The Colour of Film - my review of CineStill 50

But Ektar is faster, looks better, has anti-halation layer and is much cheaper.

I'm yet to see a good shot from Cinestill film, apart from those that are properly processed in ECN-2. Those are awesome.
 
brbo said:
But Ektar is faster, looks better, has anti-halation layer and is much cheaper.

I'm yet to see a good shot from Cinestill film, apart from those that are properly processed in ECN-2. Those are awesome.
Click to expand...
Actually I don't think it looks too bad and I've never used Cinestill, personally. But how many other ISO 50 colour films are available? Not many. How many ISO 400 colour films are available? Comparitively, lots. So why is this film being ISO 50 really an issue? Believe it or not, some people actually prefer to use a slower film. RVP is probably my favourite colour film of all time, and that is ISO 50. And if I want to shoot something that looks like Ektar, with a similar exposure latitude, I'll take an actual reversal film I can also project if I wish to, thanks.
Cheers,
Brett
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
So why is this film being ISO 50 really an issue? Believe it or not, some people actually prefer to use a slower film. RVP is probably my favourite colour film of all time, and that is ISO 50. And if I want to shoot something that looks like Ektar, with a similar exposure latitude, I'll take an actual reversal film I can also project if I wish
Click to expand...

I don't think it being ISO 50 is an issue. But saying that Ektar can't be overexposed a stop or two or that it has a latitude of a RVP is just silly. I have regularly shot it without a meter in my Hasselblad and always got perfectly usable results. For example, the following shots would've come back white as show if shot on Velvia 50 (the negatives are really dense):








To be clear, I believe Vision3 50d is fantastic. But crippled (no remjet) and processed in C-41... I don't know. I have Cinestill film loaded in one camera but I don't expect to get better result than others have posted so far (I'm far from impressed by those).
 
brbo said:
I don't think it being ISO 50 is an issue. But saying that Ektar can't be overexposed a stop or two or that it has a latitude of a RVP is just silly. I have regularly shot it without a meter in my Hasselblad and always got perfectly usable results. For example, the following shots would've come back white as show if shot on Velvia 50 (the negatives are really dense):








To be clear, I believe Vision3 50d is fantastic. But crippled (no remjet) and processed in C-41... I don't know. I have Cinestill film loaded in one camera but I don't expect to get better result than others have posted so far (I'm far from impressed by those).
Click to expand...
Well, you must have, because you mentioned its speed (or lack thereof). Point taken about exposure latitude, it does however have less than many other C-41 films, whilst trying to look like a replacement for transparency film in the process. I'll take an E-6 film, thanks, not a C-41 film pretending to be one.
 
This is review on second hand film :) Original is Kodak 50D cinefilm.
Both doesn't have to be processed in ECN-2, C-41 works just fine, if not better.
I do not print in color under enlarger. Scanning only. To me Kodak 50D and Fuji 250D are all I need for color film.
 
Thanks for the various replies.
Brbo - I love those pis you posted.
I was just thinking yesterday of doing some more Kodak Ektar (when I noticed the good price).

I tried some years ago but found it slightly too warm saturated (even though I like warm and saturated). Kodak portra is the perfect film for me for balanced but warm colours, and it's 400 iso. But it is getting expensive!

I think the Ektar is a little warmer than the CineStill - so I guess I would prefer the CineStill - but I also prefer 100 iso (and in fact, as I say on my blog 400 iso). But for 50 iso - which is sometimes what you want (for example of you want to shoot with wide apertures) I think the CineStill is an excellent film.

I'm looking forward to seeing my results from the Cinestill 800 next week - a film that interest me more. Obviously it will be more granny, but I am hooping not too much.
 
Nick De Marco said:
I'm looking forward to seeing my results from the Cinestill 800 next week - a film that interest me more. Obviously it will be more granny, but I am hooping not too much.
Click to expand...

I have 800T loaded, too.

We can hope for this (Kodak's demonstration of the awesome properties of this film):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5CkXgcafB0&ab_channel=KodakMotionPictureFilm

But the reality is that in C-41, with no remjet and with poor scanning we should prepare for results that will be, well... a bit worse ;)
 
I shot only a few rolls of CineStill (and have actually one in my M7) and for what I have seen I like the color it gives. Exposure is a little tricky maybe but not so difficult.

I only tried it in summer time, I want now to try in the winter time both on sunny days and maybe also in not excellent light, foggy or rainy days.

Interesting review Nick, thanks

robert


med_U3692I1436097095.SEQ.0.jpg


I shot also CineStill 50 in interior just to see what could happen, very slow time maybe 1/8 sec.

med_U3692I1437131210.SEQ.0.jpg
 
I think the colours look great, thanks for posting!
I see the 50 ISO rating as a plus, not a minus. You pick the tool for the job and this allows you to shoot wide open in daylight w/o having to use ND filters.
 
Well, the original film has D in the name, which is DAY. As long as it is in use for day light, ISO 50 is fine.
It allows you to use fast RF lenses at their maximum potential, which isn't at f11-f16. 1/250 f2.8-5.6, I used 50D cinefilm between 12.5-50 ISO and it gave me great results for "street" this summer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom