Making "Cinestill" film from Vision 3 Stock at home

S

Sochmo

Newbie
Local time
5:46 PM
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Messages
8
Hi Guys-
I've been talking with a guy named Benjamin Poulton. He's the guy that sells rolls of Vision 3 films, the ECN-2 pre-bath rebottled, and recently 100' bulk rolls on Etsy and through a few online distributors. I had seen or read somewhere that there is no "magic" per-se being done at Cinestill. They simply wash the films in the prebath and dry them prior to loading into their branded cartridges. That got me thinking that I could do the same in my darkroom. My major concern is with watermarks being left on the film. I always dip my film in iso alcohol after development because no matter what I do (photo-flo, permawash) I get watermarks. I don't think this is possible with undeveloped film and Id like to know what you guys think. Those of you that develop at home how exactly do you avoid watermarks on your film? At this point, I'm thinking of building a DIY film drying cabinet as I had great luck with those in school.
Alex
 
I was thinking about this as well, but decided that I'd rather deal with the remjet during the development. The remjet removal before shooting the film offers the advantage of lab development using C41 process, however I see the issue of controlling the quality of remjet removal before shooting the film as it has to be done completely in the dark. How do I know if there are any residuals for example? Watermarks is probably also is a concern, but not that big - I guess Agepon solution (which I use for BW film) would take care of it. Another impracticality - the film has to dry in the darkness for quite some time, so one has to have a dedicated darkroom (I am just using my bathroom).
 
Whatever you choose to do, you will have to remove the remjet and I'd rather do it at the same time as all the mess of developing, as I know I will have cleared it totally, something that is exceptionally difficult to do without being able to examine the film in light. It saves washing and drying the film twice.

I have processed my Vision 250 in C41 and was very pleased with the colours.
 
The only benefit to removing the remjet before exposure is that it won't clog up the machines if it's sent out for processing. If you develop at home, why bother? An additional issue is that you might wash out chemicals that are supposed to remain in the emulsion during exposure.
 
Quasi-Cinestill???

Quasi-Cinestill???

Without meaning to pile on, I fail to understand why you would want to pre-strip the remjet from Vision film before loading into cartridges and shooting it. First, the remjet is there for an important reason. Look at Cinestill films' tendency to flare and you'll see why. If you like that look, smear some vasoline on a lens filter. Second, doing that would be not only the usual mess of remjet removal, but as you note, the film could get water damaged. (A percentage of Cinestill films do get damaged; I assume that if a buyer complains, they replace the film, but I think you are SOL for you photos.) The only reason Cinestill strips the remjet from their product is so the buyer can get it developed in a conventional C-41 lab.

I was much taken by the idea of shooting Vision 3 film last year. A bulk roll was uncommonly cheap by Kodak marketing standards, and I figured out the formula(s) for pre-washing the remjet layer and the ECN process. However, my color prints are made the old fashioned way in the darkroom, and it seems that the color dyes in Vision 3 are designed specifically to make film prints and are somewhat different than those optimizing RA-4 prints. Not so much of an issue for the Photoshop crowd. Then Kodak jacked up the prices, and I lost interest.
 
randy stewart said:
Without meaning to pile on, I fail to understand why you would want to pre-strip the remjet from Vision film before loading into cartridges and shooting it. First, the remjet is there for an important reason. Look at Cinestill films' tendency to flare and you'll see why. If you like that look, smear some vasoline on a lens filter. Second, doing that would be not only the usual mess of remjet removal, but as you note, the film could get water damaged. (A percentage of Cinestill films do get damaged; I assume that if a buyer complains, they replace the film, but I think you are SOL for you photos.) The only reason Cinestill strips the remjet from their product is so the buyer can get it developed in a conventional C-41 lab.

I was much taken by the idea of shooting Vision 3 film last year. A bulk roll was uncommonly cheap by Kodak marketing standards, and I figured out the formula(s) for pre-washing the remjet layer and the ECN process. However, my color prints are made the old fashioned way in the darkroom, and it seems that the color dyes in Vision 3 are designed specifically to make film prints and are somewhat different than those optimizing RA-4 prints. Not so much of an issue for the Photoshop crowd. Then Kodak jacked up the prices, and I lost interest.
Click to expand...

My reasoning is that 1: I do like the results of cinestill for a certain style of night photography I do as well as the extra speed you get by having the remjet removed, and 2: my lab charges me $4.50 a roll to develop c-41 and at that cost I would rather not purchase a full set of c-41 chemicals for just one color film stock. Not sure what was going on with your enlarging but I get great results making prints of cinestill with my dichro 67.
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
Whatever you choose to do, you will have to remove the remjet and I'd rather do it at the same time as all the mess of developing, as I know I will have cleared it totally, something that is exceptionally difficult to do without being able to examine the film in light. It saves washing and drying the film twice.

I have processed my Vision 250 in C41 and was very pleased with the colours.
Click to expand...

I had the same question and was assured by Ben who has years of experience with the cine stocks that the kodak ecn-2 prebath removes the remjet completely, every time as long as you follow the directions on the bottle.
 
I think you guys are missing the point of my post. My question is for people with knowledge of emulsion chemistry. Will iso alcohol ruin the color film emulsion if used as a drying agent on unexposed film?
 
retinax said:
The only benefit to removing the remjet before exposure is that it won't clog up the machines if it's sent out for processing. If you develop at home, why bother? An additional issue is that you might wash out chemicals that are supposed to remain in the emulsion during exposure.
Click to expand...
If it doesn't wash out the emulsion in the machinery used at the cinestill factory why would it happen with gentle agitation in a Patterson tank? The benefit is having cinestill film for about $2 a roll.
 
randy stewart said:
... First, the remjet is there for an important reason. Look at Cinestill films' tendency to flare and you'll see why. If you like that look, smear some vasoline on a lens filter. ...
Click to expand...

Not the same thing. The vaseline will make everything unsharp. While the Cinestill film just has halations around light sources.
 
valdas said:
I was thinking about this as well, but decided that I'd rather deal with the remjet during the development. The remjet removal before shooting the film offers the advantage of lab development using C41 process, however I see the issue of controlling the quality of remjet removal before shooting the film as it has to be done completely in the dark. How do I know if there are any residuals for example? Watermarks is probably also is a concern, but not that big - I guess Agepon solution (which I use for BW film) would take care of it. Another impracticality - the film has to dry in the darkness for quite some time, so one has to have a dedicated darkroom (I am just using my bathroom).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll order some agepon and give it a shot. As cheap as bulk film is I can waste a bitexperimenting to find a good solution. I'm building a DIY film dryer (either pvc pipe that will fit Patterson reels with a hairdryer affixed to the top with diffuser attachment (diffuser widens up to 4") and a lightproof vent on the bottom or a locker style cabinet with light-proof seals and some kind of heating fan)
 
The halation effect resulting from the removal of remjet layer is a quality many people enjoy. I personally prefer it for night shots around neon city signs and lights. if it's not your cup of tea then don't use it, that's the beauty of our hobby and/or profession, we create art and its subjective.
 
Last edited:
Old horsey. :)

Where are many threads for how to remove remjet at home. After, it just CineSteal. :)

Watermarks are different story. I use enough and fresh mix of photo-flo and my two mighty fingers to remove it before film goes to dry. No problems. No dryers either. Just clean bathroom, which is not in use much :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top