Here is an extensive test from someone being creative with CineStill recently. http://aphotocontributor.typepad.com/aphotocontributor/2014/03/index.html
New fast (800) Tungsten balanced film called Cinestill
-
A
- Thread starter ajuk
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Steinheil Orthostigmat 140mm brass lens (Germany, 1898)
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale FS: B&J Press 4x5 Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Kardan Color 8x10 Back
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Kardan Bi-System 4x5 Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FUJI GF 80mm f1.7 for GFX Camera
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,307
- Format
- Multi Format
Is there a commercial place that will develop the stuff?
The best way to "know" isn't by reading it online. It's by trying and seeing it for yourself. There is a lot of well founded hypotheticals on here, but no one ever created anything with a hypothetical. Go test, experiment, retest, modify, adjust, and create!CineStill is called 800T not because it is "low contrast" or even lower in C41, but because testing has proven that the gamma is increased in C41. It's not unlike B&W developers controlling contrast. CD3 is a low contrast (gamma) developer. Now go out and create! ;-)
CD4 will indeed increase contrast, but also it changes dye hue and dye stability. CD3 is indeed a lower contrast developing agent with particular hue and stability characteristics itself. However, C41 is run at 100F and ECN is processed at 105F. The films also contain different emulsions, couplers and layer arrangements. Thus, ECN has wider latitude as well as lower contrast, and this is all buggered up when you use C41 chemistry.
And, you better have all of the rem jet removed before you go through the C41 process, and you better have the tolerance for small particles embedded in your pix. You also have to tolerate halation or flare if you have the "wrong" scene with no rem jet.
But, if it works for you, use it!
PE
Wow everyone is freaking out about this film in one way or another! haha I'm just happy their is a choice for Tungsten film left....I never understood the point of having this massive selection of high speed daylight film but no highspeed tungsten! Like why did Kodak get rid of Ektachrome 320T, Ektachrome 160T and leave us with Ektachrome 64T until like '09-ish?! Anyways I cant wait to try this, unfortunetly my 35mm(s) are broken....Maybe I should suggest they get some 65mm 500T stock and spool it onto 120 with a paper back 
I would really enjoy that!
I would really enjoy that!
Well tungsten was always rare in neg film because you can correct the color balance easily enough in printing. And once scanning became the typical fate of transparency film, that was true for it as well only more so.
E64T was actually popular to use outdoors in daylight with suitable filtering because it gave lower contrast than daylight films, so that may have accounted for continued sales and thus the film lasting longer on the market.
E64T was actually popular to use outdoors in daylight with suitable filtering because it gave lower contrast than daylight films, so that may have accounted for continued sales and thus the film lasting longer on the market.
See the Ctein examples of Tungsten correction during printing. They are pretty poor. The speeds are so far apart that correction causes severe crossover.
PE
PE
Wow everyone is freaking out about this film in one way or another! haha I'm just happy their is a choice for Tungsten film left....I never understood the point of having this massive selection of high speed daylight film but no highspeed tungsten! Like why did Kodak get rid of Ektachrome 320T, Ektachrome 160T and leave us with Ektachrome 64T until like '09-ish?! Anyways I cant wait to try this, unfortunetly my 35mm(s) are broken....Maybe I should suggest they get some 65mm 500T stock and spool it onto 120 with a paper back
65mm isn't 120, 120 is 60mm (or like 60.546456434 or something stupid) so it would need to be re-slit, not really worth the cost.
You'd be better off using it for a 70mm back without the perforations...
Interesting - I never had a problem getting a print I liked from daylight color neg shot under tungsten, but my standards are undoubtedly a lot lower; I'm not really joking either as my ability to judge B&W density and contrast is far more developed and sensitive than my color judgement. Plus, such photos are often available light anyway such that getting "close enough" still makes for an aesthetically pleasing image, or at least for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well Roger, the examples did not use color correction filters. If you correct, then the prints look normal.
I think that Ctein devotes an entire chapter to this in "Post Exposure" which is free as a download now IIRC.
PE
I think that Ctein devotes an entire chapter to this in "Post Exposure" which is free as a download now IIRC.
PE
Yeah I have the download, will have to look up that section, thanks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just got a roll of this today. Those that have shot this film, how many stops have you pushed it successfully? The canister has a 3 stop check box but I can't possibly imagine getting 6400. At least not with traditional C41 chemistry.
why not?
I have never seen anything like this that was close to "correct". Using a correcting filter during shooting is very easy, and even then, with perfect matching, and very stable power sources, results vary, as light bulbs change temperature and color temperature very fast and over time. Correcting those shifts in prints causes a cross over pretty much right away, no matter what you do. color paper is very limited that way.
Correcting at printing would be the least best option.
Whether one uses colour correcting filters or tungstem/senstized film, the issue of matching the exposure setting and the light source would remain.
For printing that would be sufficient. For transparencies additional colour compensating filters may be used.
Whether one uses colour correcting filters or tungstem/senstized film, the issue of matching the exposure setting and the light source would remain.
For printing that would be sufficient. For transparencies additional colour compensating filters may be used.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 102
- Format
- 35mm
Hey, I like that look for night shots...Yup looks like T500 in C-41...
Maybe it's just me here, and I admit I am somewhat of a wuss when it comes to trying new things sometimes, but all I can think of is PE's warnings about using ECN-2 film and C-41 processing. When I was a teen, I was burned by the Seattle Filmworks "free film" and charging a fortune for developing scam. So between those two things, I am really hesitant to try it. It just seems too good to be true.
I have some of that "free film" too and the slides made from it! 
PE
PE
I looked up that section in Post Exposure. Ctein gives the theory explaining what I saw in practice when I used to print color - with prints from slides you can get the midtones adjusted pretty well (which was often satisfactory enough for low light work, not always but often) at the expense of crossover in the shadows and, especially, highlights, while with color negative film the problem is much less severe. The crossover is mainly seen in deep shadows. He explains that you can reduce this by overexposing and I learned back in those days to rather routinely over expose color neg a bit anyway, light permitting.
The relevant section is on pages 21-22.
For available light work such photos tend to be high contrast with deep shadows anyway and if you print them dark enough it might not be noticed. If there's plenty of light, of course just use the appropriate filter.
The relevant section is on pages 21-22.
For available light work such photos tend to be high contrast with deep shadows anyway and if you print them dark enough it might not be noticed. If there's plenty of light, of course just use the appropriate filter.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,189
- Format
- Multi Format
I haven't read the whole thread, but one question that has been raised concerns stability if processed in C-41 chemistry. I went to the web page of the company and found this in the FAQ:
Q: What is the shelf-life & archivability of CineStill Film processed in C-41 chemistry?
A: Unexposed CineStill film should be stored in the fridge if it will be shot within 6 months or frozen it will be stored longer before shooting. Processed films should remain in a cool, dark place. C-41 process uses some of the most archival chemicals available for photo processing today. There have been no scientific tests for the dye stability of ECN film cross-processed in C-41 but from our tests on film processed four years ago there is no color degradation or fogging of the magenta dye layer.
It sounds like the stability issue is not entirely settled, but it might not be too bad.
Perhaps Photo Engineer might be able to comment further.
Q: What is the shelf-life & archivability of CineStill Film processed in C-41 chemistry?
A: Unexposed CineStill film should be stored in the fridge if it will be shot within 6 months or frozen it will be stored longer before shooting. Processed films should remain in a cool, dark place. C-41 process uses some of the most archival chemicals available for photo processing today. There have been no scientific tests for the dye stability of ECN film cross-processed in C-41 but from our tests on film processed four years ago there is no color degradation or fogging of the magenta dye layer.
It sounds like the stability issue is not entirely settled, but it might not be too bad.
Perhaps Photo Engineer might be able to comment further.
In an engineering sense, there are two ways to confirm stability and lifetimes of anything, not just film.
1: the most accurate but slowest feedback-loop, is called 'Wait and see'. That's how we know Daguerrotypes etc last for 100+ years, but it's kinda hard to go back to the 1800s with results.
