CineStill800 120 New Release out now: How did you find it ?

trendland · Oct 8, 2017

Wow........total wrong english? ????
Correct version :

Right PE, I suspect something in this direction. This will also answer some quality problems with cinestill.

with regards

trendland · Oct 8, 2017

lantau said:
Wasn't the current Ektar 100 introduced in 2008? And wasn't there no Ektar immediately before that?

So that means that the current stock is definitley not older than nine years!

Yes you may be right - 2008 it sounds good. (I possible remembered it wrong)

I wouldn't suspect Kodak backed only one Ektar emulsion in 2008 with the introducing of this film.
May be they had a second production run in 2008,2009,2010 ??????
But I doupt a bit on later emulsion backing - I do have no doupts on later
assembling.
But some infos to production runs with 120 films are quite strange - Kodak stated.
Yes - who can say for sure : Perhaps masterolls get off and Kodak will not blame - so the 120 backing paper is responcible?

Future will tell.

with regards

peoplemerge · Oct 11, 2017

I recently developed some Cinestill 50D and 800T. They look, especially the 50D, quite stunning printed on RA4. I may have detected more dust than usual, but it could be my imagination or my fault in the process.

I think both list "process C41," (the 50D does for sure) and yes, they have of course had remjet removed. I had expected that like older cine films I have on hand, they would have a red base, but they have the familiar orange base like regular color print film. Does Vision 3 come that way, with an orange base, or is it somehow treated by Cinestill?

Looking at some earlier posts by PE, I see cine films have gamma .5 vs .6 for print films. Ektar 100 is famously contrasty. Cinestill 50D seems quite muted.

RalphLambrecht · Oct 11, 2017

trendland said:
That is a realy good question - but notice, it is not the same emmulsion.
It is just what one could name :
"The same film family" additional you just will notice the improvoment to
Thungsten

with regards

to that it matters too much but, just out of interest:where did you learn your spelling?

lantau · Oct 11, 2017

peoplemerge said:
I think both list "process C41," (the 50D does for sure) and yes, they have of course had remjet removed. I had expected that like older cine films I have on hand, they would have a red base, but they have the familiar orange base like regular color print film. Does Vision 3 come that way, with an orange base, or is it somehow treated by Cinestill?

Looking at some earlier posts by PE, I see cine films have gamma .5 vs .6 for print films. Ektar 100 is famously contrasty. Cinestill 50D seems quite muted.

View attachment 188128

Vision3 negatives look like normal orange colour negatives to me. I guess the orange mask does vary a little amongst various film makes in general.

If you have it developed in C41 it is said that it will have higher contrast than in its native process. That is why Cinestill is selling the 500T as 800T.

peoplemerge · Oct 11, 2017

thx @lantau

trendland · Oct 11, 2017

lantau said:
Vision3 negatives look like normal orange colour negatives to me. I guess the orange mask does vary a little amongst various film makes in general.

If you have it developed in C41 it is said that it will have higher contrast than in its native process. That is why Cinestill is selling the 500T as 800T.

Ok - it may have a change in regard of contrast.This may be caused from the difference of Ecn2 in comparision to C41
developers.
But I also could imagine a more difference is comming from the rated box speed. And this is indirectly also in concert of C41 developers.
Probably - I can't say for sure, sorry for this, but probably you will have a bit over-exposed color negatives at ISO 500 with cinestill because of higher efficiency development with C41.
I can't say from reminding - perhaps I should check the facts, I have lots of dokumentations but I will not do this jet.
Just from my mind I remember differences in temperature and times with original Ecn2 process.
And you also have other CD.
That will obviously make a difference.
Cinestill decided to use C41 because of practical reasons.
Possible this is in regard of original emulsion characteristic a "little" push to the film.
So it seams to me the way of cinestill is
to rate it ISO 800 - by the time it sounds better to the most who like the film.
Of cause many of us know that E.I. with
original Kodak Vision 3 500T is often
ISO 1000, ISO 2000 !
But in all cases the contrast is higher due to push process.
May be this is also the case at ISO 800 with C41 developers.

with regards

trendland · Oct 11, 2017

RalphLambrecht said:
to that it matters too much but, just out of interest:where did you learn your spelling?

Sorry for some mistakes in language.Mostly I am correct but my cell
phone will not believe me and is changing
many words - often I am busy and there is no time to notice this changings.
By the time I remember the indroduction of Kodak Vision II in the 90th. To that time Fuji and Agfa were still in the business too but without a realistic chance. A seller at Agfa told me : "If you want to try out our new emulsion - you can get it for less " I was not in a possition to come to a decision at this time. 2 years later I wanted to ask him - but his office was closed.
There was no office of Agfa any longer -
So I was at Kodak again.

with regards

Photo Engineer · Oct 11, 2017

All Kodak and Fuji camera negative films are masked with an "orange" color. The variation in this base color is due to the type of dye formed and the light intended for exposure.

PE

MattKing · Oct 11, 2017

Would the nature of the intended print material - ECP film or RA4 paper - also influence the makeup of the orange mask?

Helinophoto · Oct 11, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Rem jet is colloidal carbon, and as such it is so small that it can become lodged in the swollen gelatin emulsion. If it does that, it cannot be removed.

PE

I have had this problem, but only once, it was the time I tried to dissolve the remjet by using baking-soda and warm water, before developing or anything else.
Like here:

It did look like most of the remjet went out during the first few rinses, but the shaking and "baking" seemed to slush the remjet all over the film too, also embedding in the emulsion side.

Simply thumbing off the last scraps of remjet by thumbing the film trough running water in the sink at the end, also proved the ability for remjet to stick to everything; Not only do you risk scratching your film while it is bending and buckling in the sink, it also gets polluted by the remjet, thumbed off the rest of the finished film.

No....my procedure is develop - blix - hang up and physically squeegee the film with wet, soft paper in the shower, making sure to cover both sides of the film as I go. Then get film back on spool, stab (do Vision film need stabilizer?), then hang to dry.

I do get some remjet-crap on my reels and in my tank, but I cannot really see any pollution of the film-base when I physically remove it.
- A good amount of soap and a tooth-brush and or a paper scrub gets rid of much of the mess on the reels and in the tank.

I have never seen the blue-lightning issue with the Vision films, only with Cinestill, in-fact there was a thread on rangefinderforum or on flickr about this issue, it seems to be common.

I suspesct it is happening during Cinestill's remjet-removal or during repack.

Photo Engineer · Oct 11, 2017

Yes, the print material also influences the color of the mask. I forgot to add that before. Thanks.

The method used above cannot remove rem-jet. A wipe is needed or spray jets of water. We used a dip in alkali and then a wipe with a sponge. It is necessary to keep the rem-jet away from the film surface.

PE

trendland · Oct 11, 2017

Helinophoto said:
I have had this problem, but only once, it was the time I tried to dissolve the remjet by using baking-soda and warm water, before developing or anything else.
Like here:

It did look like most of the remjet went out during the first few rinses, but the shaking and "baking" seemed to slush the remjet all over the film too, also embedding in the emulsion side.

Simply thumbing off the last scraps of remjet by thumbing the film trough running water in the sink at the end, also proved the ability for remjet to stick to everything; Not only do you risk scratching your film while it is bending and buckling in the sink, it also gets polluted by the remjet, thumbed off the rest of the finished film.

No....my procedure is develop - blix - hang up and physically squeegee the film with wet, soft paper in the shower, making sure to cover both sides of the film as I go. Then get film back on spool, stab (do Vision film need stabilizer?), then hang to dry.

I do get some remjet-crap on my reels and in my tank, but I cannot really see any pollution of the film-base when I physically remove it.
- A good amount of soap and a tooth-brush and or a paper scrub gets rid of much of the mess on the reels and in the tank.

I have never seen the blue-lightning issue with the Vision films, only with Cinestill, in-fact there was a thread on rangefinderforum or on flickr about this issue, it seems to be common.

I suspesct it is happening during Cinestill's remjet-removal or during repack.

Look at the procedure of Ecn 2 - if I see this right it (ramjet) is removed on a mechanical way.
But I can not imagine if this is done with the help of a swam or other mechanical help from rubber wipers a.s.o.....
Because the danger of scratches should be much to great.
So "mechanical" from my understanding is a method just with water ....
With the use of water jets.
And this method is not possible to use at home without eneneering.
But your method is in the near of best results I would say - don't give up.

with regards

trendland · Oct 11, 2017

Perhaps I should add : "This method is not possible after prewash in one process before developing at home without engeneering"
Because you have "water jets" in use
(from your shower).... !
But to me it is impossible to do before
fixing (because it can not be done in total dark but this is a must within the
process steps before fixing)

with regard

PS : Did you notice to have very little parts as a rest of remjet within the gelantine? Or let us say :Are there ANY particles on the film wich can't remove after - sometimes ?

trendland · Oct 11, 2017

Helinophoto said:
I have had this problem, but only once, it was the time I tried to dissolve the remjet by using baking-soda and warm water, before developing or anything else.
Like here:

It did look like most of the remjet went out during the first few rinses, but the shaking and "baking" seemed to slush the remjet all over the film too, also embedding in the emulsion side.

Simply thumbing off the last scraps of remjet by thumbing the film trough running water in the sink at the end, also proved the ability for remjet to stick to everything; Not only do you risk scratching your film while it is bending and buckling in the sink, it also gets polluted by the remjet, thumbed off the rest of the finished film.

No....my procedure is develop - blix - hang up and physically squeegee the film with wet, soft paper in the shower, making sure to cover both sides of the film as I go. Then get film back on spool, stab (do Vision film need stabilizer?), then hang to dry.

I do get some remjet-crap on my reels and in my tank, but I cannot really see any pollution of the film-base when I physically remove it.
- A good amount of soap and a tooth-brush and or a paper scrub gets rid of much of the mess on the reels and in the tank.

I have never seen the blue-lightning issue with the Vision films, only with Cinestill, in-fact there was a thread on rangefinderforum or on flickr about this issue, it seems to be common.

I suspesct it is happening during Cinestill's remjet-removal or during repack.

Comming back again to mysterious "blue
lightning" effects with cinestill.

I could imagine there are possible electrostatic charges with motion film.
But I also would state : They are not often ! Sure the are not seen because of the antistatic characteristic of the remjet.
But this can't be the issue when ramjet is removed ! Antistatic characteristics are very relative or let us say : remjet helps
to avoid this !
Without ramjet you also can't have "Lighting Films" in any situation.
And this is more and more a right fact
with still film.
Or does anybody know electrostatic problems with special configurated Nikons (10 frames a second) ?
It has absolute to do with handling of emulsion at cinestill - nobody knows what they do to remove ramjet.
But they have the need of machines therefore.
So I agree with you !

with regards
Film"
.

Helinophoto · Oct 11, 2017

trendland said:
Look at the procedure of Ecn 2 - if I see this right it (ramjet) is removed on a mechanical way.
But I can not imagine if this is done with the help of a swam or other mechanical help from rubber wipers a.s.o.....
Because the danger of scratches should be much to great.
So "mechanical" from my understanding is a method just with water ....
With the use of water jets.
And this method is not possible to use at home without eneneering.
But your method is in the near of best results I would say - don't give up.

with regards

Well, my "squeegee-technique" involves using very very soft napkins (the white ones from ikea), I cut away the printed/stamped border of those, then wet them thoroughly in warm water, to the point of over-saturation, then i "slap" the wet paper around the hanging film, like a 3-4 cm "belt" and very gently pull down, with barely enough pressure to keep the paper on there.

I do ONE pull, all the way down, then change paper and repeat, until the film gets clear and no visible remjet is left on the paper, this avoids scratches, as well as pollution to the film-base as much as possible, it may also help remove any residue stuck on the emulsion-side from the development-process. (or, I like to think so anyway )

I am a real nit-picker when it comes to dust and specks, and when I scan my Vision-film, I can easily see any residue left on the film. The difference in the resulting scans, from doing it like in the youtube-video and the way I have described above, is extreme. (I use a Nikon V for 35mm).

Photo Engineer · Oct 11, 2017

Rem-jet must be removed before processing to prevent the particles from drifting off and getting into the emulsion.

Also, if rem-jet is removed before sale by some bulk dealer, you are losing all anti-static protection. None remains and thus static marks are very possible.

PE

trendland · Oct 11, 2017

Helinophoto said:
Well, my "squeegee-technique" involves using very very soft napkins (the white ones from ikea), I cut away the printed/stamped border of those, then wet them thoroughly in warm water, to the point of over-saturation, then i "slap" the wet paper around the hanging film, like a 3-4 cm "belt" and very gently pull down, with barely enough pressure to keep the paper on there.

I do ONE pull, all the way down, then change paper and repeat, until the film gets clear and no visible remjet is left on the paper, this avoids scratches, as well as pollution to the film-base as much as possible, it may also help remove any residue stuck on the emulsion-side from the development-process. (or, I like to think so anyway )

I am a real nit-picker when it comes to dust and specks, and when I scan my Vision-film, I can easily see any residue left on the film. The difference in the resulting scans, from doing it like in the youtube-video and the way I have described above, is extreme. (I use a Nikon V for 35mm).

Ok - I am on my way to GET some Vision3
I personaly did not try to develope it myself up to know because I was to much involved in other things- a friend of mine did it.
His results became better and better from time to time.
If there is a chance to get just 1/3 of all
frames total free of particles it is also much much cheaper with bulk cine film.

with regards

Helinophoto · Oct 11, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Rem-jet must be removed before processing to prevent the particles from drifting off and getting into the emulsion.

Also, if rem-jet is removed before sale by some bulk dealer, you are losing all anti-static protection. None remains and thus static marks are very possible.

PE

Hehe, I only wish I had night-vision goggles, so I could do this before development PE, since it is the best option for sure.
I would probably foul up big-time if I started messing around in the dark now though.

I know that if I keep on going with Vision3, I may in time learn roughly how many tissues I go trough to get it cleaned up, and try to clean it before development.

Helinophoto · Oct 11, 2017

Sorry for railing this thread a bit off-topic, but does anyone have links or links to examples of 120 Cinestill?

I am mostly interested in how the halo-mess is with the 120 version, I don't like Cinestill in general, due to the nasty halo's in 35mm.

Edit, looks like they are planning to release 50D in 120 as well:
https://petapixel.com/2017/06/29/cinestill-50d-film-released-120-format/

As clean and smooth the 50D is in 35mm, the 120 must be amazing, provided they get the halo's under control somehow.

trendland · Oct 11, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Rem-jet must be removed before processing to prevent the particles from drifting off and getting into the emulsion.

Also, if rem-jet is removed before sale by some bulk dealer, you are losing all anti-static protection. None remains and thus static marks are very possible.

PE

Yes PE - thats the optimal way I decided
to make it (just from the original process) since 2 years.
THE use of c41 to develope Vision3 does not be the main problem I see.
I know there are possible changings with couplers because it isn't the correct developer the emulsions design is made for.
But I also like the color management you could expect by using C41. (some examples show this very nice)
An other possible more relevant problem is obviously the long time color stability.
You mentioned it ever and ever - there are stabylisers in the Vision3 emulsion wich are different to the normal C41 types. They possible need Ecn2 chemistry to avoid interactions wich are not good in regard of long time stabile colors.
But this is never tested (the use of unconfirm chemistry ) - so nobody can say how much this will be an impact to
the original design.
I would like to state : To own risc - and hopefully it will not be a BIG katastrophy in the future.
But to wash out the rem-jet by prebathing (with the help of alkali) and remove it totaly (in adition with the help of jets from a shower) is obviously the best and smartest method - because you avoid any rem-jet contamination of following steps.
But I am much afraid of doing this in total darkness.

PS : I would not make it so much complicate to me if I had not an absolute
reason to do so: An offer of Vision50D
65mm/180m (somewhere in this direktion I don't remember the total correct lenght jet) at about £ 100, - 130,- with tax and shipping.
120 films have somewhere like 85cm.
~ 200 50D 120 films in best original quality to this price......
But I also noticed : I have to use a special constructed cutter because the size is not the size I supposed

... 65mm
to make my own Cinestill in all variations (5 frames,12frames,20frames a.s.o)
6x7 of cause.

with regards

trendland · Oct 11, 2017

Helinophoto said:
Sorry for railing this thread a bit off-topic, but does anyone have links or links to examples of 120 Cinestill?

I am mostly interested in how the halo-mess is with the 120 version, I don't like Cinestill in general, due to the nasty halo's in 35mm.

Edit, looks like they are planning to release 50D in 120 as well:
https://petapixel.com/2017/06/29/cinestill-50d-film-released-120-format/

As clean and smooth the 50D is in 35mm, the 120 must be amazing, provided they get the halo's under control somehow.

