Motion Picture Film Used As Stills. Post Results Here.

[koraks]

When shooting an essay of a number of photos with Cinestill, is it difficult to keep the final colors consistent for all photos so it looks like a set?

Yeah of course. It's just as consistent as any other professional color negative film. It's used for movie productions. They wouldn't like colors going everywhere across a stack of 1000ft rolls, let alone within a fraction of that length.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yeah of course. It's just as consistent as any other professional color negative film. It's used for movie productions. They wouldn't like colors going everywhere across a stack of 1000ft rolls, let alone within a fraction of that length.

Woiuldn;t it be harder than let;s say Ektar 100 negative film? What about chromes like let;s say Ektachrome 100?

 

[koraks]

No. Why on earth would it? There's nothing about cine film that makes it inherently variable or something. Far from it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No. Why on earth would it? There's nothing about cine film that makes it inherently variable or something. Far from it.

Many of the Cinestill photos I've seen on the web have what I would call unnatural coloring. Also, they seem all over the place from photographer to photographer and photo to photo even when from the same photographer. Wouldn't the need for grading add more levels of coloring and complexity than a film like Portra? Isn't Cinestill film very neutral and you add in colors afterwards making it harder to scan and edit? It seems that the ability it gives to do so much just makes it harder to do for the average editor. Maybe the Hollywood pro editors are just more experienced.

 

[koraks]

The variability you see is indeed partly artistic choice on behalf of individual photographers and partly lack of proficiency in scanning color negative film. A small portion of the variability you see will furthermore be caused by processing choices that pose additional challenges (e.g. cross processing in C41 developer).

If you process this film consistently, it's no more difficult to get consistent results than with any other color negative film.

Btw, don't confuse colors that look unnatural (to you) with consistency problems. They're different things entirely.

And indeed, color rendition is very subjective and flexible. This is true for all forms of color photography with the exception of E6. Personal choices always greatly influence what comes out.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The variability you see is indeed partly artistic choice on behalf of individual photographers and partly lack of proficiency in scanning color negative film. A small portion of the variability you see will furthermore be caused by processing choices that pose additional challenges (e.g. cross processing in C41 developer).

If you process this film consistently, it's no more difficult to get consistent results than with any other color negative film.

Btw, don't confuse colors that look unnatural (to you) with consistency problems. They're different things entirely.

And indeed, color rendition is very subjective and flexible. This is true for all forms of color photography with the exception of E6. Personal choices always greatly influence what comes out.

Can an average photographer get consistent results from one Cinestill photo to the next? It just seems from samples I've seen the film is beyond most photographers to edit properly and consistently. Maye they're better off using chromes or a negative type film with a "fixed" color palette.

 

[brbo]

Can an average photographer get consistent results from one Cinestill photo to the next?

Yes.

 

[koraks]

Can an average photographer get consistent results from one Cinestill photo to the next?

If they can from let's say Portra or Gold, then yes. If they struggle with those films as well, then no. It's the same thing in terms of consistency.

It just seems from samples I've seen the film is beyond most photographers to edit properly and consistently.

The problem with this conclusion is that it ignores the many other factors that greatly influence what you see online, such as the ones I mentioned before.

Maye they're better off using chromes or a negative type film with a "fixed" color palette.

What people are 'better off' with depends very much on what their requirements are.
There's nothing more, or less 'fixed' about the color palette of any of the Vision 3 cine films than that of any other color negative material.

I get a feeling that you're struggling with the meaning of consistency. In my book, consistency means that you get the same result if you do the same things with the same materials. I.e., repeatability. Any color negative film that Kodak produces is highly consistent. In fact, I don't think there have been 'inconsistent' color films in existence for the best part of a century.

If you mean that people struggle with getting the color balance how they want it when scanning color negative film, then yes, that's certainly an issue. There are literally hundreds of threads on this forum about the topic. It's an inherent problem with handling color negative films, especially when scanning, because there's no absolute color reference (i.e. no 'fixed palette'). The problem is not any different when shooting e.g. Vision3.

The only thing that gets a little more challenging with Vision 3 /Cine films is optical/wet printing, because the gamma of properly developed ECN2 film is lower than of C41 film, and the color balance is different. Hence, you need to overdevelop a little and work with filter settings that feel weird (if you're used to enlarging C41). It's still not a consistency problem, though.

 

[blee1996]

I agree with @koraks that cine film is no better and no worse than C41 color negative film in terms of color consistency. Assume you have

1) Consistent ECN-2 development (chemistry freshness, temperature, time, agitation/rotation)
2) Consistent scanning (e.g. with Silverfast Ai and custom profile for your particular emulsion)

Then the results should be consistent.

In my experience, the most variation happens when I set my scanner to auto.

