Motion Picture Film Used As Stills. Post Results Here.

[MattKing]

So my question is, would these same inexperienced photographers be better off working with an emulsion like Portra or Ektar that makes it easier to get consistent results? Other than cost, why make it difficult for yourself?

Probably little difference - they are throwing all sorts of different sources of inconsistencies at the "wall", so changing the film probably won't make much difference in the results.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Probably little difference - they are throwing all sorts of different sources of inconsistencies at the "wall", so changing the film probably won't make much difference in the results.

All I know, every time I look at a Cinestill, the blue skies don't look like any skies I ever saw. They whole picture seem to be washed out with no contrast. I've even seen movies on cable TV that look washed out. Who edits this stuff? I think they're awful. I can't imagine David Lean of Lawrence of Arabia or The Bridge on the River Kwai liking film colors like them. The latitude of the film has encouraged photographers and cinematographers to select palettes that are blah.

 

[xtol121]

So my question is, would these same inexperienced photographers be better off working with an emulsion like Portra or Ektar that makes it easier to get consistent results? Other than cost, why make it difficult for yourself?

Put simply, yes. Anyone who is relying on an automated process for consistent results is going to have a hard time and that will be compounded by using a material that your automated process wasn't designed for. If you are capable of manipulating the process in a manner that you find acceptable then the cost savings are worth the effort in my opinion. If you can not alter the processing and you are relying on automation for consistency you will have a harder time with Vision3 films simply because you are "out of spec".

As @Sirius Glass said, "There is no control of how each one was done, no notes or information to compare. Garbage In, Garbage Out ===> GIGO"

 

[Sirius Glass]

All I know, every time I look at a Cinestill, the blue skies don't look like any skies I ever saw. They whole picture seem to be washed out with no contrast. I've even seen movies on cable TV that look washed out. Who edits this stuff? I think they're awful. I can't imagine David Lean of Lawrence of Arabia or The Bridge on the River Kwai liking film colors like them. The latitude of the film has encouraged photographers and cinematographers to select palettes that are blah.

If the photographer had used the light meter correctly, the sky would not be washed out. They used the light reading covering the view of the photograph instead of taking the light reading the subject without the sky and then reaiming for the photograph, something I learned the first summer I started taking slides. They are making rookie mistakes that real photographers learn quickly to grow out of. Hence they are taking snapshots not photographs. You should stop wasting your time looking a lousy snapshots on the internet and spend your time looking as the work of knowledgeable photographers. If all you are looking at is the internet trash, how will you ever learn so that you can improve? Would you rather waste your time thrashing around or spend your time learning and improving?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If the photographer had used the light meter correctly, the sky would not be washed out. They used the light reading covering the view of the photograph instead of taking the light reading the subject without the sky and then reaiming for the photograph, something I learned the first summer I started taking slides. They are making rookie mistakes that real photographers learn quickly to grow out of. Hence they are taking snapshots not photographs. You should stop wasting your time looking a lousy snapshots on the internet and spend your time looking as the work of knowledgeable photographers. If all you are looking at is the internet trash, how will you ever learn so that you can improve? Would you rather waste your time thrashing around or spend your time learning and improving?

I've been thrashing around all my life. Why should I stop now?

 

[xtol121]

Attached are multiple images over multiple looks with different lighting all shot on 500T and I believe they are consistent enough for most uses. If absolute consistency was required it would not be any harder to manipulate these than a set of standard portra negatives. But that is not because of the film, it is because they were processed and scanned in a consistent manor without any automatic adjustments (from metering, to processing, to scanning, to inversion)

 

[koraks]

These are nice, @xtol121.

The latitude of the film has encouraged photographers and cinematographers to select palettes that are blah.

What a phenomenal load of codswallop.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Attached are multiple images over multiple looks with different lighting all shot on 500T and I believe they are consistent enough for most uses. If absolute consistency was required it would not be any harder to manipulate these than a set of standard portra negatives. But that is not because of the film, it is because they were processed and scanned in a consistent manor without any automatic adjustments (from metering, to processing, to scanning, to inversion)

Those colors seem natural to me. They're not washed out. The lighting on the first and fourth seem a little hot on her face. But that appears to be from the strobe not from editing, per se. Well done.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

These are nice, @xtol121.



What a phenomenal load of codswallop.

I had to look up that word. It's not used in America. It;s OK. I'm not offended. I guess we just have different tastes.

 

[koraks]

I guess we just have different tastes.

I'm not commenting on what you find a preferable palette. I don't care about that. My comment is about your lack of understanding of how color negative film works. In itself, that's OK, but if several people come along, with experience with the material, to point out the critical flaws in your thinking, you just dig in. It's ridiculous. I'm outta here.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've been thrashing around all my life. Why should I stop now?

Because if you stop now you would be the best you could be.

 

[Sirius Glass]

These are nice, @xtol121.



What a phenomenal load of codswallop.

Nice use of the English language.

 

[Cholentpot]

Nice use of the English language.

Forsooth!

In a round about way Alan makes a point. The film is really being used in a snapshot style anyhow. I'd venture to say that snapshots are the main focus of the majority of 'new' film shooters these days.

I see sky. This is 50D, metered by eyeball mk1.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Forsooth!

In a round about way Alan makes a point. The film is really being used in a snapshot style anyhow. I'd venture to say that snapshots are the main focus of the majority of 'new' film shooters these days.

I see sky. This is 50D, metered by eyeball mk1.

But I and most others here take photographs. Snapshots are what unknowledgeable people take.

 

[brbo]

I guess 'considerable' is a subjective term. I'd call it 'considerable' if the objective is to make a consistent series, which is the use case Alan proposed. But like you said, given the lighting conditions, consistency was limited to begin with, and not your objective, I take it.

It's still definitely much more consistent than a slide film would be exposed that way.

Thanks for your explanation about the with/without remjet. I don't see a good explanation for such a difference on the basis of the film itself, so I suspect it has something to do with the specific conditions during your processing.

I know that you don't care much for what Cinestill has to say on film and processing, but I also remember reading something in the line of "if you don't remove remjet before developing you will get slightly less developed negative compared to one that went through remjet removal bath".

I can't find where I read that. I don't think it was not here, although it does mention something along the same line:

Although there is no remjet adhesive layer to contaminate and exhaust the chemicals, skipping the additional accelerant pre-bath will under-develop the film when only using the ECN-2 developer.

 

[Cholentpot]

But I and most others here take photographs. Snapshots are what unknowledgeable people take.

Why not both? And who said that snapshots are unworthy or unknowledgeable? That's a bit of a high take over there.

 

[MattKing]

But I and most others here take photographs. Snapshots are what unknowledgeable people take.

There have been far, far, far more high quality photographs taken by people whose goals are to take mere "snapshots" than all the photographs ever taken by people with expensive equipment and large amounts of technical knowledge and experience and serious intent.
Most people take photographs in order to enjoy them, and many of them get and share much joy from them.

 

[Cholentpot]

There have been far, far, far more high quality photographs taken by people whose goals are to take mere "snapshots" than all the photographs ever taken by people with expensive equipment and large amounts of technical knowledge and experience and serious intent.
Most people take photographs in order to enjoy them, and many of them get and share much joy from them.

Mr. Zapruder agrees.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm not commenting on what you find a preferable palette. I don't care about that. My comment is about your lack of understanding of how color negative film works. In itself, that's OK, but if several people come along, with experience with the material, to point out the critical flaws in your thinking, you just dig in. It's ridiculous. I'm outta here.

Most of the people have little experience with Cinestill so their advice is weak. I trust my eyes. XTOL's pictures were well done. So I trust what he says. Others not so much. I ask tough questions. I don't take things at face value.. If it doesn;t make sense to me, I;ll press.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Forsooth!

In a round about way Alan makes a point. The film is really being used in a snapshot style anyhow. I'd venture to say that snapshots are the main focus of the majority of 'new' film shooters these days.

I see sky. This is 50D, metered by eyeball mk1.

That's a nice picture but I must have something with blue skies. Why does the shades vary from left to right? They don't seem natural.

 

[Cholentpot]

That's a nice picture but I must have something with blue skies. Why does the shades vary from left to right? They don't seem natural.

Uneven development, C-41 when I should have used ECN-II, possible light leak, film is expired possibly a decade old, chemistry was at roll 30ish for a kit that is rated for 8 rolls, temps are wonky as my sous-vide's thermostat reads wrong, the meter is non functioning in my OM-1 and it needs new light seals.

Pick one. Or all.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Why does the shades vary from left to right?

The color of the sky also varies with position relative to the sun...

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's a nice picture but I must have something with blue skies. Why does the shades vary from left to right? They don't seem natural.

The color of the sky also varies with position relative to the sun...

Take a very wide angle lens such as 18mm to 24mm and aim it at the sky and as @Donald Qualls stated it varies right to left or left to right.

 

[radialMelt]

If you are going to cross process the film in C-41 chemistry you must adjust time and temperature to account for the mismatch dye/color developers

Could you provide some details on how you alter the prescribed C41 process when processing Vision3 film? Second question, what is your process for removing the remjet? I am about to embark on a similar endeavour.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The color of the sky also varies with position relative to the sun...

Take a very wide angle lens such as 18mm to 24mm and aim it at the sky and as @Donald Qualls stated it varies right to left or left to right.

That's not a wide angle shot. In any case, the colors are not normal and a sky never looks like that. The photographer acknowledged his process was messed up and/or film was expired.