Just google a bit in google pictures.
You soon will find hundreds of cinestill examples.
But beware of : Official presented 50D material is made from fine proffessional.
Not easy to get such shots in any case.
It is not to be done with buying the film.

Bon chance

PS : I remember a side I like also :

https://shotonwhat.com
In the rubric :
"Film" you can see real 50D examples.

lantau · Oct 11, 2017

Helinophoto said:
Hehe, I only wish I had night-vision goggles, so I could do this before development PE, since it is the best option for sure.
I would probably foul up big-time if I started messing around in the dark now though.

I know that if I keep on going with Vision3, I may in time learn roughly how many tissues I go trough to get it cleaned up, and try to clean it before development.

I'm doing a removal prior do development in the dark. You can easily get used to it. I described my method in one of the other ECN-2 related threads. I also wrote a little more detailed version in a Flickr discussion. I end up with dry film, which can be spooled onto a spiral. Sometimes I remjet the film late one day and develop the next.

Helinophoto said:
Sorry for railing this thread a bit off-topic, but does anyone have links or links to examples of 120 Cinestill?

I am mostly interested in how the halo-mess is with the 120 version, I don't like Cinestill in general, due to the nasty halo's in 35mm.

Edit, looks like they are planning to release 50D in 120 as well:
https://petapixel.com/2017/06/29/cinestill-50d-film-released-120-format/

As clean and smooth the 50D is in 35mm, the 120 must be amazing, provided they get the halo's under control somehow.

I have a few bad pictures with the 500T in 120 format. Tree branches against the bright sky. Red halos around the branches. But I cannot guarantee 100% that the lens didn't have anything to do with it, I just haven't shot scenes like that before.

But I had good pictures on my second roll, which I shot a month ago. Two images are a bit further up. One with flames. I also received seven rolls of the 50D 120, now.

Photo Engineer · Oct 11, 2017

Ok, here is one way to do it. Get about 3 or 4 soft sponges. Soak them in the alkali solution while wearing rubber gloves. Dip the film in water or diluted alkali. Lay the film emulsion down on a wet clean surface. Wipe the back with the sponges, on after the other in succession. Do not reuse the sponges. Toss them after one pass. Rinse film in dilute alkali and then water and then process.

Another method is as above, but hang the film from a clip and double the sponge over in a "C" shape. With the film between the wetted sponge, run the sponge down the film from top to bottom and discard the sponge as above and use a second and a third. Then, wash the film with good agitation as above.

We used both methods at KRL for processing any film with rem-jet.

PE

trendland · Oct 12, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Ok, here is one way to do it. Get about 3 or 4 soft sponges. Soak them in the alkali solution while wearing rubber gloves. Dip the film in water or diluted alkali. Lay the film emulsion down on a wet clean surface. Wipe the back with the sponges, on after the other in succession. Do not reuse the sponges. Toss them after one pass. Rinse film in dilute alkali and then water and then process.

Another method is as above, but hang the film from a clip and double the sponge over in a "C" shape. With the film between the wetted sponge, run the sponge down the film from top to bottom and discard the sponge as above and use a second and a third. Then, wash the film with good agitation as above.

We used both methods at KRL for processing any film with rem-jet.

PE

Thanks a lot PE to this description of a real competent method.
If I understand you correct the rem-jet shoud be removed by this method in ONE
part or lets say in some "big" parts.
This should be also necessary to avoid many little (brocken) parts of ramjet remaining.
Because the most danger comes (as I saw from a colleague of mine) that only a very little rest of remaining rem-jet survived, came in the following bath steps (possible chemicaly contamination of following baths is obviously not a main problem because of a very less amound of rem-jet material in total)
but this remaining rem-jet produced some very smal particles wich are left over into the emulsion.

And this can't be undone if it happened
because if this particles (very smal - but some are to be seen in big enlargements)
glue with gelantine - you can wash them
you can use shampoo and any kind of possible tricks - you only will remove the
whole color layers from emulsion.
I have seen this with cine negatives - not funny and much to late......

...
Of cause rem-jet particles are also removed then....

with regards

CineStill800 120 New Release out now: How did you find it ?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency