Any bright ideas how did this happen? Cinestill 800 development question.

[Guy Pinhas]

This was my first roll of color film that I shot and developed. In the same tanks was another roll of film, can't remember brand, but that one came out pretty good. Development wise. Content, I take the fifth 🙂 The rest of my color developing has been pretty much spot on and I find color developing just as easy as B&W.

I mailed Cinestill as it was one of their film, Cinestill 800, and they were just as mystified. The developer was at the right temp, the film was not subjected to any kind of extreme temperature nor was it expired. Most of the roll suffered the same fate that but this image is hardcore. Also, the color of the of the film doesn't quite match what I would expect from Cinestill 800. At least from what I've seen online.

It was shot on a Canon Demi EE17 that was given to me and I know the camera itself was/is working fine as I have shot with it before and since and results were as they should.
Don't get me wrong, I am not bummed out at all as I like accidents and the roll was a try out. I am actually curious on how this happened so I can make sure that it happens again if I want to.
The blur/movement unfocused element is fine as it was shot as a low shutter speed. I am mainly curious about the streaks

Any bright ideas?

Thanks for taking the time folks!

Guy.


[url=https://flic.kr/p/2k1gr98]Happy accidental developing by Guy Pinhas, on Flickr[/URL]

 

[Guy Pinhas]

Just bumping this 🙂

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The last set of rollers were soaked with blix.
Phil Forrest

 

[Guy Pinhas]

Thanks Phil but this roll was in with two others and those worked out just fine. If I made a mistake wouldn't all three rolls be damaged?

 

[Bill Clark]

What did you use (tank) for developing the film? Adequate agitation? You said with other rolls, is this roll on top or bottom?

I use Paterson tanks and they work fine for me.

I’m using Arista C41 kit from Freestyle.

Only develop black and white film anymore. Ilfords XP2 Plus.

Color all digital for me.

 

[Guy Pinhas]

Metal tank and Hewes reels. I can't remember where that specific reel was but good agitation as was required per the Cinestill developer manual. Been developing B&W for the past ten years so I got that whole developing thing pretty much under control hence me asking the forum what it could be. Mystery indeed. I know that Cinestill pretty much takes Eastman and removes the remjet. Could it be that this roll still had remjet and that maybe have cause the weird reaction?

What did you use (tank) for developing the film? Adequate agitation? You said with other rolls, is this roll on top or bottom?

I use Paterson tanks and they work fine for me.

I’m using Arista C41 kit from Freestyle.

Only develop black and white film anymore. Ilfords XP2 Plus.

Color all digital for me.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Remjet doesn't really react with anything, as it's just carbon black suspended in a layer that takes a weak base, like borax, to break down. Since you processed it yourself, that looks like where a loop in the spiral touched the next ring down and didn't get fully processed. It actually looks just like c41 blix though, and since you're using motion picture film, could be one of your blix baths. Either that, or perhaps they botched it when removing the remjet and you got some residue on the emulsion side before you even shot the film. Weird though.

Phil Forrest

 

[loquax ludens]

In some ways, it's an interesting photo.

I haven't tried Cinestill film or processing. All my color negative developing has been Kodak C41 process in a Jobo CPP-2. I've never seen anything like that. I'm not sure that residual Blix would leave a Blix-colored stain.

I don't think remjet will cause that effect either. I processed K-40 Super 8 film as B&W reversal once. I removed the remjet AFTER processing. I don't know about the Cinestill process, but the B&W reversal process using D-94 and R-9 bleach does not remove it. It's clearly visible after processing. It takes a long soak in Borax bath followed by multiple scrubbing passes with a soft sponge to remove it. So I suspect if there were left over remjet on the Cinestill film, it would still be there after processing, and you would have no trouble seeing it.


Since you said other rolls in the same tank developed without exhibiting this odd effect, I wonder if it is possible that the film might not have been properly spooled on the developing reel, allowing film to touch film.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Best result I ever seen from cinefilm. On right time and at right place, it will blow it. Instafallitios.



It is hand pre-processed film. Some one left sweat and blood on it. Darkroom mystery. Lomography will make big buck if they could replicate it.

 

[Guy Pinhas]

That's what I'm thinking, one roll that got mis-processed. And indeed, good call on the Lomo thing hahahahahahahahaha!

It is hand pre-processed film. Some one left sweat and blood on it. Darkroom mystery. Lomography will make big buck if they could replicate it.

 

[Guy Pinhas]

Your guess is as good as mine however I am pretty sure everything was spooled right. I am merely human so mistakes are deffo possible.

It was my first color film processing so I really followed the instructions to the letter. I also made sure to process C41 films first and then do cross processing and then dump the developer/blix. I wait until I have give or take 20 rolls and then process them all within a week, C41 first and cross processing afterwards as to avoid any possible contamination.

In some ways, it's an interesting photo.

I haven't tried Cinestill film or processing. All my color negative developing has been Kodak C41 process in a Jobo CPP-2. I've never seen anything like that. I'm not sure that residual Blix would leave a Blix-colored stain.

I don't think remjet will cause that effect either. I processed K-40 Super 8 film as B&W reversal once. I removed the remjet AFTER processing. I don't know about the Cinestill process, but the B&W reversal process using D-94 and R-9 bleach does not remove it. It's clearly visible after processing. It takes a long soak in Borax bath followed by multiple scrubbing passes with a soft sponge to remove it. So I suspect if there were left over remjet on the Cinestill film, it would still be there after processing, and you would have no trouble seeing it.


Since you said other rolls in the same tank developed without exhibiting this odd effect, I wonder if it is possible that the film might not have been properly spooled on the developing reel, allowing film to touch film.

 

[JoeV]

Was this frame near the beginning or end of the roll? If so, that would reinforce the theory of being miss-loaded.

 

[Guy Pinhas]

Check image attached. Now I love the image and I love the imperfections and of course the color which reminds me of Vermeer. But, if you look you can see some weird streaks. This image was somewhere in the first half of the roll while the image posted earlier was towards in the other half.

 

[Jamie123]

Was it a new roll of Cinestill or was it an older one? I've had very similar effects on Cinestill film in the past that was developed at a pro lab in dip&dunk so it was certainly not developing error. And the lab confirmed that they see/saw a lot of quality issues with Cinestill, especially with the earlier batches. Apparently it's gotten better over time but it's still a problem. My best bet is that it's got something to do with their process for removing the remjet layer.

Don't worry about your processing, you probably did everything right. It's the film. If I were you I'd just not use Cinestill anymore. Since you're processing the film yourself anyways, you're better off just loading your own Vision3 film in canisters and processing it in Ecn2.

 

[Guy Pinhas]

A-ha! When I discussed the issue with Cinestill, the CS rep asked me if I knew if the film was expired or how old it was. I didn't know the answer to the question as I didn't keep the packaging but I assumed (we know what that does) that since I bought it from a reputable dealer it would still have a relatively long shelf life. Basically there is a strong possibility that the film doesn't age well.

Now my question is about the remjet layer: My understanding from reading online is that remjet can simply be removed simply water. Or does it take a chemical solution to remove that? if so, maybe the solution wasn't properly spooled and the remnants that stuck to the film affected the developing process?

Thanks everyone for chiming in!

Was it a new roll of Cinestill or was it an older one? I've had very similar effects on Cinestill film in the past that was developed at a pro lab in dip&dunk so it was certainly not developing error. And the lab confirmed that they see/saw a lot of quality issues with Cinestill, especially with the earlier batches. Apparently it's gotten better over time but it's still a problem. My best bet is that it's got something to do with their process for removing the remjet layer.

Don't worry about your processing, you probably did everything right. It's the film. If I were you I'd just not use Cinestill anymore. Since you're processing the film yourself anyways, you're better off just loading your own Vision3 film in canisters and processing it in Ecn2.

 

[retinax]

Fwiw, the pattern to me looks like one of those that happen when liquid gets trapped between two parallel smooth surfaces that are then taken apart again. My guess is that during some processing step, the film touched itself and we all know that depletes all the mojo 😛

 

[Mackinaw]

.....Now my question is about the remjet layer: My understanding from reading online is that remjet can simply be removed simply water. Or does it take a chemical solution to remove that?.....

See post #8 in this thread.

Jim B.

 

[Jamie123]

A-ha! When I discussed the issue with Cinestill, the CS rep asked me if I knew if the film was expired or how old it was. I didn't know the answer to the question as I didn't keep the packaging but I assumed (we know what that does) that since I bought it from a reputable dealer it would still have a relatively long shelf life. Basically there is a strong possibility that the film doesn't age well.

Now my question is about the remjet layer: My understanding from reading online is that remjet can simply be removed simply water. Or does it take a chemical solution to remove that? if so, maybe the solution wasn't properly spooled and the remnants that stuck to the film affected the developing process?

Thanks everyone for chiming in!

If you look at this post on Cinestill's page you can see that they have an example of the issue you're showing and they say it's due to Cinestill's short shelf life (6 months): https://cinestillfilm.com/blogs/news/film-s-worst-enemies-7-common-film-issues

I realized that I had an old unexposed roll of Cinestill 800 lying around and since I wasn't going to shoot it anyways, I pulled it out of the cartridge and examined it. You can actually see those patterns on the emulsion itself. It doesn't look like remjet but more like faint chemical drying marks. Mostly around the sprocket holes but sometimes also on other parts of the roll. Like I said, I think it's probably got to do with the process they use to remove the remjet layer.

 

[Guy Pinhas]

Jaime, I can't thank you enough! I can't believe the rep couldn't figure it out. I actually sent him the image. Anyways, now I know that I either use it immediately or get ready to get surprises!

And of course, thanks to the rest of you who kept chiming in. Muchas gracias!

If you look at this post on Cinestill's page you can see that they have an example of the issue you're showing and they say it's due to Cinestill's short shelf life (6 months): https://cinestillfilm.com/blogs/news/film-s-worst-enemies-7-common-film-issues

I realized that I had an old unexposed roll of Cinestill 800 lying around and since I wasn't going to shoot it anyways, I pulled it out of the cartridge and examined it. You can actually see those patterns on the emulsion itself. It doesn't look like remjet but more like faint chemical drying marks. Mostly around the sprocket holes but sometimes also on other parts of the roll. Like I said, I think it's probably got to do with the process they use to remove the remjet layer.

 

[Jamie123]

Jaime, I can't thank you enough! I can't believe the rep couldn't figure it out. I actually sent him the image. Anyways, now I know that I either use it immediately or get ready to get surprises!

And of course, thanks to the rest of you who kept chiming in. Muchas gracias!

I almost have to doubt the rep's honesty if he said he couldn't figure out. Like I said, the lab I use says they see this a lot with Cinestill film. They're quite annoyed by it since clients will often assume it's a processing error.

I appreciate Cinestill's efforts in regards to film photography but personally I don't consider their film products worthwhile. Even if everything else was perfect, the halation issue is enough to put me off. If you want to shoot cine film you're better off rolling and developing it yourself or use one of the companies that offer true ECN2 developing. I've never tried it myself, since I have a local cine-film lab that offers the same service but have you considered silbersalz35.com? They offer true cinefilm including processing and scanning at €60 for 4 rolls which isn't a bad price at all.