Cinestill "Cs-41" Liquid Film Processing Kit

Meyer Trioplan · Sep 26, 2016

Another film developing kit is coming onto the market, this one a 1 quart liquid concentrate kit, available for pre-order.

Dead Link Removed

While seemingly similar in many ways to other kits on the market, this does promote some latitude in the developing temps, a longer shelf life than other kits, as well as a surprisingly high yield possible from a single kit.

Given the intro price, I thought it worth a shot to try it out.

Kevin Harding · Sep 26, 2016

I think it's just a rebadged Tetenal kit; my Tetenal kit advertised 12 rolls (adjusted colour dev and blix times after a certain number of rolls) and had the same components.

Cholentpot · Sep 26, 2016

Kevin Harding said:
I think it's just a rebadged Tetenal kit; my Tetenal kit advertised 12 rolls (adjusted colour dev and blix times after a certain number of rolls) and had the same components.

36 rolls? My Tetenal kits can get stretched to about 24 rolls in a pinch. You really think this is the same stuff?

RattyMouse · Sep 26, 2016

Very interesting but a shame that it's not available until 2017.

EdSawyer · Sep 26, 2016

It's not like there aren't already numerous better and less expensive solutions from first-party sources (eg. actual manufacturers... Champion sells their own brand, for example, not just as Kodak-labelled product.) Or even better 2nd party sources (Kodak themselves).

mshchem · Sep 27, 2016

36 rolls? From a quart?

bvy · Sep 27, 2016

mshchem said:
36 rolls? From a quart?

I'd be curious to know what tests were done to arrive at this number. And how the 36th roll looks next to the first.

Meyer Trioplan · Sep 27, 2016

bvy said:
I'd be curious to know what tests were done to arrive at this number. And how the 36th roll looks next to the first.

I've done 21 in a single Unicolor kit nominally rated for 8, but the math is a bit perplexing here.

The cynic in me is curious how 12 rolls can be developed at once in a quart of solutions.

mshchem · Sep 27, 2016

I feel that after I have spent the time and efforts to shoot film (Ektar, Portra, Fuji) I want the best chemistry to process my precious film. My go to is Kodak chemistry, I would be very comfortable with Fuji as well. I remember when Beseler and Unicolor came out with the simple, multi temperature stuff in the late 70's . I always wanted to do it by the book. My theory is make the negative right you then can print it anyway you want.
Use the good stuff.
Best Regards Mike

OptiKen · Sep 27, 2016

Amazing!
The product won't be available until early next year, yet already we are bashing it and saying it's inferior.
Personally, I'll wait until I see some of it in actual usage and then I will cast judgement.

GarageBoy · Oct 8, 2016

Why not the proper ecn2 stuff?

Helinophoto · Oct 10, 2016

Seems to be tailored towards cinestill-films with no remjet-backing.
Makes sense (it can be a mess).

No idea if that kit is c-41 or Ecn-2 though, maybe the chemicals listed on the photo of the box can give a hint...?

twelvetone12 · Oct 10, 2016

Well it clearly states "C41" on the page. I do wonder why not proper ECN2, that would be interesting!

Helinophoto · Oct 10, 2016

Agree, in all fairness, if anyone could just buy bulk-chemicals from Kodak and make smaller kits, it would be Cinestill.
It may be more to the story than we know though, Kodak may be the blocker, to prevent a surge for their (relatively cheap) after-marked cine-rolls

Maybe they fear it may eat into the Portra and Ektar sales....or something. ^^

Lachlan Young · Oct 10, 2016

ECN-2 uses a pretty concentrated sulphuric acid stop bath amongst other things that really should not be handled outwith a sensible lab environment. The whole ECN-2 recipe is published in a PDF by Kodak, go ahead and make it yourself...

Furthermore, ECN films are engineered to work with ECP process print films, delivering correct colour & projection contrast, & the C41 films are engineered to work with RA4 print materials. Even when digitising them, each process uses reference points that derive from those original intentions. Also, unlike traditional tungsten balanced C41 stock, the tungsten balanced ECN films are designed for correct reciprocity behaviour at short exposures.

Finally, the whole Cinestill schtick is about cross processing a de-remjetted ECN film in C41.

twelvetone12 · Oct 10, 2016

Well thanks, I guess we could also all scratch mix c41, then.

Lachlan Young · Oct 10, 2016

twelvetone12 said:
Well thanks, I guess we could also all scratch mix c41, then.

All I was trying to say is that it's far better documented than C-41 - the formulae are published in full, & no restrictions as far as I can see in making & selling the stuff on a commercial basis. If no-one offers it commercially on a small scale, there might be good reasons for doing so.

More to the point, as Photo Engineer has pointed out at length elsewhere, blix C-41 (like the kit above) are nothing like as good as a separate bleach & fix. If Cinestill offered a kit similar to the European 5L Fuji Hunt X-press kit (which has a seperate bleach & fix & can be part mixed), I suspect it would sell very well indeed - as it is, it looks a lot like a re-badged Tetenal C-41 kit.

Photo Engineer · Oct 10, 2016

BTW, the bleaching of silver in recent color negative films is now so difficult that they are adding BACs (Bleach Accelerator Couplers) to the films to assist bleaching and participate in dye formation. These BACs form normal dyes and release a special group that accelerates bleach action. So, IMHO a blix for film has taken another bad hit.

PE

EdSawyer · Oct 10, 2016

Only among hipster wankers. Real photogs know you can already get all the goodness of vision3 in portra/ektar without all the excess effort of removing remjet, etc.

Helinophoto said:
Maybe they fear it may eat into the Portra and Ektar sales....or something. ^^

Helinophoto · Oct 11, 2016

EdSawyer said:
Only among hipster wankers. Real photogs know you can already get all the goodness of vision3 in portra/ektar without all the excess effort of removing remjet, etc.

Well, if one thing is true for the analog community, it is that everyone bitch about the prices.

Check out the price for some 400ft left over Vision3 and tell me that the added hassle of removing the remjet isn't worth it.

I would love to use ecn-2 myself but can't get hold of it or make it myself, no matter how available the formulae is.

If you scan your color-film, there are few/no issues regarding color imho.

Printing is a different matter..

EdSawyer · Oct 11, 2016

how much is 400ft of vision3? That should be enough for about 75 rolls of 35mm 36exp. It's only really viable for those shooting on 35mm, presumably (unless you want to slit down 70mm, find backing paper, etc. - way more hassle).

Frankly, there's enough hassles already in Analog, removing remjet is an easily avoidable one IMNSHO. ;-)

Helinophoto · Oct 11, 2016

EdSawyer said:
how much is 400ft of vision3? That should be enough for about 75 rolls of 35mm 36exp. It's only really viable for those shooting on 35mm, presumably (unless you want to slit down 70mm, find backing paper, etc. - way more hassle).

£64 here for 50D, 88 for the 500T: http://www.frame24ltd.co.uk/epages/...558/Categories/Clearance_Stock/35mm_Clearance

Just about 1 buck per roll for the 50D and somewhat more for the 500T, if your figures are right.

EdSawyer · Oct 12, 2016

That's a pretty good deal, certainly cheaper than ektar/portra, at least on the face of it. Whether the tradeoff and effort (remove remjet, respool) are worth it though is something each person would have to answer for themselves. It seems like removing remjet after shooting would be the preferable way to go, vs. the cinestill way which removes the remjet first ( = more halation).

Helinophoto · Oct 13, 2016

EdSawyer said:
That's a pretty good deal, certainly cheaper than ektar/portra, at least on the face of it. Whether the tradeoff and effort (remove remjet, respool) are worth it though is something each person would have to answer for themselves. It seems like removing remjet after shooting would be the preferable way to go, vs. the cinestill way which removes the remjet first ( = more halation).

Yes indeed, the halation on the cinestill is IMO way too pronounced.

I've been experimenting a little with the 50D and baking-soda does get most of it off (but you risk contamination) after developing.

Saw one discussion where they simply cleaned it off with a wet microfiber cloth after development, seemed to work very well, going to try that on my next roll.

Bulk loading works nicely, I just spool out around 30-60 feet at the time from my master roll and put it into my bulk loader. (I've kept most of my 35mm cassettes, so I use those as throwable, one time use, bulk-casettes)

Cinestill "Cs-41" Liquid Film Processing Kit

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency