Volver
Established
I got used to outdated Vision3 500t (2007, 2011 years), as Cinestill is too expensive for me. I develop myself in C41 or ECN2.
2007 year film, shot at ISO 160 (with 85b filter that has x2.2 stop factor) C41 development
2011 year film shot at ISO 400 (with 85b filter that has x2.2 stop factor), so it was underexposed a lot. ECN2 development
2007 year film, shot at ISO 160 (with 85b filter that has x2.2 stop factor) C41 development
2011 year film shot at ISO 400 (with 85b filter that has x2.2 stop factor), so it was underexposed a lot. ECN2 development
brbo
Well-known
I've been shooting outdated (2011?) Fuji Eterna 500T and Kodak Vision3 5203 (50D), developed in ECN-2 or C-41 (I like the film processed in ECN-2 better).
I tried Cinestill 800T but I didn't like the absence of anti-halation layer. I did a few side by side shots of Cinestill 800T and Portra 400 (Portra exposed @800 and developed normally). I did like the look of Cinestill (I took the test shots at night in condition where I would use the tungsten balanced film and I scanned the films on two separate days so I wouldn't subcontiously try to match the look of both films), but there was no apparent advantage (speed, grain) of Cinestill over Portra. If it was cheaper and had anti-halation layer then sure...
I do hope that Cinestill will consider selling 120 and 4x5 Vision3 5219 film with remjet still on. I'd definitely buy it.
I tried Cinestill 800T but I didn't like the absence of anti-halation layer. I did a few side by side shots of Cinestill 800T and Portra 400 (Portra exposed @800 and developed normally). I did like the look of Cinestill (I took the test shots at night in condition where I would use the tungsten balanced film and I scanned the films on two separate days so I wouldn't subcontiously try to match the look of both films), but there was no apparent advantage (speed, grain) of Cinestill over Portra. If it was cheaper and had anti-halation layer then sure...
I do hope that Cinestill will consider selling 120 and 4x5 Vision3 5219 film with remjet still on. I'd definitely buy it.
Hogarth Ferguson
Well-known
I'm pretty excited about this ins 120 as I do not shoot 35mm, and threads like this dont help. The film looks great.
robert blu
quiet photographer
@ Huss: lovely photo! But a question comes: it's a sunny day, you have an 800 iso film, an M7 (as I have) with max shutter speed 1000 and a beautiful out of focus background, which brings to a large aperture. How do you get a not overexposed photo? Did you use an ND filter? or any other filter? Just curious, thanks
robert
robert
Prest_400
Multiformat
Adding on that. I've seen that C41 can take quite a bit of overexposure and it even is desired (reduced grain, pastel tones, shadow detail). Many seem to just do that. Then, just for scanning there is more density.
I have some frames where a part is overexposed and dense, and the light piped out of the frame of the negaive! That on Portra 400, but perhaps Cinestill may get whole lotta halation...
BTW, I saw a couple of days ago a photo in the IG feed of Cinestill showing a truck and some covered cargo. They mentioned moving some machinery.
chhayanat
Established
@Huss: I am waiting to try Cinestill in the Widelux. Looks like it could be a lot of fun!
Huss
Veteran
Hey Robert! No ND fillter, just a simple process using Sunny F16. I had Paula stand so she was backlit. Then to get the correct exposure it would be IIRC f3.5 ish at 1/1000. f 3.5 focussed this closely with a 50mm lens, with the background being so far away provides the subject isolation and OOF areas.
If she was standing the other way around, it would have been f/11-f/16 at 1/1000 and harsh direct light. Who wants that for a portrait?!
robert blu
quiet photographer
Thanks for clarifying this . Of course it makes sense. I never used the Cinestill 800 In strong daylight, but after your photo I'llto try
robert
robert
Huss
Veteran
Careful with that in daylight as your camera has a limited top shutter speed and minimum aperture! 1/250 and f/11. With the Cinestill 800 sunny daylight shooting (sun at your back) would require f/11 (or f/16 depending on the result you're after) at 1/1000.
But... Cinestill has a really nice ISO 50 film, which would be perfect for daylight use in the Widelux.
tonyc
Established
For the record this film is ISO 500 ( Kodak 5219 )
Most of the examples shown, as above are overexposed
which IMO looks nice.
I imagine also the OP shots are metered on the shadows.
With even correct metering this film can be pretty grainy
I use it ( the vastly cheaper Kodak 5219 ) at ISO 400.
Also not great in sunlight as the cyan/blue channel of
the film gets heavily overexposed and you will see a big
loss of detail, as the film is tungsten balanced.
The real gems in 35mm are the 50D & and 250D films.
-TC
Most of the examples shown, as above are overexposed
which IMO looks nice.
I imagine also the OP shots are metered on the shadows.
With even correct metering this film can be pretty grainy
I use it ( the vastly cheaper Kodak 5219 ) at ISO 400.
Also not great in sunlight as the cyan/blue channel of
the film gets heavily overexposed and you will see a big
loss of detail, as the film is tungsten balanced.
The real gems in 35mm are the 50D & and 250D films.
-TC
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
A couple from 800T. The first was shot at f1.4 and 1/1000, and developed at 800iso, so significantly overexposed (no warming filter) - impressive exposure latitude.
The second was metered at box speed, also clearly shows the red halos.
M2 and Cinestill 800T by Nick Clark, on Flickr
M2 and Cinestill 800T by Nick Clark, on Flickr
The second was metered at box speed, also clearly shows the red halos.
M2 and Cinestill 800T by Nick Clark, on Flickr
M2 and Cinestill 800T by Nick Clark, on Flickr
robert blu
quiet photographer
At the end of this week I'll spend a long week end at the Como's lake (wife birthday and ourwedding anniversary). After having seen these photo I decide I'll bring my M7 with a Cinestill 800 in it! Let's see what will happen!
robert
PS. just in case of need I have a 2 stop ND filter with me...
robert
PS. just in case of need I have a 2 stop ND filter with me...
Huss
Veteran
Good idea! Otherwise in sunny shots with the sun behind you it will be 1/1000 f/11 or f/16
p.s. Happy Anniversary!
maddoc
... likes film again.
lynnb
Veteran
Thanks for all the examples - this film is sooooo nice! Love the reds. That does it, I'm loading my one and only 800T roll into the F with Nikkor-H 5cm and having some fun
GarageBoy
Well-known
I wish we could get proper ecn2 development for it
Huss
Veteran
That's what's so great about Cinestill. Remjet removed so it works with C41 process. ECN2 not needed.
GarageBoy
Well-known
Yeah, but there are long term stability issues with cross processing
znapper
Well-known
RA4 - process seems to be the closest you can get, without making ECN-2 developer yourself.
I like shooting the Vision-stock much more than the Cinestill-stock, especially the daylight-situations benefit from the anti-halation remjet layer. (better contrast, no disturbing halos around every bright object).
Here are some comparisons: http://helino-photo.blogspot.no/2016/11/kodak-vision3-cinestill.html
I like shooting the Vision-stock much more than the Cinestill-stock, especially the daylight-situations benefit from the anti-halation remjet layer. (better contrast, no disturbing halos around every bright object).
Here are some comparisons: http://helino-photo.blogspot.no/2016/11/kodak-vision3-cinestill.html
Huss
Veteran
I see zero issues with contrast in my shots.
Yes, the antihalation layer removal causes halos, but I embrace those. I use it for those halos. I think everyone who uses this film is well aware of the halos.
It defines and separates this film from every other one on the market.
If you don't like the halos, pick any other film.
p.s. I noticed your highlight blooming. The film you used is Cinestill 50. This thread is for the 800T. But the only time I have ever seen it is with your images. Perhaps the lens is at fault? Haze will do that.
Here is a really nice review of Cinestill 50 by Ray Larose:
https://www.raylarose.com/words/cinestill-50d-film-review
And another here. Warning - NSFW
http://www.andrewkaiserphoto.com/blog/2015/9/25/film-review-cinestill-50d-800t