2: more realistically, there is 'accelerated aging'. For mechanical things like dishwashers, you can make a machine that will open and close the door hundreds and thousands of times, count how many times it was opened before it broke, then figure out how many years of 'real' use that relates to. For chemicals and film, that's kinda hard. OK, for slides you can project them and see how long it takes for them to die under light. But how do you accelerate time in an archival sleeve? With temperature? Maybe something dies after 2 weeks at 60C, does that mean it will last 2 years or 20 years at 20C? With chemicals? Say the normal atmospheric concentration of a certain chemical is 100ppm. Expose the film to 10,000ppm and it lasts 3 days, does that mean it will last 300 days at 100ppm? Maybe the film responds to chemical concentration exponentially or only above a threshold?
In short, there's a whole lot of engineering knowledge that goes into this sort of thing that I can only scratch the surface on (I'm an electronic engineer, not chemical).
Places like Kodak spent thousands of man-years and dollars researching these things, and they've probably got a whole lot of answers too (waits for PE to respond).
But places like Cinestil are not manufacturing engineers and probably don't know what chemicals are in the original film. They're only taking someone else's product and removing the remjet and do not have those resources, so they're stuck with method 1 unfortunately.
1: the most accurate but slowest feedback-loop, is called 'Wait and see'. That's how we know Daguerrotypes etc last for 100+ years, but it's kinda hard to go back to the 1800s with results.
2: more realistically, there is 'accelerated aging'. For mechanical things like dishwashers, you can make a machine that will open and close the door hundreds and thousands of times, count how many times it was opened before it broke, then figure out how many years of 'real' use that relates to. For chemicals and film, that's kinda hard. OK, for slides you can project them and see how long it takes for them to die under light. But how do you accelerate time in an archival sleeve? With temperature? Maybe something dies after 2 weeks at 60C, does that mean it will last 2 years or 20 years at 20C? With chemicals? Say the normal atmospheric concentration of a certain chemical is 100ppm. Expose the film to 10,000ppm and it lasts 3 days, does that mean it will last 300 days at 100ppm? Maybe the film responds to chemical concentration exponentially or only above a threshold?
In short, there's a whole lot of engineering knowledge that goes into this sort of thing that I can only scratch the surface on (I'm an electronic engineer, not chemical).
Places like Kodak spent thousands of man-years and dollars researching these things, and they've probably got a whole lot of answers too (waits for PE to respond).
But places like Cinestil are not manufacturing engineers and probably don't know what chemicals are in the original film. They're only taking someone else's product and removing the remjet and do not have those resources, so they're stuck with method 1 unfortunately.
At Kodak, we used 2000 and 4000 hours of SANS which is an acronym for high intensity daylight, way beyond what you can look at without good filters.
We also used hot dry air and hot wet air in cabinets.
These were used to cross compare dye sets of couplers vs developing agents to pick the best matches for stability. Of course, hue was also a major factor even before the light and heat tests.
It seems that CD3 and CD4 form dyes with different hue due to polarity. These dyes are oriented in a different fashion in the film. It also seems that they don't match up for image stability in the heat and light tests. They are not a disaster, but they don't match up. And so, you get mixed dye hue and dye stability when cross processing these two films.
Of course, a lot of problems were fixed, such as a magenta fade problem which allowed EK to eliminate the formalin in the process, and further changes made big strides in overall stability. The bottom line is that these two films were not designed for cross processing and no other film is either. What you see is what you get. What you get in the future is problematic.
PE
We also used hot dry air and hot wet air in cabinets.
These were used to cross compare dye sets of couplers vs developing agents to pick the best matches for stability. Of course, hue was also a major factor even before the light and heat tests.
It seems that CD3 and CD4 form dyes with different hue due to polarity. These dyes are oriented in a different fashion in the film. It also seems that they don't match up for image stability in the heat and light tests. They are not a disaster, but they don't match up. And so, you get mixed dye hue and dye stability when cross processing these two films.
Of course, a lot of problems were fixed, such as a magenta fade problem which allowed EK to eliminate the formalin in the process, and further changes made big strides in overall stability. The bottom line is that these two films were not designed for cross processing and no other film is either. What you see is what you get. What you get in the future is problematic.
PE
Or, translated, that means "We bought two 1000' cans and loaded them into 35mm canisters". A few 1000' cans are hardly going to diminish the worldwide supply too much, something tells me that it'll be back as another "limited edition" every year or so, to keep the prices up...
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |