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
That shot is remarkable - following you now on flickr.
Cinestill 800T Issues
-
A
- Thread starter KidA
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Praktica KW 35mm with Zeiss Jena M42 Lens
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale 7 inch Speedotron Black Line Flash Unit Reflectors
- Started by spoolman
-
For Sale FS: Durst Pictochrom CL Enlarger
- Started by slashower
Forum statistics
That shot is remarkable - following you now on flickr.
I agree, that's pretty awesome!
Thanks!
It was New Year's Eve and I was going into Boston with the family. So I wanted to bring a compact film camera that I can use hand-held. I was expecting some indoor events, some outdoor concerts at night and fireworks. So all artificial light sources and not too much light. Other than b&w, a high-speed tungsten color negative film is kind of the obvious choice for this scenario. And CineStill 800T has this market all for itself (other than using the Kodak Vision film with rem-jet).
I haven't really used this film in "good" light yet, only in cases where high-speed tungsten is called for. In the following photo I was going for the ambient blue cast to make the artificial food booth lights stand out:
The only trouble was the light happened to be more fluorescent than tungsten, so I wasn't quite getting the color cast effect I was hoping for.
Tried the 800T and really didn't like it at all.
I shot mine at 500 ISO with a 85B filter. Halation is what it is. I don't like it.
To me the biggest issue is the color. It just looks like improperly processed color negative film.
Reminds me a lot of the results I got when I attempted to develop C-41 at home. Murky colors and bad grain.
Still great effort by CineStill and I am happy for those who like this film.
I shot mine at 500 ISO with a 85B filter. Halation is what it is. I don't like it.
To me the biggest issue is the color. It just looks like improperly processed color negative film.
Reminds me a lot of the results I got when I attempted to develop C-41 at home. Murky colors and bad grain.
Still great effort by CineStill and I am happy for those who like this film.
Well it IS "improperly processed color negative film." Works for some people that way though.
But if you got results like that with your C41, something was badly wrong with your process. C41 shouldn't be difficult to do well.
But if you got results like that with your C41, something was badly wrong with your process. C41 shouldn't be difficult to do well.
Yeah, I am pretty sure the temperature was not stable, which resulted in color shifts and weird grain. I found E-6 much simpler to develop than C-41. That being said, I gave up on both and leave it to the lab now while that's still a cheap option in Japan.
750 yen for a roll of slides and 580 yen for a roll of color negatives.
In my experience E6 is more, not less, temperature critical than C41. But admitedly I haven't done either in years, for just the reason you say. At least for C41 the develop part is cheap enough it just isn't worth it to me to do my own. E6 is a little different and if I had (sshhhhh...) a decent film scanner, even a flatbed like a V700/750/800/850 (plenty good enough for web sharing) I'd probably do my own E6 again now. But I don't, and I want scans too for the purposes for which I shoot E6, and having them separately scanned would cost as much and be more hassle as just having the lab do them and scan while they are at it. Of course I use Dwayne's and while I've rarely had a problem with their developing or machine prints from C41 their scans are not great. But they suffice for my purposes, which don't include printing from them.
Just had my other roll of CineStill developed and was equally unimpressed.
This time I had light leaks in the middle of the frame. I assume that's a default in the film due to the repackaging.
This was the 50D film exposed at 50 iso in bright daylight. The colors still look murky and incorrect no matter what I do to the scan.
This time I had light leaks in the middle of the frame. I assume that's a default in the film due to the repackaging.
This was the 50D film exposed at 50 iso in bright daylight. The colors still look murky and incorrect no matter what I do to the scan.
Neither is repackaging of film such a particularly difficult task, nor are preexisting light leaks typical for what I've got from Cinestill films. If you are 100% sure that this happened neither in your camera, nor in the lab which developed this film, it may be worth contacting the guy confectioning these films, AFAIK he has a presence here on APUG.
All bets are off as soon as you cross process film, and running Vision 50D stock through C-41 process is just that. Colors will be off, although you should be able to beat them into shape with some post processing.
If you like these colors, or if you can make them work for your preferred subject matter, then this is your film. If you need the insane latitude of this film but dislike its colors, it's digital post processing time for you. If neither of these apply to you, then there is clearly no point in using this film.
I've been using this lab for 4 years now. They use a frontier to process the films, always have fresh chemicals.
I am not saying it's impossible that the lab messed up, but in four years I have never had a single issue with their processing.
The roll of 50D was shot in my Leica MP. I've shot about 390 rolls of film through that camera, without any light leaks except for this one. So again, highly unlikely to be my camera's fault, although not impossible.
I know the guy is on APUG, and I appreciate all the effort he's putting into this project. I am just stating my experience with the film. Maybe this can help improve future runs.
I am not saying it's impossible that the lab messed up, but in four years I have never had a single issue with their processing.
The roll of 50D was shot in my Leica MP. I've shot about 390 rolls of film through that camera, without any light leaks except for this one. So again, highly unlikely to be my camera's fault, although not impossible.
I know the guy is on APUG, and I appreciate all the effort he's putting into this project. I am just stating my experience with the film. Maybe this can help improve future runs.
Why are you all so concerned about using a product for a purpose for which it was not intended?
PE
PE
Because it's fun?
It is all well and good to have fun, but then you all have complaints about the results! That isnt very reasonable. In fact, this topic (ECN in still cameras and processed in C41) is represented in several threads on APUG.
PE
PE
MattKing
Moderator
The biggest reason I would like to see this is because it would potentially provide another viable route to obtaining projectable transparencies, as well as printable negatives.
Sort of a "Seattle Film Works" with high quality.
Regular process and printing train I have no objection to. Go for it.
PE
PE
Many years ago I used a service like Seattle Film Works called "RGB" in Hollywood. The results were just fine as I recall. They processed in mp chemistry and printed to mp print film. Though getting a paper print from a 5247 neg was not something any normal lab wanted to tackle (color balance issues I think, though I can't recall what they were).
You would be hard pressed to find anyone to print 3' of film to mp print stock today to get transparencies. Years ago (like 7, before cine went almost completely digital) a still lab in LA started that up again, particularly for DPs shooting mp stock tests. They were farming out to one of the big mp labs, and I don't think they were too keen on running those tiny lengths. But they discontinued the service anyway.
I have several thousand feet of Kodak MP stock. I think I would try pretty hard to find someone producing small batches of ECN chemistry before I processed in C41. Why go into it knowing you're going to have headaches?
It's still the only product in this ISO range which is balanced for tungsten light. Few people would bother with it if there was a Portra 800T, but there isn't, and it's not likely to happen any time soon either.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 992
- Format
- 35mm
Exactly - It'd be nice if someone could set up a lab to run these "properly" through ECN2 - Cinestill should get an infrastructure down for that, I'd back it
Plus, I'm definitely worried about the long term stability
It ain't difficult to set up a lab for that. Kodak still sells the chemicals and the formulas are published, if you're willing to mix from scratch. They could even sell the film with RemJet, avoiding the problems pointed out by PE.
Flavio
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2012
- Messages
- 440
- Format
- Multi Format
Yeah, what nut would put cinema film in a still camera?
Yooo hooo, guys, I'm talking about using the C41 process for it and trying to get color paper prints or scans from that result!!!!!
If you do it through the ECN process and get prints to ECP, then the results are quite superior to anything else you have seen.
PE
If you do it through the ECN process and get prints to ECP, then the results are quite superior to anything else you have seen.
PE
Wait! What if I print it to ECP and, after that, make an internegative with Portra so I can enlarge it to RA4 paper? I could also get some old Cibachrome and enlarge directly from the ECP print... Oh, geez! So many grrrrrreat ideas!
/joke
Pos-Pos prints are probably the worst route you could take.
No Joke!
PE
No Joke!
PE
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |