How to push Cinestill 800T?

[Film-Niko]

Yes it is the Art.

Perfect.

Decent lens indeed, wish it mounted on my 645n....

The options of wider aperture lenses for medium format are really extremely limited:
- 1.9/80 Sekor for the Mamiya 645 system
- Zeiss Planar 2/80 for the Contax 645 system
- Zeiss Planar 2/110 for the Hasselblad 200/2000 system
- Zeiss Planar HFT 2/110 for the Rollei 6000 system
- Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar HFT 2/80 for the Rollei 6000 system.
That's it.

And in the 35mm film format we have dozens of very wide aperture (in German for them there is this excellent word "lichtstark") lenses for different mounts and from different manufacturers with open apertures of 1.4, 1.2 and even 1.0.
And lots of lenses with vibration reduction / image stabilization.
For low(er) light handheld documentary photography 35mm format is the way to go, the best tool. Medium format cannot compete in that area.

And you could also have a look at Portra 800 or Lomography CN 800 (which is just repackaged Kodak Max 800, the film which is used in all Kodak SUCs).
That will give you 2/3 stops more compared to CineStill. Yes, they are daylight balanced, but often that looks very good and adds to the mood of the scenes.

 

[Skycreeper]

The options of wider aperture lenses for medium format are really extremely limited:
- 1.9/80 Sekor for the Mamiya 645 system
- Zeiss Planar 2/80 for the Contax 645 system
- Zeiss Planar 2/110 for the Hasselblad 200/2000 system
- Zeiss Planar HFT 2/110 for the Rollei 6000 system
- Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar HFT 2/80 for the Rollei 6000 system.
That's it.

These are all MF lenses, except for the Contax, which was my "moonlight", that's what Chinese call a love that never came true, but will always shine softly in the corner of my heart.
Lichtstark aber teuer.

u could also have a look at Portra 800 or Lomography CN 800 (which is just repackaged Kodak Max 800, the film which is used in all Kodak SUCs).
That will give you 2/3 stops more compared to CineStill. Yes, they are daylight balanced, but often that looks very good and adds to the mood of the scenes.

Do you mean Portra 800 pushes better than cinestill? I heard that pushing Portra 800 is not as good...

 

[koraks]

Do you mean Portra 800 pushes better than cinestill?

No, Portra 800 is simply already 2/3 stops faster than Cinestill 800, which really isn't 800ISO, but 500 ISO (in tungsten light). Behavior in push processing will not differ much from a practical viewpoint.

You should be able to get good results in the kind of setting like the restaurant with a stabilized lens, Portra 800 rated at box speed and a steady hand. You could 'push' up to one stop and still get tolerable results - that will be miles better than what you got with the Cinestill at 3200. The step from medium format to 35mm in this case will end up being a gain in quality instead of a reduction because you'll be able to use a much faster, stabilized lens.

 

[MattKing]

With respect to "pushing in good light", it is true that underexposing scenes that are more evenly lit may give better results with a push process, but that isn't because of the film or the push, it is because the subject and lighting is more forgiving of a contrast increase.

 

[Skycreeper]

No, Portra 800 is simply already 2/3 stops faster than Cinestill 800, which really isn't 800ISO, but 500 ISO (in tungsten light). Behavior in push processing will not differ much from a practical viewpoint.

So pushed to 1600, both would be similar?

 

[koraks]

So pushed to 1600, both would be similar?

No, pushed to 1600, the Portra 800 will be better.

1600 is a 1 stop push for Portra 800.
It's a 1+2/3 stop push for Cinestill 800 (which really is only 500).
The caveat is that it does make a difference what kind of light the film was shot under, since the Portra is balanced for daylight while the Cinestill 800 is a tungsten film.

 

[Film-Niko]

These are all MF lenses, except for the Contax, which was my "moonlight", that's what Chinese call a love that never came true, but will always shine softly in the corner of my heart.
Lichtstark aber teuer.

Yepp.
The Zeiss and Schneider-Kreuznach lenses for Hasselblad, Rollei and Contax are very expensive on the used market. The simple reason is
- they are all excellent quality
- they have been very expensive when they were new
- only a relative small number was produced, so high demand meets very low supply = results in high prices.

An exception is the Mamiya Sekor 1.9/80 for the Mamiya 645 system. It was produced in much higher numbers. On the used market here in Europe it can be bought for about 600-800€, dependent on the condition.
As the Mamiya 645 models are also still availabe at reasonable prices, that is at least one affordable option.

But nevertheless 35mm format remains "king" for your application, especially as you already have an excellent lens and camera for it.

Do you mean Portra 800 pushes better than cinestill? I heard that pushing Portra 800 is not as good...

Well, please look at koraks reply, he has already given the correct explanation.

A one-stop push with Portra 800 is possible. But I would not go beyond that.

 

[cerber0s]

@Skycreeper you mentioned others getting good results with pushing CS800, but I think it is difficult to judge those results. Where, and how, the light is measured makes a huge difference, and those photos may not be as pushed as they are claimed to be. You can only really go by trial and error, and draw conclusions from your own workflow.

 

[LomoSnap]

Thanks for the advice. Your images look nice and clean. Are they 6x7?

No,It was shot with Bronica SQ-A, 6x6 format
I used photoshop to cut out the holes on the edge of the IMAX 120 film, so it doesn't look 1:1 ratio.

 

[LomoSnap]

It's the same film. Cinestill just doesn't have the remjet backing. In terms of push processing, they'll behave the same.

Yes... it is well known that cs800t is the same film as 5219.
But I recently saw on the cinestill website that "Our new and improved manufacturing process now extends the shelf life of 800T, with less noticeable artifacts after expiration."
I am curious if it has changed anything or if it is just a advertising slogan.

 

[_T_]

That sounds to me as though it’s double speak for: we have a fresh batch of film.

Kodak may have made incremental updates to the formulation of the emulsion for the film they’re making for cinestill but I doubt they made those updates specifically or exclusively for cinestill.

 

[koraks]

Maybe they changed something about the backing paper on the 120 roll film.

 

[MattKing]

They may also have further tweaked the design in order to take into account the fact that the film was originally designed based on the assumption that it would make use of remjet backing.
Cinestill has now sold a lot of that film, and they and the commercial labs who've processed it and the knowledgeable customers who've used it have now had lots of opportunities to provide significant amounts of feedback. It would stand to reason that this "off-label" use of a product designed for another purpose would evolve.

 

[Skycreeper]

This time I pushed Cinestill 800T and Portra 800 to 1600. Developing time 5mins. The results are much better.
Let's start with typical Cinestill gas station shot.

Outdoor shot. It was still bright. I pushed for the sake of pushing. This confirms that pushing works best when there is lots of light. But this is like having a torch working on solar power

Indoor shot. The restaurant was well lit, so result ok.

For comparison, Portra 800 also pushed to 1600. Grain is even finer when viewed at 100%, but clearly daylight balanced, with nice warm tones.

 

[koraks]

a torch working on solar power

Haha, I like that analogy.

The main issue I see with your Cinestill shots is that the shadows are bright blue. This can be a scanning/digitization artefact, but it's also possible you have a problem with retained silver (insufficient fixing) in this film.

 

[Skycreeper]

Haha, I like that analogy.

The main issue I see with your Cinestill shots is that the shadows are bright blue. This can be a scanning/digitization artefact, but it's also possible you have a problem with retained silver (insufficient fixing) in this film.

You mean the lower part right? Might be light leak during scanning. I changed to a new film holder, allows me to scan the film border, so reduced holding coverage.

 

[koraks]

You mean the lower part right?

All of it, really. All shadows that should go towards neutral black go to saturated blue. It also happens in the daylight shot.

Might be light leak during scanning.

That's possible. See if you get better results when scanning with the hold holder. This isn't good!

 

[loccdor]

Try the Tamron 35mm, 45mm or 85mm f/1.8 image stabilized lenses. They give you 3 stops, the equivalent hand-hold-ability of an f/0.7 lens. It's a game changer for hand-held low-light film photography.

This is the 45mm handheld around 1/8 second with Portra 800 @800, no push processing required. I read that when you push 800 speed film to 3200, you only really gain 1 stop in the shadows.

 

[Film-Niko]

For comparison, Portra 800 also pushed to 1600. Grain is even finer when viewed at 100%, but clearly daylight balanced, with nice warm tones.

Thanks for posting and keeping us updated with your efforts.
From an aesthetical point of you (color and detail rendition), I like the last Portra 800 shot the most.

When CineStill 800T was introduced, I tested it a lot. Besides several QC issues, I have never really liked the color rendition of it in tungsten light, so the light it was designed for.
Therefore I stopped using it.

 

[Skycreeper]

Try the Tamron 35mm, 45mm or 85mm f/1.8 image stabilized lenses. They give you 3 stops, the equivalent hand-hold-ability of an f/0.7 lens. It's a game changer for hand-held low-light film photography.

Nice image, IS works really well for low light. That's why I only buy cameras with in-body IS for digital. Unfortunately, the pentax 645 system I am extensively using now does not have any IS.

 

[M-88]

What really bugs me in Cinestill is red halo around the light sources - a side effect of the absence of remjet. Colour balance can be corrected in post-processing, after all, but that glowy thing - it remains. Youth in my country may call it "artistic rendition", but I'd rather go with fidelity.

 

[loccdor]

What really bugs me in Cinestill is red halo around the light sources - a side effect of the absence of remjet. Colour balance can be corrected in post-processing, after all, but that glowy thing - it remains. Youth in my country may call it "artistic rendition", but I'd rather go with fidelity.

I'd wager that Cinestill 800 would be a lot less popular if it had antihalation. It's certainly the reason I got interested in it. If you don't like it, most of the other films out there don't have this effect.

 

[M-88]

I'd wager that Cinestill 800 would be a lot less popular if it had antihalation. It's certainly the reason I got interested in it. If you don't like it, most of the other films out there don't have this effect.

Mm-hmm, I know, that's why I go with Portra.