In addition, you can always include a few shots of the x-rite color checker and grey card targets just to be on the safe side in post.

 

[btaylor]

The Vision 3 films are extremely consistent in the way they record colors. This is extremely important for the purpose for which they were designed- motion picture production. Feature productions would purchase 60,000 feet from a single batch to guarantee consistency. Camera original films have always been low contrast, first because every time there was a copy made the contrast increased (inter negatives, prints). Later, Vision 3 films were designed for scanning to digital, again resulting in a low contrast original to provide the greatest flexibility in post. The Vision 3 films are like an opposite to ‘chrome films- reversal color films have their look baked into them, the V3 films allow maximum flexibility in post production. So it doesn’t surprise me final results are all over the place, that flexibility is built into the film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The Vision 3 films are extremely consistent in the way they record colors. This is extremely important for the purpose for which they were designed- motion picture production. Feature productions would purchase 60,000 feet from a single batch to guarantee consistency. Camera original films have always been low contrast, first because every time there was a copy made the contrast increased (inter negatives, prints). Later, Vision 3 films were designed for scanning to digital, again resulting in a low contrast original to provide the greatest flexibility in post. The Vision 3 films are like an opposite to ‘chrome films- reversal color films have their look baked into them, the V3 films allow maximum flexibility in post production. So it doesn’t surprise me final results are all over the place, that flexibility is built into the film.

Maybe I'm confusing lack of consistency among many photographers as each presents different color results. It;s not as noticeable with standard still films as let's say Ektar or Portra. But I wonder if consistency is easy with Cinestill to get if you're doing a photo essay? Do you apply the same edits to all the files? How do you handle grading to assure consistency?

 

[MattKing]

One behavior that may be leading to the impression of inconsistency is due to the fact that these films are not optimized for still use with C41 processed film - they are optimized for remjet included, ECN-2 processed cine use.
Which means that any scanning software presets or lab profiles that are designed for common types of still film won't be set up correctly or optimized for these films.
If they are scanned in an automated/high volume environment, either different presets or profiles, or potentially slow and expensive custom work are needed for consistent results.

 

[koraks]

But I wonder if consistency is easy with Cinestill to get if you're doing a photo essay?

The question has been answered several times. You're evidently stuck in some kind of loop. Good luck with that; I can't help you.

 

[Cholentpot]

Maybe I'm confusing lack of consistency among many photographers as each presents different color results. It;s not as noticeable with standard still films as let's say Ektar or Portra. But I wonder if consistency is easy with Cinestill to get if you're doing a photo essay? Do you apply the same edits to all the files? How do you handle grading to assure consistency?

I don't think it matters. The primary method of scanning that most people shooting this film is home scanning of some sort. Commercial scanners made in the 90's and 00's were not calibrated for this kind of film so the look will be all over the place. The 'Portra' look or the 'Gold' look or whatever is just a preprogrammed setting in the scanner anyhow.

Someone who is going to shoot an essay in 2023 on film will probably embrace the color shifts as opposed to trying to get them to match. You want matching color across the board no issue? There's digital for that.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

One behavior that may be leading to the impression of inconsistency is due to the fact that these films are not optimized for still use with C41 processed film - they are optimized for remjet included, ECN-2 processed cine use.
Which means that any scanning software presets or lab profiles that are designed for common types of still film won't be set up correctly or optimized for these films.
If they are scanned in an automated/high volume environment, either different presets or profiles, or potentially slow and expensive custom work are needed for consistent results.

Maybe that's why I see results all over the place on the web, most of it bad. Hollywood pros set up a production line that repeats itself to get the same color results so the final looks like it's the same movie.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The question has been answered several times. You're evidently stuck in some kind of loop. Good luck with that; I can't help you.

Thank you for your input.

 

[xtol121]

There is no difference between shooting Vision3 films and shooting traditional color negative print films. 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, and you have to deal with remjet. In my experience processing cinestill film without the remjet needs adjustment as well, just not as much traditional Vision3. This is coming from someone who RA-4 prints in the darkroom. Scanning and allowing a program to do auto adjustments is always going to lead to inconsistency in the same sense that using a camera in automatic mode will not result in consistent professional results. Anyone who has photographed a green wall and tried to get a green scan understands you will have to make adjustments because the software wanted that wall to be grey. The cinestill consistency issue some people are seeing is because they’re cross processed without adjustment and then scanned with an automatic setting, and then adjusted by hand by people who might not have experience with what the film should actually look like. I’ve attached a a few frames from multiple rolls of 500T (3 rolls I believe) that have been cross processed C-41 (time/temp corrected) and then camera scanned and inverted with a single manual preset. I have no doubt that an RA-4 print would look nearly identical (but better in subtle ways because optical prints are just like that )

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe that's why I see results all over the place on the web, most of it bad. Hollywood pros set up a production line that repeats itself to get the same color results so the final looks like it's the same movie.

There is your answer. There is no control of how each one was done, no notes or information to compare. Garbage In, Garbage Out ===> GIGO

 

[koraks]

I’ve attached a a few frames from multiple rolls of 500T (3 rolls I believe) that have been cross processed C-41 (time/temp corrected) and then camera scanned and inverted with a single manual preset.

As a demonstration of consistency, I'm not sure if this example is all that fortunate, since there's considerable variation in both exposure and color rendition. No doubt this is largely due to real-world differences in the quality of the light, though.

I'm puzzled about your remark that Vision3 without remjet would require a different development approach than with remjet. Any clues as to where such a difference would come from - and how solid your findings are in the first place? I admit to being quite skeptical of this. I also admit to having shot mostly Vision3 (particularly 50D and 250D) and not a lot of Cinestill, and the Cinestill 500T I did shoot, I shot under tungsten light. And I only processed these films in C41 for a couple of tests that demonstrated at least for me that there is a penalty in terms of crossover that I could not fix in RA4 printing.

 

[xtol121]

As a demonstration of consistency, I'm not sure if this example is all that fortunate, since there's considerable variation in both exposure and color rendition. No doubt this is largely due to real-world differences in the quality of the light, though.

I'm puzzled about your remark that Vision3 without remjet would require a different development approach than with remjet. Any clues as to where such a difference would come from - and how solid your findings are in the first place? I admit to being quite skeptical of this. I also admit to having shot mostly Vision3 (particularly 50D and 250D) and not a lot of Cinestill, and the Cinestill 500T I did shoot, I shot under tungsten light. And I only processed these films in C41 for a couple of tests that demonstrated at least for me that there is a penalty in terms of crossover that I could not fix in RA4 printing.

Those photos were shot over 2 hours where clouds were in and out, but I did not change camera exposure at all (1/60 f16). That puts them about 2 stops over exposed in full sunlight so you do get a bit of the pastel higher values which is typical of overexposed color negative film. Scan adjustments were just a simple +/- exposure adjust and a quick +/- in color balance. This was just a quick screenshot I had laying around that illustrated you can do series and expect consistent results. I wouldn't call it considerable variation.

My note about cinestill being a different correction comes from limited experience (I've shot 3 rolls of their 800 speed film). I processed those 3 rolls with normal C-41 film at normal C-41 times/temp and they came out a little funky with muddy red/magenta shadows and slightly cyan/green highlights. I have also processed 500T at normal C-41 times/temps and they exhibit an even stronger red/magenta shadow and cyan/green highlights. That leads me to believe Cinestill without the remjet doesn't need as strong of a time/temp correction as regular Vision3. Could possibly be a one off observation and maybe I shouldn't mention it without testing it further, but I do not plan on spending $18 on their film when I can shoot the same thing with remjet for $1.20 so it's kind of a moot point for me.

 

[koraks]

I wouldn't call it considerable variation.

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, I'm sure the contrast behavior of the Cinestill stuff is different from the Vision stock with remjet.

 

[koraks]

FWIW, I'm sure the contrast behavior of the Cinestill stuff is different from the Vision stock with remjet.

Apart from the halation effects that Cinestill will be prone to? I find that hard to believe, as it would imply that Kodak coats a different set of emulsions for Cinestill. Sounds hella expensive to do it that way.

 

[MattKing]

Apart from the halation effects that Cinestill will be prone to? I find that hard to believe, as it would imply that Kodak coats a different set of emulsions for Cinestill. Sounds hella expensive to do it that way.

No - because of the difference in anti-halation, and the resulting light piping that most likely accompanies that.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There is no difference between shooting Vision3 films and shooting traditional color negative print films. 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, and you have to deal with remjet. In my experience processing cinestill film without the remjet needs adjustment as well, just not as much traditional Vision3. This is coming from someone who RA-4 prints in the darkroom. Scanning and allowing a program to do auto adjustments is always going to lead to inconsistency in the same sense that using a camera in automatic mode will not result in consistent professional results. Anyone who has photographed a green wall and tried to get a green scan understands you will have to make adjustments because the software wanted that wall to be grey. The cinestill consistency issue some people are seeing is because they’re cross processed without adjustment and then scanned with an automatic setting, and then adjusted by hand by people who might not have experience with what the film should actually look like. I’ve attached a a few frames from multiple rolls of 500T (3 rolls I believe) that have been cross processed C-41 (time/temp corrected) and then camera scanned and inverted with a single manual preset. I have no doubt that an RA-4 print would look nearly identical (but better in subtle ways because optical prints are just like that )

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?