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

lantau said:

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.



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.

Click to expand...

Yes lantau - the halos with cinestill film
are often mentioned.
To me this is not a real problem but this is my personal point of view.
If you don't like it use other films.
For example 500T.And coming to your describtion - I would agree that some bokeh and some bright lighted effects not allways are from the film....it should be more your lens was responsible for.
Sorry for doing this again but for me it is the best example to explain the max. you can expect your film can manage :

This is Cinestill 800 with c41.(comercial lab)
What do we see here ? First we can see bokeh from the lens.But the typical "red glow of cinestill is missing" I can't say why - perhaps red lights from cars a.s.o. are also missing.
But wait - I noticed just now a car in the background - indeed a little red glow but not so bright others mentioned from there experiences.
And what is the rest ? A massive "dropping glow of colors" ?
Does this have to do with the missing rem-jet of cinestill? I would not state so.
This is no light what is reflecting "back"
into the film this is light with massive power comming directly trough the lens.
Overexposure - (I did not use a spotmeter to this shooting but I guess min. 8 - 12stops out of range from box speed.)
The street in reality wasn't lighted so bright - it was more dark from the background.
But here we see quite clear : No emulsion in the world today can handle such contrast.
And therefore I would not overrate the function of rem-jet in any case.
The result with original 500T in this shot would be exact the same.
Massive overexposure can bring all
todays emulsions into trouble like here.
(INTENDED .......)

with regards

OK some new infos to this older thread :

I just find a source to Vision 3 500T :



It is absolutely looking great isn`t it ? From my point of view Cinestill800 is an interisting project and the films are not bad. But they are also not cheap. This here is the original ( with Rem-Jet layer ).
It is in 35 mm you can easily identifie it from 52 ...... in 5219. As some of you also know 16 mm is with Kodak Code always beginning with 72 so as 7239 I just remember.

The Rem Jet might be a problem to some of you - but one is lucky if one remove it with sucsess without theeth beaten out.

with regards

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.

Click to expand...

Yes it isn´t the right way in c41. But to me more and more annoying is the pricing in 120 : $ 16,95

From pricing Cinestill ( 135-36 films ) is beginning with the easy stuff and ending with strong meat ?

with regards