Cinestill 800T Issues

Gerald C Koch said:

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.

Click to expand...

As I was told here at APUG: google "Phototechnik Suvatlar." Mr. Suvatlar ships worldwide and prices are not bad.

KidA: Let me introduce myself. I am Brandon, one of the creators of CineStill Film. I appreciate all the input everyone is providing in this discussion! Perhaps I can contribute something as well.

To the point of your post, could something be wrong with your film on the manufacturing end? That is always a possibility with any film. It is also equally possible something else is causing your woes. If your results are not as expected we encourage users to contact us directly at info@cinestillfilm.com and we would gladly help you figure out the cause of your problem! We do guaranty our product against defect and even if the problem could have been caused in processing or user error, we are more than willing to send you more film so you can have another go at it!

Having shot more Vision 3 film processed in ECN-2 for still photography than anyone I have ever met and since I personally test every batch CineStill Film myself and have shot thousands of rolls since we stared CineStill film, I can say for certain that there is no reason to not expect receiving consistent results from these films in either ECN-2 or C-41 developer. The results are very similar and far superior to most other films if exposed properly in appropriate light and handled correctly after exposure.

So please email us with samples and we can help resolve your issue. info@cinestillfilm.com

I will try address a few of the comments from users here in my next reply.

So Mr Wright, you are sure that the results are optimum in C41 or without the halation backing?

PE

Yes, that is the tradeoff with CineStill for now. You either deal with remjet at home or halation on some images. I am open to the critique though in most cases it's not an issue and some people love halation effect. In either case, the real world benefit of having a high speed tungsten balanced film in your camera is truly unique if you enjoy shooting hand held in low light.

Rudeofus said:

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.

Click to expand...

I do not find it excessively grainy, it just looks a bit grainier than Portra 400. I should have said that this is when looking at scans. I've got some A4 sized prints from it and you can't see any grain.

When scanning my color images, I get a lot more apparent grain from C-41 scans than from E-6 scans. It appears that most affordable scanners (Epson V700, Nikon Coolscan, ...) have real difficulties with the low contrast nature of negative film, and this issue would be exacerbated with the yet less contrasty ECN-2 film stock. Most of this alleged "grain" appears to be scanner noise.

Ok, so these are the scans. 'try2' is EI 800 developed N+/-0 and 'Cinestill1600' is EI1250 pushed N+1. The first, I metered using in camera centre weighted metering. The strong blue cast in the background is due to the outside light coming thru the window. For the night shot, I placed shadows on zone II 1/2 (basically zone III after development since I metered at 1250).

Not the greatest quality scans, I know, but I scanned at highest resolution before compressing to upload. They are quite representative of the issue.

Bwright said:

KidA: Let me introduce myself. I am Brandon, one of the creators of CineStill Film. I appreciate all the input everyone is providing in this discussion! Perhaps I can contribute something as well.

To the point of your post, could something be wrong with your film on the manufacturing end? That is always a possibility with any film. It is also equally possible something else is causing your woes. If your results are not as expected we encourage users to contact us directly at info@cinestillfilm.com and we would gladly help you figure out the cause of your problem! We do guaranty our product against defect and even if the problem could have been caused in processing or user error, we are more than willing to send you more film so you can have another go at it!

Having shot more Vision 3 film processed in ECN-2 for still photography than anyone I have ever met and since I personally test every batch CineStill Film myself and have shot thousands of rolls since we stared CineStill film, I can say for certain that there is no reason to not expect receiving consistent results from these films in either ECN-2 or C-41 developer. The results are very similar and far superior to most other films if exposed properly in appropriate light and handled correctly after exposure.

So please email us with samples and we can help resolve your issue. info@cinestillfilm.com

I will try address a few of the comments from users here in my next reply.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, Bwright!

I have a few shots with the CineStill 800T (all @ISO 640) 35mm film ...

The first one is in daylight with addition of a halogen lamp :

untitled by Andreas, on Flickr

----
The 2nd and 3rd were captured in a garage with neon tubes and less daylight :

Vintage Lotus - 2 by Andreas, on Flickr

Lotus MK IX 1955 - 4 by Andreas, on Flickr

----
for a comparison Kodak Portra 800 (@ISO 640) 120 film - same location / same lightning :

Vintage Jaguar XK 150 - no.1 by macfred64, on Flickr

Forgot to say ...

Many thanks to the Brothers Wright for their effort - I would definitively shoot more CineStil 800T, if there is a 120 version ...
I really like your CineStil 50 daylight !

Bwright said:

Yes, that is the tradeoff with CineStill for now. You either deal with remjet at home or halation on some images. I am open to the critique though in most cases it's not an issue and some people love halation effect. In either case, the real world benefit of having a high speed tungsten balanced film in your camera is truly unique if you enjoy shooting hand held in low light.

Click to expand...

What about crossover, image quality (sharpness and color) and image stability if the C41 process is used?

PE

KidA: Thanks for posting your examples. There looks to be a little blue fogging in the shadows. The shadows should be a little darker. It's hard to say what could have caused this but we will gladly replace your rolls. They also look a little underexposed to me. I can not say why for sure since I was not there but if I had to guess, for the center weighted meter shot it seems that maybe the white bib threw off the exposure by a stop or so. The second image it is hard to tell as well but bravo for using the zone system. Zone II 1/2 should be close to the base density of the film so render with very little detail and added grain. If the shadows on the upper story of the building are zone II 1/2 then this image was scanned a little light since they should render closer to black. still it does look a bit under. Maybe the push processing was off? Or maybe you would get better results exposing at EI 640 or less. CineStill has plenty of highlight latitude. I have exposed between 200-400 with normal processing industry gotten great results! Please email us! info@cinestillfilm.com

On a side note, in my experience it is not always a great idea to meter for shadows when pushing film. Pushing film does not add detail to Zone I or II. It will however increase separation between zones III through VII. Since CineStill is 800 ISO, rating and pushing to EI 1600 pushes Zone I up to Zone II when metering but those zones will still render close to black with almost no detail after pushing. Zone III at EI 1600 will have only a little more detail because of the push and Zone IV-VII (at EI 1600) will see the most improvement. Usually when I push film I find it is better to meter for the midtones or highlights and then print down the shadows to black. The push in processing will place the midtones and highlights where you metered but the shadows will block up. If you just underexposed (rated EI 1600) and did not push, your shadows would remain the same but your midtones and highlights would render darker and muddier.

Hope that makes sense because I feel like I am rambling. Please email us and we will send you another 2 rolls. maybe try rating them at 400 with your in camera meter or 800 with zone system metering? Or if you do push, meter for the midtones, scan a little darker and expect less detail in the blacks. Film almost always produces better results when overexposed a stop compared to underexposed a stop.

I figure I should comment on the CineStill 800T rating question while I have a chance here since I seemed to have so much to say on metering and exposure in my last comment.

The reason CineStill's suggested rating is EI 800 rather than EI 500 is for several reasons but in the end you should assign the film the EI you prefer based on desired results. Kodak's 5219 500T recomended EI is not necessarily the same as the native ISO. This is similar to how Ilford calls Delta 3200 EI 3200 even though it's native ISO is in fact 1000 but the other direction. The film can be shot at 3200 and produce great results... That is what it was designed to do, be pushed. Vision 3 5219 was designed to produce optimal detail and fine grain when presented in large theaters. For motion picture use the grain, color, sharpness etc. are at their best at EI 500 but cinematographers regularly shoot it at 1000 without a push to get more grain and "inkier" blacks. Kodak improved the exposure latitude on their Vision 3 stocks as well, making this possible.

For CineStill 800T, we see the primary benefit of this film as being able to shoot in low light. Though grain is increased, we found in our testing that CineStill produces excellent result at EI 800 in 3200K light. It is basically the minimum exposure necessery to capture a good image in good light. In higher contrast light it may be better to add exposure by rating it at EI 500.

Another reason for the 800 rating is that, our conversion process adds some speed and C-41 does increase the contrast curve similar to how a push would. 5219 500T has amazing highlight and shadow latitude allowing underexposure and overexposure up to 3 stops with very little color shift. CineStill is different in this regard, partly because of the push that comes from c-41 development but also because of halation. Because of there being no anti-halation layer on the film, light passes through the film and reflects ever so slightly back when leaving the acetate. This light then comes back into the rear most red layer of the film and adds exposure so that areas of the film that receive excessive light become slightly more red than less exposed areas of the film and highlights against dark backgrounds glow reddish. Because of this, halation is lessened when exposed closer to EI 800 though we have seen some amazing portraits exposed at EI 400 in even tungsten light and between EI 200-400 in daylight without an 85B filter.

Basically, CineStill 800T is a film that can be exposed at EI 800 in tungsten light and offer great detail but if the grain is too much for you, try rating it at EI 500 or 400 where the grain renders smoother.

Eh... I purchased a roll a couple of years ago and was not impressed. Mainly because of the amount of specks that appeared on my images. I mean I have seen results from others and there were specks on theirs, too.

jsmithphoto1: I respect your opinion. It's not for everyone. We did have some QC issues on some of our earlier batches with specks appearing on frames but have since improved our process and QC. Any film that had defect we gladly replaced for those who contacted us. Offer still stands if you would like to send us examples of your problem try again. info@cinestillfilm.com

I had the issue with the specs quite some time ago but haven't had it ever since. Also, just beware that you need to tape the film window in the back, the film is very sensitive to light leaks and these showed up as tiny specs on mine (I guess it was tiny light leaks through the light seal foam or something).

Bwright said:

KidA: Thanks for posting your examples. There looks to be a little blue fogging in the shadows. The shadows should be a little darker. It's hard to say what could have caused this but we will gladly replace your rolls. They also look a little underexposed to me. I can not say why for sure since I was not there but if I had to guess, for the center weighted meter shot it seems that maybe the white bib threw off the exposure by a stop or so. The second image it is hard to tell as well but bravo for using the zone system. Zone II 1/2 should be close to the base density of the film so render with very little detail and added grain. If the shadows on the upper story of the building are zone II 1/2 then this image was scanned a little light since they should render closer to black. still it does look a bit under. Maybe the push processing was off? Or maybe you would get better results exposing at EI 640 or less. CineStill has plenty of highlight latitude. I have exposed between 200-400 with normal processing industry gotten great results! Please email us! info@cinestillfilm.com

On a side note, in my experience it is not always a great idea to meter for shadows when pushing film. Pushing film does not add detail to Zone I or II. It will however increase separation between zones III through VII. Since CineStill is 800 ISO, rating and pushing to EI 1600 pushes Zone I up to Zone II when metering but those zones will still render close to black with almost no detail after pushing. Zone III at EI 1600 will have only a little more detail because of the push and Zone IV-VII (at EI 1600) will see the most improvement. Usually when I push film I find it is better to meter for the midtones or highlights and then print down the shadows to black. The push in processing will place the midtones and highlights where you metered but the shadows will block up. If you just underexposed (rated EI 1600) and did not push, your shadows would remain the same but your midtones and highlights would render darker and muddier.

Hope that makes sense because I feel like I am rambling. Please email us and we will send you another 2 rolls. maybe try rating them at 400 with your in camera meter or 800 with zone system metering? Or if you do push, meter for the midtones, scan a little darker and expect less detail in the blacks. Film almost always produces better results when overexposed a stop compared to underexposed a stop.

Click to expand...

Thanks for all the information and your care for customers. I will definitely try this film out again, and take what you've said into consideration. I'd like to ask you, are you quite sure that it's only an under exposure issue? In terms of scanning, yes the second one should have been scanned to a lower value, but what about the highlights? In both examples, there seem to be something wrong also in densest parts. The lights from the theatre especially are far from the 'clean'. I have had great results with Ektar 100 normally processed handheld nightshots of similar subject matter with wide lenses.

I don't think it is only an underexposure issue. The blue fogging is not normal. It should be cleaner but it looks like some form of damage to the film occurred and slightly fogged the blue light sensitive layer unevenly. Whatever it is may be also affecting the other levels of exposure a little as well but you probably would not have noticed if there was a little more exposure. Could be moisture on the film in the canister from humidity or temperature change. It's hard to tell but you should not experience it again on replacement rolls.

Bwright said:

jsmithphoto1: I respect your opinion. It's not for everyone. We did have some QC issues on some of our earlier batches with specks appearing on frames but have since improved our process and QC. Any film that had defect we gladly replaced for those who contacted us. Offer still stands if you would like to send us examples of your problem try again. info@cinestillfilm.com

Click to expand...

I understand. That's okay. Thank you, though. I have no issues with the color or anything, just the mega-spackage that occurred. I showed an example of 250D processed in C-41 to someone I know and the response was "It looks... ... natural." I do like the color of CineStill, but I have enough Vision of my own to go through. :/ It's best you make profit off of it instead of give it away.

Thanks!

Bwright said:

I don't think it is only an underexposure issue. The blue fogging is not normal. It should be cleaner but it looks like some form of damage to the film occurred and slightly fogged the blue light sensitive layer unevenly. Whatever it is may be also affecting the other levels of exposure a little as well but you probably would not have noticed if there was a little more exposure. Could be moisture on the film in the canister from humidity or temperature change. It's hard to tell but you should not experience it again on replacement rolls.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying everything. Like I said, I don't want this to be the last time I try this film. Also, I have a couple rolls of 50D. Anything else I should know in terms of handling these two emulsions regarding exposure and developing? I almost always overexpose my color negs especially when I have extra light to deal with during the day. When in low light, I have this habit of of relying on the neg's latitude and choosing a smaller stop and/or faster shutter speed for better results. I try my best not to 'under' expose, unless, I'm kind of in a desperate situation!

I have found a good rule of thumb for exposure and cross processing is multiple the original ISO by 1.6 and you should be good. Vision 3 500T (500x1.6= ISO800). I use 250D at ISO 400 with great results. (250x1.6= ISO400)

This is the equivalent to having a great painter with mud! Yeah it is ok but not superb.

PE

I agree, but there's just something about it I really like. Maybe it's because it is so flat and not HDR (which I am tired of seeing lol). It's interesting looking at the effects of the halation as well as the lost detail in the underexposed areas.

There are people that enjoy hitting their bunions with a hammer because it feels so good when they stop.

Sometimes the "defects" of this film are what creates an interesting image. I did welcome the halos in this photo I took...

Alien Invasion? by Markus Jork, on Flickr