dave lackey
Veteran
Ok, so I have a hankering for a nice slow color film, we live down South, and the warm dayss of Spring and Summer are... really bright! I have found that ISO 100 shooting digitally has been great for me this past year.
So, has anyone tried this film? They have it in bulk rolls and a few more but this one seems to be really nice for outdoors....
https://www.kodak.com/lk/en/motion/Products/Production/5203/default.htm
http://fotofilmblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/kodak-vision3-50d-color-negative-film.html?m=1
So, has anyone tried this film? They have it in bulk rolls and a few more but this one seems to be really nice for outdoors....
https://www.kodak.com/lk/en/motion/Products/Production/5203/default.htm
http://fotofilmblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/kodak-vision3-50d-color-negative-film.html?m=1
dave lackey
Veteran
Corran
Well-known
Are you aware that this is a cinema film and designed for ECN-2 process, and also involves a remjet layer? You could buy it from Cinestill with the RJ layer removed but then you have no anti-halation layer and therefore will have some haloing in the highlights. Not to mention it's almost twice the price of Portra 160...
IMO if you just want a good negative film, buy Portra. What are you looking for that Portra does not provide? Kodak's cinema film will be a major headache to develop, unless you pay for the specialized process, and I doubt there will be much difference from Portra 160 even then.
Also, again IMO, the photos in your second link look pretty bad, but that's very likely due to scanning/processing. Very flat, very low saturation to the point of the people looking sickly.
IMO if you just want a good negative film, buy Portra. What are you looking for that Portra does not provide? Kodak's cinema film will be a major headache to develop, unless you pay for the specialized process, and I doubt there will be much difference from Portra 160 even then.
Also, again IMO, the photos in your second link look pretty bad, but that's very likely due to scanning/processing. Very flat, very low saturation to the point of the people looking sickly.
x-ray
Veteran
The skin tones look dull and lifeless. Pribably the results could be improved with better scans and some contrast and saturation added.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
50D Vision 3. ECN2 process. C-41 works as well. Remjet is pooping a lot and colors are weird.
It is very low grain, high resolution cinefilm. I use it to test film gear after repairs. Rodinal or HC-110
But I have old version of this film. It is very lomographysh:
http://rangefinder.ru/glr/showphoto.php/photo/80590/ppuser/9655/cat/500
http://rangefinder.ru/glr/showphoto.php/photo/80812/ppuser/9655/cat/500
Mix of Kodak 50D and Fuji 250D:
http://rangefinder.ru/glr/showphoto.php/photo/80902/ppuser/9655/cat/500
It is very low grain, high resolution cinefilm. I use it to test film gear after repairs. Rodinal or HC-110
But I have old version of this film. It is very lomographysh:
http://rangefinder.ru/glr/showphoto.php/photo/80590/ppuser/9655/cat/500
http://rangefinder.ru/glr/showphoto.php/photo/80812/ppuser/9655/cat/500
Mix of Kodak 50D and Fuji 250D:
http://rangefinder.ru/glr/showphoto.php/photo/80902/ppuser/9655/cat/500
brbo
Well-known
The skin tones look dull and lifeless. Pribably the results could be improved with better scans and some contrast and saturation added.
I've shot a bit of Vision3 5203 (developed in ECN-2 and C-41; developed in C-41 it will be a bit warmer although "muddier" is a better word) and I agree about the skin tones, low contrast and saturation. This film is nothing like Ektar 100 or other slow films that usually have high saturation.
ECN-2 processing:


C-41 processing:



valdas
Veteran
I've shot a bit of Vision3 5203 (developed in ECN-2 and C-41; developed in C-41 it will be a bit warmer although "muddier" is a better word) and I agree about the skin tones, low contrast and saturation. This film like Ektar 100 or other slow films that usually have hi saturation.
Those are nice shots. So far I have only tried Fuji F500T (should be a direct competitor of Vision 3 500T) in C41 and BW chemicals - with the mixed success. Maybe the film was too old, but the grain was quite bad (unless there was plenty of light). Anyway - there is plenty of cheap ECN2 process film, so I'll probably give another try...
dave lackey
Veteran
Thanks for the input on 5203... real world experience is invaluable.
From my research online, so far, 5219 looks much better for different purposes, of course, mostly indoors. Has anyone tried that film?
From my research online, so far, 5219 looks much better for different purposes, of course, mostly indoors. Has anyone tried that film?
dave lackey
Veteran
I've shot a bit of Vision3 5203 (developed in ECN-2 and C-41; developed in C-41 it will be a bit warmer although "muddier" is a better word) and I agree about the skin tones, low contrast and saturation. This film is nothing like Ektar 100 or other slow films that usually have high saturation.
ECN-2 processing:
C-41 processing:
![]()
These are nice ... but it leaves me wondering if a stop of underexposure would help. There was mention that blues did not fare so well, as evidenced by the sky. It has me thinking...
x-ray
Veteran
I've not shot this emulsion personally but over the years shot a lot of 35mm motion picture work for TV commercials. The color negs of today are designed to give a really long scale and then saturation and contrast are added in the transfer / post production. Unlike ten years ago very little of this film is actually made into release prints and sent to theatres. Everything is electronically transferred, edited and released to theatres. Print stock is almost a thing of the past.
In the early 70's when I started working with an ad agency we did a lot of 35mm motion picture for commercials and some feature work. At that time we used 5254 which was really pretty but grainy. We had a 1 light work print made and that was what was edited. The workprint was edited, conformed (cut the neg and prep for printing), printed on release stock and then transferred to video on a film chain. Today it goes from neg to transfer and edited electronically and released in electronic form.
If you have a really good scanner and devise a set of profiles and curves theses films should make gorgeous images. It'd be nice and help Kodak sell more film if they'd offer a scanning service and profiles for different scanners. I'd think they could seriously boost their sales.
In the early 70's when I started working with an ad agency we did a lot of 35mm motion picture for commercials and some feature work. At that time we used 5254 which was really pretty but grainy. We had a 1 light work print made and that was what was edited. The workprint was edited, conformed (cut the neg and prep for printing), printed on release stock and then transferred to video on a film chain. Today it goes from neg to transfer and edited electronically and released in electronic form.
If you have a really good scanner and devise a set of profiles and curves theses films should make gorgeous images. It'd be nice and help Kodak sell more film if they'd offer a scanning service and profiles for different scanners. I'd think they could seriously boost their sales.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Everybody is different, but I found using color negative motion picture film to be a massive pain in the backside. Mostly because of the remjet. But also because it just behaves somewhat differently to the light. Unless someone is giving you 400ft for free, I'd pass on shooting color negative motion picture film in a still camera.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Corran
Well-known
If you want saturated, darker blues overall and a lot more contrast...shoot Provia/Velvia. Those will also be way less grainy than any color neg.
Still not sure why the OP is looking at cinema film, as opposed to off-the-shelf film that can be processed easily and without the headache of RJ. I do have 400ft of 500T in my freezer that came free with some other stuff that I'll screw with one day, but only because it was free.
Still not sure why the OP is looking at cinema film, as opposed to off-the-shelf film that can be processed easily and without the headache of RJ. I do have 400ft of 500T in my freezer that came free with some other stuff that I'll screw with one day, but only because it was free.
brbo
Well-known
From my research online, so far, 5219 looks much better for different purposes, of course, mostly indoors. Has anyone tried that film?
Sure. I shoot 5219 at night or with filter at daylight. You can get away with not using a filter, but you should overexpose the film in that case.




But 5219 is not "much better" if you are after slow film. What are you actually looking for? And as was mentioned before, what is that Ektar 100/ Portra 160 or Portra 400/Fuji 400H can't do. I like 5219 and 5203, but mainly shoot it because I got it very cheap and I don't mind removing the remjet before and after the processing.
These are nice ... but it leaves me wondering if a stop of underexposure would help. There was mention that blues did not fare so well, as evidenced by the sky. It has me thinking...
No. And there is no problem with the blues.


dave lackey
Veteran
If you want saturated, darker blues overall and a lot more contrast...shoot Provia/Velvia. Those will also be way less grainy than any color neg.
Still not sure why the OP is looking at cinema film, as opposed to off-the-shelf film that can be processed easily and without the headache of RJ. I do have 400ft of 500T in my freezer that came free with some other stuff that I'll screw with one day, but only because it was free.
Why am I looking at cinema film?
Boredom? Curiosity? Never been happy with color film negative film. All of those reasons that are personal to me.
Not to mention that I shoot b/w when I do shoot film and I have settled on Eastman 5222 Double X. Just my choice. Your mileage may vary, but it is my own personal choice.
I do see some things I like for specific uses, so I will continue to play in the color film recreational area.
All constructive comments are welcome!
dave lackey
Veteran
I've not shot this emulsion personally but over the years shot a lot of 35mm motion picture work for TV commercials. The color negs of today are designed to give a really long scale and then saturation and contrast are added in the transfer / post production. Unlike ten years ago very little of this film is actually made into release prints and sent to theatres. Everything is electronically transferred, edited and released to theatres. Print stock is almost a thing of the past.
In the early 70's when I started working with an ad agency we did a lot of 35mm motion picture for commercials and some feature work. At that time we used 5254 which was really pretty but grainy. We had a 1 light work print made and that was what was edited. The workprint was edited, conformed (cut the neg and prep for printing), printed on release stock and then transferred to video on a film chain. Today it goes from neg to transfer and edited electronically and released in electronic form.
If you have a really good scanner and devise a set of profiles and curves theses films should make gorgeous images. It'd be nice and help Kodak sell more film if they'd offer a scanning service and profiles for different scanners. I'd think they could seriously boost their sales.
Now THAT is excellent advice! Post work on stills will draw a lot out of the images I have seen and scanning services would make life easier with scanning services, it would be wonderful. Thanks, Don.
dave lackey
Veteran
Sure. I shoot 5219 at night or with filter at daylight. You can get away with not using a filter, but you should overexpose the film in that case.
But 5219 is not "much better" if you are after slow film. What are you actually looking for? And as was mentioned before, what is that Ektar 100/ Portra 160 or Portra 400/Fuji 400H can't do. I like 5219 and 5203, but mainly shoot it because I got it very cheap and I don't mind removing the remjet before and after the processing.
No. And there is no problem with the blues.
![]()
Brbo,
Apologies, I don't know your first name, but these are beautiful images!
Corran
Well-known
Why am I looking at cinema film?
Boredom? Curiosity? Never been happy with color film negative film. All of those reasons that are personal to me.
I only ask because you did not really specify what you are looking for (qualities of the film), and because [color] cinema film has some processing issues. XX has no relevance because it does not have a remjet and can be processed the same as any other b&w film. You also didn't mention if you are doing your own dev or sending it out, nor did you mention if you are doing your own scans. These are all salient to deciding whether or not you should use this film. Personally when I think of low-speed color film I think of Velvia. I generally prefer slide film over negative, unless I am looking specifically for a lower-contrast, lower-saturation film (except for Ektar, which I really hate the look of anyway).
I also enjoy toying with different films so I get it.
dave lackey
Veteran
I only ask because you did not really specify what you are looking for (qualities of the film), and because [color] cinema film has some processing issues. XX has no relevance because it does not have a remjet and can be processed the same as any other b&w film. You also didn't mention if you are doing your own dev or sending it out, nor did you mention if you are doing your own scans. These are all salient to deciding whether or not you should use this film. Personally when I think of low-speed color film I think of Velvia. I generally prefer slide film over negative, unless I am looking specifically for a lower-contrast, lower-saturation film (except for Ektar, which I really hate the look of anyway).
I also enjoy toying with different films so I get it.
Yeah, Velvia is back in my bag as of last week... been using that forever. As far as processing, scanning, etc. I do my own 35 mm most of the time but time is quite limited for me so I send it out more and more lately. Especially my medium format negs.
Still playing and having fun!
We photographers are a curious sort aren't we?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
And don't know if it is constructive to repeat
, but all film films are about the same. Giving odd colors if processed as roll film. In ECN-2, C-41 doesn't matter.
This is very different from Kodak 5222. Or BW.
Then remjet covered film is developed in BW chemicals it is not big deal. But if it is done in color, then it gets messy. And you can't give it to the lab without telling them, it will pollute their equipment and rest of normal film will be affected.
This is very different from Kodak 5222. Or BW.
Then remjet covered film is developed in BW chemicals it is not big deal. But if it is done in color, then it gets messy. And you can't give it to the lab without telling them, it will pollute their equipment and rest of normal film will be affected.
dave lackey
Veteran
And don't know if it is constructive to repeat, but all film films are about the same. Giving odd colors if processed as roll film. In ECN-2, C-41 doesn't matter.
This is very different from Kodak 5222. Or BW.
Then remjet covered film is developed in BW chemicals it is not big deal. But if it is done in color, then it gets messy. And you can't give it to the lab without telling them, it will pollute their equipment and rest of normal film will be affected.
Correct, thanks, however there are a few labs that will work with this film, if anyone is interested, I will look it up and post it later, time to get back to work! I have zero intentions of processing it myself!
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.