Cinestill 50D
Old 03-20-2017   #1
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,727
Cinestill 50D

Interesting film. Has anyone else used it?

The colours certainly pop like no other colour negative film I've used. Very slide film like. There does seem to be something of a QC issue though - see the horizontal lines in the sky in the last two shots below. I'm assuming its some kind of artifact related to removal of the remjet layer.


Cinestill 50D by Jon, on Flickr


Cinestill 50D by Jon, on Flickr


Cinestill 50D by Jon, on Flickr


Cinestill 50D by Jon, on Flickr


Cinestill 50D by Jon, on Flickr
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017   #2
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 2,801
Just picked a few rolls last week. Waiting for the snow to melt before I try it. I like some of the pics I've seen taken with this film.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:

http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017   #3
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,727
One thing strange was these weird green dots on a couple of frames. Anyone know what the cause might be? They're on the film.







__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017   #4
NaChase
Registered User
 
NaChase's Avatar
 
NaChase is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Davis, CA
Age: 28
Posts: 377
Yeah, I've shot a couple rolls. It's cool stuff. Maybe I've been lucky so far in that I haven't had any of the QC issues you have noted. I have seen other people report other issues to Cinestill on facebook, so it seems as if not all the kinks are worked out of their process.
Men at Work by Nick Chase, on Flickr
Leica Sports Photography by Nick Chase, on Flickr
__________________
Nick

RF Cameras: Leica M3DS, Leica M6, Nikon S2, Minolta Hi-Matic 7, Mamiya 7II, Graflex Pacemaker Crown Graphic
RF Lenses:
75 Summilux, 5cm Summicron, 50mm DR Summicron, 50mm Nikon Millennium f/1.4, Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon, Mamiya 80mm f/4, Mamiya 150mm f/4.5


http:[email protected]/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/film_is...ong_live_film/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2017   #5
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,398
The colours are just great, aren't they? This is why I do not understand, at all, why people shoot digital. You have so many ways to get unique looks to your pics w/ film it is not even funny. I stopped shooting colour many years ago when Agfa died, but this stuff you are showing has real possibilities. Hopefully the QC issues are resolved.

Often this is related to batches. If it were me, I would try ordering several rolls from several people and see if I could find the good batch and buy a lot of it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #6
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
The colours are just great, aren't they? This is why I do not understand, at all, why people shoot digital. You have so many ways to get unique looks to your pics w/ film it is not even funny. I stopped shooting colour many years ago when Agfa died, but this stuff you are showing has real possibilities. Hopefully the QC issues are resolved.

Often this is related to batches. If it were me, I would try ordering several rolls from several people and see if I could find the good batch and buy a lot of it.
I'm doing a wedding for a friend this Saturday - will be shooting 20% digital with my Fuji XE-1 - the rest will be Leica and Hasselblad. I bought some VSCO filters for Lightroom to make them look like Fuji film... Ha ha.
I use the filters to make the digital files look more natural and not plastic digital. It makes life easier for me.

Point is - people shoot digital and then filter the image to make it look like film. Just shoot the real thing!
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #7
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 3,834
I've done a couple of rolls and have one more left. Very nice outdoor film.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #8
DanskDynamit
Registered User
 
DanskDynamit's Avatar
 
DanskDynamit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 216
not my cup of tea.
__________________
DanskDynamit
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #9
spaceistheplace
Registered User
 
spaceistheplace's Avatar
 
spaceistheplace is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 43
I would love to try this films, the colours are just lovely.
The price tho... Prefer to shoot slide for that amount of money.
__________________
My Website

Raśl C.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #10
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
The colours certainly pop like no other colour negative film I've used. Very slide film like. There does seem to be something of a QC issue though - see the horizontal lines in the sky in the last two shots below. I'm assuming its some kind of artifact related to removal of the remjet layer.
My experience is that colors are more natural than Ektar 100. And I don't really see any slide film character in it. If processed in C-41 it gets even a hair more subdued (muddy). But of course, this is negative color film, you get what you want (or your scanning service thinks you want).

