James Evidon
Established
This image was taken using Vision 250D and was commercially processed. I'll to identify the lab except to say it is in the U.S. and assured me that they would process including Remjet removal. After scanning, I closely examined both sides of the film and them carefully cleaned and wiped the "shiny side" to make sure than no Remjet was present. This was my first roll of 35mm Vision 3 and I am hesitant to shoot any remaining rolls given the expense for such a disappointing result. I would appreciate any comments whether negative or (doubtfully) positive. The image was resized and converted to jpg in order to attach it. No other post processing was done. Scanning was done @ 3600 dpi. The DVD done by the lab shows the identical image.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
My understanding is cinema film is typically much grainier than stills film because projected at 24 frames per second the grain isn’t noticeable.
Nitroplait
Well-known
It’s cine negative film intended for movie production and color grading etc. You are using the wrong film for stills if you are not embracing that.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Do you know what chemistry the lab used? Eastman motion picture films are meant to be processed using ECN-2 chemistry. You can process in C-41, but the result will look a bit different than ECN-2 processed film.
That being said, I regularly shoot Cinestill 50D (Vision3 50D) and home process in C-41 chemicals. The results are excellent.
Jim B.
That being said, I regularly shoot Cinestill 50D (Vision3 50D) and home process in C-41 chemicals. The results are excellent.
Jim B.
tlloydau
Member
That is not representative of the quality I'd expect from Eastman 250D. Are you sure the film is fresh, hasn't gone through the airport scanners, or other possible classic color negative issues? Do the negatives look similar in density to your usual C41 negative or do they look thin? Or perhaps do they look overall dark like the remjet hasn't been fully removed? It's hard to tell what's gone wrong here from just the scan alone.
Here's an example of 250D processed at home in ECN2 chemistry as an example of what is possible. There is certainly grain but not to the extent of your example. For me the trouble with working with ECN2 film is properly getting all the remjet removed from the entire film.
Here's an example of 250D processed at home in ECN2 chemistry as an example of what is possible. There is certainly grain but not to the extent of your example. For me the trouble with working with ECN2 film is properly getting all the remjet removed from the entire film.
Many people use Vision 3 for stills, the problem here is not due to film choice.
I'd recommend shooting a second test roll (being especially meticulous about exposure) and sending it to a different (quality) ECN lab.
James Evidon
Established
James Evidon
Established
Thanks to you all for your thoughtful responses. Its on my list is to go back to the lab I used to use. This particular lab, while highly regarded by some has messed up on some of my orders before. There is a lab called Dexter which gave me a promising response to some of my questions. I'll use them next. As for Remjet residue, I already checked for that and gave the glossy side a thorough cleaning and wipe down, so I don't think that is a problem here. As some of you commented, the negatives were quite thin, leading me to believe that ISO 250 is probably too high. So I'll probably shoot another roll and bracket between ISO 125 and 250. IMO, even the images shown in various forums can't hold a candle to Portra or Ektar, but the price of Vision is so tempting and post processing can do the rest providing the out of camera negs. are decent, which these particular ones were not so. Since I am experimenting, I just ordered some rolls from Film Washi which claims color negs close to old Agfacolor and transparencies close to Ektachrome, two of my all time favorites. I'll be trying them next.
Keep us posted on your results. I have some bulk 250D I will be shooting soon and want a consistent and reliable lab!
radialmelt
Newbie
I concur with @tlloydau - this is definitely not representative of 250D. I shoot it regularly and process in C41 and the results are nothing like what you've shown. Your example frame almost looks like it was extremely underexposed at the time of capture and "recovered" in scanning. Definitely shoot some more, recording your exposure settings, and try out another lab.
James Evidon
Established
I rescanned using Silverfast 9 instead of the software that comes with the scanner. Still not a winner, but much better. It also cleaned up nicely with Topaz and Photoshop. But that doesn't change the fact that the processor did a bad job. So, I guess I'll go out and shoot another roll of Vision 3 250.