Problem with Cinestill 800

[Xax]

Hi,

I've recently self-developed a few rolls in Tetenal C-41 and have encountered a bad variety of streaks.

I tried to find out what the problem was by deducing, and the following things have come to my mind:

- The other rolls that were processed with the Cinestill films didn't have any problems, it was also processed with fresh chemicals.
- Newer Cinestill 800 rolls didn't have the problem.
- On some films it starts to be the worst on the first couple frames and gets better on the outside
- films from the same camera don't have that problem.
- I have travelled with some, but not all and always ask for hand check for my film

Did anyone ever see this kind of problem and could help me nail down the problem?

thanks!

all the best,

 

[BLKRCAT]

I feel like its harder to nail down what the problem is since cinestill messes with the film to remove the remjet prior to packaging and selling. Its entirely possible that it could be a remjet thing.

Maybe try portra 800 next time?

 

[jnclde]

I shoot with Kodak Vision3 500T and develop at home and don't run across this issue.

 

[Bisakok]

I also shoot both kodak Vision3 500T and the Cinestill 800T version and have never encountered anything like this... sorry cannot be more help

 

[KingMixer]

I just recently got a bunch of rolls back from North Coast Photo, and the Cinestill roll had this problem. It's not you.

 

[Xax]

Remjet then I guess.

How do I deal with the Remjet on non Cinestill motion picture film?

 

[sevo]

Remjet then I guess.

How do I deal with the Remjet on non Cinestill motion picture film?

If you are very lucky, there is a motion picture lab that processes 135 length film within your reach - such a thing was once rumoured to exist somewhere on the US west coast, but had a fairly poor reputation. In general MP labs will refuse short lengths (shorter than the approximately 2-3m minimum threading length), as they are set up to process long film and the remjet gets into the way of daisy-chaining film with adhesive tape (and a individual bit of 1.5m length will simply drop to the floor of their tank and have them halt the processor for cleaning).

If you live in Europe, you might have to get used to brushing off the remjet over a water basin in complete darkness before threading the then wet film onto the processing reels...

And as you've seen, washing and drying the film back prior to exposure seems to be failure prone, even when it is done with special machinery on a large scale - so that will probably be even worse when done at home.

In other words: There are valid reasons why remjet coated cine stock is not considered usable for general photography.

 

[bio]

Does the remjet problem occur with film bought in bulk and filled into reusable cartriges or can it happen also with confectioned 36-pictures rolls bought as such?

 

[sevo]

Does the remjet problem occur with film bought in bulk and filled into reusable cartriges or can it happen also with confectioned 36-pictures rolls bought as such?

Usually you should be safe with pre-confectioned rolls - Cinestill has the remjet already washed off, so you will not kill your lab's process (but you may run into spots and blotches on the film, where the washing liquid spilled over to the emulsion side).

YMMV with old rolls - back from the late nineties I remember some obscure company in the US that filled remjet coated MP stock into cartridges, sold at half the price of regular CN and nominally to be processed at their own lab only. Labs hereabouts hated it and sued for damages whenever people smuggled it into their processes - that stuff only crept across the pond in the brief period between the emergence of ebay and the digital takeover, but there probably will have been more of it in the US, so you might run into NOS there.

 

[Jaymz007]

Yes
I have the same problem.
I have tried Lab development and I have tried home development and I believe there is something wrong with the batch of film that I have purchased.
I am trying to get another roll of cinestill 800T film from some place else and try again.
I went through 4 rolls and have not been successful with this film yet.

 

[Xax]

Was there a extended time period between exposing and developing?

There seems to be problems with it when developed quite some time after exposure has happened.

I’ve switched to Fuji Eterna 500, removing the remjet myself during development and it doesnt have that problem at all.

 

[Chuffed Cheese]

yeah, cinestill can have issues. love it as a film, but I generally expect I'll run into some issues once and awhile.

 

[roscoetuff]

I tried Cinestill 800, and remain under wowed. My first response has been that maybe I ought to try Portra 800 for a side-by-side. Surely someone's already done this?

 

[bluesun267]

Yep, same problem here, the first and LAST time I tried Cinestill.

I don't understand the fascination with, or need to, respool color MP stocks into still format(s) when we have Ektar, Portra, and Fuji. Especially when the retail cost is significantly higher.

Having shot a ton of EK MP films in one of their intended formats (16mm) with their intended process (ECN-2), I can say with some confidence that they are nice films, but no more special than their C-41 counterparts.

 

[HHPhoto]

By using the CineStill films you have to consider two aspects:
The remjet coating is removed, therefore you don't have
- any anti-static protection anymore
- any anti-halation protection anymore.

The lack of anti-static protection can lead to problems in development if you are handling your films "too robust / hard".
I've learned that the hard way. Now I am very cautiously processing my CineStill films, and get flawless results in about 95% of the shots.

Cheers, Jan

 

[ultra8]

You have to use only fresh cinestill films. After ca. 6 months after removing the remjet, you get more and more problems with this film.

Here some results from fresh CineStill 800 & CineStill 25 Film, Dev&Scan at the CineStill Support Lab MeinFilmLab in germany:

 

[Skiff]

I don't understand the fascination with, or need to, respool color MP stocks into still format(s) when we have Ektar, Portra, and Fuji. Especially when the retail cost is significantly higher.

It's a valid point.
In tungsten light situations conventional C41 / E6 daylight balanced films deliver very good results in combination with a colour correction filter.
I've done that for years, and compared it to CineStill 800T:
Both ways offer the correct colour temperatures.
But you don't have the halo problems with C41 films.
And you don't have the other problems which can occur during processing with CineStill.
And you have lower costs with conventional C41 stuff.

 

[brbo]

In tungsten light situations conventional C41 / E6 daylight balanced films deliver very good results in combination with a colour correction filter.

Which is exactly the thing you don't want - loosing light in already low light situation. It's much easier to shoot tungsten balanced film with filter in daylight.

But otherwise I agree with the Cinestill doubters. Unless you like cross-processing and halation (and loss of sharpness) there is not much point in shooting Cinestill. Portras and Ektar are cheaper and better in almost any situation.

In tungsten light, Vision3 5219 (500T) with remjet removed prior processing in ECN-2 is something that few current C-41 and no E-6 film comes close to, though.

 

[BLKRCAT]

Shameful plug. I did give the cinestill 800T in 120 a try in this video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lctl_BnzRTQ&t=7s

 

[znapper]

Yep, same problem here, the first and LAST time I tried Cinestill.

I don't understand the fascination with, or need to, respool color MP stocks into still format(s) when we have Ektar, Portra, and Fuji. Especially when the retail cost is significantly higher.

Having shot a ton of EK MP films in one of their intended formats (16mm) with their intended process (ECN-2), I can say with some confidence that they are nice films, but no more special than their C-41 counterparts.

The rerolled Vision, known as Cinestill is pretty expensive, yes.

But if you get hold of 500-1000 ft of Vision3 50D or 500T in 35mm and start calculate the cost, you end up with dirt-cheap films-, compared to the regular c-41 stuff.

For scanning, c-41 and the Vision-films work just fine. You may miss some of the specialty concerning the "vision color palette" and get something more neutral.
- but they are still fine films/results for a significant amount less money.