I still prefer Ektar, but this is nice film (I shoot original Vision3 50D with remjet still on):









__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #11
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post

I still prefer Ektar, but this is nice film (I shoot original Vision3 50D with remjet still on):
Hi, I'm curious - how do you achieve development of this film with the RemJet still on?

Kind regards!
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #12
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 2,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddy View Post
Hi, I'm curious - how do you achieve development of this film with the RemJet still on?.....
A lab called littlefilmlab.com can process Vision 3 film.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:

http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #13
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddy View Post
Hi, I'm curious - how do you achieve development of this film with the RemJet still on?
I don't. I remove it before development.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2017   #14
znapper
Registered User
 
znapper's Avatar
 
znapper is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 345
littlefilmlab basically just process the film in c-41 and remove remjet or filter the chemicals.

I also shoot Vision3 50D instead of Cinestill, mostly because of price, but also due to the fact that the remjet do prevent glare and blooming in highlights.(that's the whole point of the remjet-layer, it's an anti-halation layer).

If you use film-stock Vision3, the cost per roll is extremely low.

I process mine in Tetenal c-41 and I remove the remjet after blix, I take the film off and use a soft wet tissue, before rolling the film back onto the spool, wash and then stabilize.

I find that this procedure leaves little to no trace of remjet on the emulsion, as opposed to using baking-soda and whatnot before developing (which doesn't remove all remjet anyway).

I filter the chemicals trough two coffee-filters before going back into the bottle.

I find it to be neutral and sort of Fuji reala'ish (not too saturated), but it's the scanning.....I have no idea how the film really looks, since it is a ECN-2 cinema-film after all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2017   #15
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by znapper View Post
I find that this procedure leaves little to no trace of remjet on the emulsion, as opposed to using baking-soda and whatnot before developing (which doesn't remove all remjet anyway).

I filter the chemicals trough two coffee-filters before going back into the bottle.
Hmm... I did the same as you, but my developer got progressively darker (so even with filtering some remjet stayed in developer). If you also use Fuji cine film it's absolutely necessary to remove remjet before development because Fuji's remjet will fall off completely in the developer and you can't filter that out with regular coffee filters. My developer was black after just a couple of films.

Now I remove 99% of remjet prior development. It's 2 minutes work with stuff that costs 5 EUR and is good for many many rolls. Yes, there is still tiny amount of remjet present after fixing but it's sooo much easier and less messy when you only need to physically remove 1% of remjet vs. 99%.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2017   #16
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
A lab called littlefilmlab.com can process Vision 3 film.

Jim B.
Thank you Jim, this bit of info will be handy!
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2017   #17
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by znapper View Post
littlefilmlab basically just process the film in c-41 and remove remjet or filter the chemicals.

I also shoot Vision3 50D instead of Cinestill, mostly because of price, but also due to the fact that the remjet do prevent glare and blooming in highlights.(that's the whole point of the remjet-layer, it's an anti-halation layer).

If you use film-stock Vision3, the cost per roll is extremely low.

I process mine in Tetenal c-41 and I remove the remjet after blix, I take the film off and use a soft wet tissue, before rolling the film back onto the spool, wash and then stabilize.

I find that this procedure leaves little to no trace of remjet on the emulsion, as opposed to using baking-soda and whatnot before developing (which doesn't remove all remjet anyway).

I filter the chemicals trough two coffee-filters before going back into the bottle.

I find it to be neutral and sort of Fuji reala'ish (not too saturated), but it's the scanning.....I have no idea how the film really looks, since it is a ECN-2 cinema-film after all.
So - your process keeps the highlight blooms and red halation controlled as intended? That is one thing that has kept me off this film - the red shift in the highlight outlines. Looks like an un-sharp lens was used.
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2017   #18
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddy View Post
So - your process keeps the highlight blooms and red halation controlled as intended? That is one thing that has kept me off this film - the red shift in the highlight outlines. Looks like an un-sharp lens was used.
Yes. No stupid halos. Present in all Cinestill films but most annoying with Cinestill 800T which you would naturally use in situations where there will almost inevitably be some sources of light included in the scene.

Although, some say they like it. Go figure...
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2017   #19
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
Yes. No stupid halos. Present in all Cinestill films but most annoying with Cinestill 800T which you would naturally use in situations where there will almost inevitably be some sources of light included in the scene.

Although, some say they like it. Go figure...
Everyone to their own likes of course - but I don't see the point in owning top Leica or Zeiss lenses or anything decent when I see the the red chromatic aberration like effect from Cinestill on my pictures. Each to their own. Great process you have there by the way. Will try to do just the same when my little kids grow up a little more.
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2017   #20
znapper
Registered User
 
znapper's Avatar
 
znapper is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
Hmm... I did the same as you, but my developer got progressively darker (so even with filtering some remjet stayed in developer). If you also use Fuji cine film it's absolutely necessary to remove remjet before development because Fuji's remjet will fall off completely in the developer and you can't filter that out with regular coffee filters. My developer was black after just a couple of films.

Now I remove 99% of remjet prior development. It's 2 minutes work with stuff that costs 5 EUR and is good for many many rolls. Yes, there is still tiny amount of remjet present after fixing but it's sooo much easier and less messy when you only need to physically remove 1% of remjet vs. 99%.
We are wearing off-topic now, but do you use baking-soda, wash at around 40-42 degrees until remjet is gone, before developing?

I did that with a couple of rolls, but on my second roll, my photos had loads of remjet stuck in the emulsion afterwards, the first wash one do with the baking-soda, really slush the whole film around in the soda/remjet-soup, so the emulsion-side does get a really good dip and dunk in the stuff.

As I found it a bit hard to clean up after the fact, I decided to try another approach and it seems to work pretty well.
- I do the cleaning in the shower, and the floor there gets all black when doing it.

Indeed, the Fuji's seem to get 100% clean after a baking-soda wash, the Vision3's do retain a slight veil of remjet that needs to be cleaned before drying.

I haven't noticed much in my own developer regarding the polution (although I see that the double-coffee filter gets pretty black and it seems to be only during the development phase, the blix seems clean).

I usually mix 1L batches of color-chems, so I tend to change it out quite often, and Vision3 isn't my main films, so I only run 3-4 rolls trough per mix. (I am sure the coffee-filters doesn't clean everything, the remjet is carbon after all ).

I do appreciate that Cinestill provide the film, but for me at least, after trying out cine 800 and 50D, I found that Vision3 was better and cheaper. (I think I have 100 meters or so of each).
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2017   #21
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,727
The results from my latest roll of 50D are, ummmm... interesting. I'm glad I demoted my remaining few rolls to use for boring lens testing.

__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2017   #22
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by znapper View Post
We are wearing off-topic now, but do you use baking-soda, wash at around 40-42 degrees until remjet is gone, before developing?
Sorry for late reply, I missed your post.

Try this or something similar.

1min in this stuff at room temperature (no agitation), drain. Wash the film 3 or 4 times (agitate as hard as you can). Then warm up the film with increasingly warmer water to get the film to processing temperature and get the pH to neutral. This removes 99% of remjet before processing. I still filter the developer although I've never seen any traces of remjet on it after filtering.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2017   #23
huddy
Registered User
 
huddy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 152
If you have any albums online or images you'd be willing to share, I'd love to see them. Reala is my favorite color negative film of all time (RIP). What scanning setup are you using?


Quote:
Originally Posted by znapper View Post
littlefilmlab basically just process the film in c-41 and remove remjet or filter the chemicals.

I also shoot Vision3 50D instead of Cinestill, mostly because of price, but also due to the fact that the remjet do prevent glare and blooming in highlights.(that's the whole point of the remjet-layer, it's an anti-halation layer).

If you use film-stock Vision3, the cost per roll is extremely low.

I process mine in Tetenal c-41 and I remove the remjet after blix, I take the film off and use a soft wet tissue, before rolling the film back onto the spool, wash and then stabilize.

I find that this procedure leaves little to no trace of remjet on the emulsion, as opposed to using baking-soda and whatnot before developing (which doesn't remove all remjet anyway).

I filter the chemicals trough two coffee-filters before going back into the bottle.

I find it to be neutral and sort of Fuji reala'ish (not too saturated), but it's the scanning.....I have no idea how the film really looks, since it is a ECN-2 cinema-film after all.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:24.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.