exposures in bright room light with an F/2.8 IS lens.

 

[Dr Croubie]

For all those recommending alternatives to Cinestill 800T: unless one has the means to spool Vision 500T stock, there is really no alternative.

Yep, certainly what I was recommending. I got my rolls from the classifieds ayear ago (there was a url link here which no longer exists). Must actually get around to trying the 500T one day.
The 250D was 100' so went straight in the bulk loader, I'll have to roll the first few 500T in the darkroom.

There are also people selling non-cinestill (ie with remjet) 500T on fleabay: eg here, here, 5 rolls here, or FPP are re-spooling onto standard 100' lengths here (for a decent profit over what you can pay for a short-end roll, but that's what you pay for the convenience of being able to put it straight in a bulk-loader).

And most interestingly, in one of those fleabay ads was a link to these guys who don't mind putting remjet in their C41 chems for you.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rem jet will eventually cause black specks on slides and white specks on color prints or scans from color negatives. I would hate to be a customer after some film which used rem-jet came before me in the queue for processing. They must have some means of removing it from the film and from the process.

PE

 

[Gerald C Koch]

When you involve a third party like Cinestill you must also ask just how good is their quality control.

Then too Cinestill film is not a bargain which would be its only selling point. Amazon sells a single 36 exposure roll for $9.99 plus shipping. Not my idea of a bargain particularly with all the film's color faults. Amazon sells various Kodak 36 exposure rolls of color negative film for a buck or two more.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Rem jet will eventually cause black specks on slides and white specks on color prints or scans from color negatives.

Case in point:

(thankfully this is me just not cleaning properly, I'd be a bit pissed if my regular negs came back from a lab looking like this).

The colours are actually all wrong because of the white specks, they confuse the scanner's auto-white-balance thingy. (I've shrunk it so not sure if they'll all come out).
And seeing as it was only a test shot, I couldn't be bothered going back over it to clean it properly and scan again.

Still, when I bother doing things properly (well, as properly as one can do when cross-processing) and cleaning the remjet off fully before scanning, results aren't bad:

These are both my aforementioned Vision2 250D, dated '05 on the short-end-can, through Digibase C41.

They must have some means of removing it from the film and from the process.

Or they've got the means to have two completely separate batches of chems, maybe two machines, and never the twain shall meet?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

The colours are actually all wrong because of the white specks, they confuse the scanner's auto-white-balance thingy.

I'd be very surprised if this was the reason.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Notice the pink color in the clouds. This may be evidence of crossover or bad color rendition.

PE

 

[Dr Croubie]

I'd be very surprised if this was the reason.

Well, without getting too much into a scanning dicussion, it is.
On my setup, especially with orange-masked negatives, the colour balance is highly dependant on the image within the scanning frame, because the absolute min/max of each colour is used to determine the length of the scale and gain/gamma applied.

Get a piece of dust (or remjet) in that box, and the light from the scanner is completely blocked. IE, there's a bit of pure white (once negated) to confuse the scale.
But pure white on the image isn't pure white, it's whatever the DMax of the emulsion comes out to be, so the scale gets confused (and DMax of an image is nowhere near the DMax of remjet).

Likewise when scanning sprocket holes, that's even worse. Pure black (ie, where all the light goes through the sprocket holes) is blacker than the blackest you can get scanning through even the clearest filmbase.
When 'black' is what you're meant to see when you scan through the orange mask but the scanner picks 'black' as the sprocket hole, everything from then on is wrong.

Even on a decent-exposed negative, where the image lies somewhere above 'bare orange-mask' and DMax is less than a solid piece of paper (ie, most negative films), then even getting the mask in the scanning frame borks the colour balance (it also borks contrast on B+W negs if all of the image has more silver than the bare base).
I used to even scan the 'whole frame' including a thin strip of the base around each edge as a margin, and I hated colour neg film for years because the colours were crap. I only shot B+W and E6 for years.
Only when I figured this out and scanned the image itself inside the frame lines did colours start looking good and I realised that I liked Ektar (I seriously hated it with a passion before I learnt how to scan it properly).

It's enough to drive me to print RA4...


(one of these days I'm going to write something like this into a proper tutorial for DPUG, 9 times out of 10 when someone complains about crap colours or low contrast, it's because they're scanning the mask in the image frame.)

 

[film_man]

Ok so I'm pretty sure the OP left as it seems pretty much lots of people who never used Cinestill or even know what exactly it is are more than happy to comment but in hope that the OP is still around here is my take.

I have shot quite a bit of it. I have shot it under tungsten, I have shot it under daylight and I have shot it under daylight with an orange filter. I have had the film developed in a lab and scanned as well. The results are very good and have a particular look to it. From what my lab tells me the exposures were good and I generally expose it 1 stop over, ie I expose it as 400. I have also pushed it a stop to 1600 and exposed as 1250 and the result was good too. However the result is never as grain free or clean as you would get from something like Ektar or Portra.

Overall, if you are not shooting under tungsten you get a cold colour balance (as expected). If you try to colour correct you get a grainy look with so so colour balance. If you shoot it under tungsten and give it a 1/3-2/3 stop of light extra (relative to the speed you are developing for) then it is good, but make sure you know what you are metering. What I mean is that if you are shooting under tungsten you are more likely to get point light sources in the frame, in the background, just off frame and whatever that will affect your metering without you even noticing, as such getting you underexposure. You are also likely to get deep shadows and bad lighting overall which will again generally result in underexposure of what you wanted to be your mid. So just beware of what it is your are metering.

Also bear in mind that it is grainy film compared to something like Portra 400 and the colour balance is still a bit weird under tungsten though not as much as it would be with something like Portra because in the end tungsten light is yellow/orange and there is only that much info you can extract from yellow reflections.

Overall it is a tricky to film to shoot, it is sensitive to point light sources and high contrast producing haloing and colour/light bleeds and it is expensive. But when you get it right it is a unique look. As such most people have a negative view of it. I personally like it but it is not a generic film and I would not normally shoot it, though I always have a few rolls in the freezer just in case. 50D is also a tricky film to shoot but when it works the look is superb, I really do like it.

 

[KidA]

Case in point:

(thankfully this is me just not cleaning properly, I'd be a bit pissed if my regular negs came back from a lab looking like this).

The colours are actually all wrong because of the white specks, they confuse the scanner's auto-white-balance thingy. (I've shrunk it so not sure if they'll all come out).
And seeing as it was only a test shot, I couldn't be bothered going back over it to clean it properly and scan again.

Still, when I bother doing things properly (well, as properly as one can do when cross-processing) and cleaning the remjet off fully before scanning, results aren't bad:

These are both my aforementioned Vision2 250D, dated '05 on the short-end-can, through Digibase C41.



Or they've got the means to have two completely separate batches of chems, maybe two machines, and never the twain shall meet?

Mine look FAR worse than these. If i had results like yours, I would not start a post as I did. I will post some images this weekend.

 

[Rudeofus]

Well, without getting too much into a scanning dicussion, it is.

+1 to that. I have some normal looking negs shot indoors with a birthday candle in the frame, and my scanning setup is all but unable to create anything useful from them.

Also bear in mind that it is grainy film compared to something like Portra 400 and the colour balance is still a bit weird under tungsten though not as much as it would be with something like Portra because in the end tungsten light is yellow/orange and there is only that much info you can extract from yellow reflections.

I have shot this film in all kinds of light conditions from open space early evening (which is about as blue as it ever gets) all the way to tungsten lighting, and see no excessive grain. I got a grain free 18x24cm RA-4 enlargement from a 35mm negative (developed in ECN-2).

There is no conceivable reason why an ISO 500 film should be so much more grainy than an ISO 400 film. Either cross processing in C-41 chemistry creates extra granularity, or scanners don't do this film justice.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I agree with Dr. Croubie, that scanning pure whites or blacks, or frames can confuse a scanner. It does the same to mine on any scan.

I also agree that this film is very much less grainy than most C41 films. Remember that this film is used to project theater sized images with very low grain. It is the cross processing that is the main culprit here.

PE

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Overall it is a tricky to film to shoot, it is sensitive to point light sources and high contrast producing haloing and colour/light bleeds and it is expensive.

Yes, when you remove the rem-jet layer you lose antihalation protection making the film sensitive to haloing.

When unmodified ECN films are processed in ECN chemistry the results are very nice. I haven't used some in a while since I ran out of the CD-3 developing agent. Have several hundred feet in my freezer.