[butangmucat]

Hello,

Recent read about CineStill Films. As I have read, this is an EI 800 film with Tungsten color balance. Does this film require CC filters if used under daylight, or the color-correction can be applied at scan time? I am considering this film as an alternative to Portra 800 or Fuji Pro 400H because of its exposure latitude. I have also read that both 800Tungsten and 50Daylight films have their Remjet layers removed, and I would like to know how this will affect shooting, specifically I plan to shoot trains with these films and would like to know how the headlights (in-focus specular highlights) would be rendered. I would also like to know how the 50Daylight, compares to Kodak Ektar. Also any experiences are welcome.

Sincerely

[dms]

-- I have very limited use (1 roll of tungston 800) and i was not that pleased with the scanning done by the company I used, The Little Film Lab (LFL). So I don't have enough history with ithe film, and having used LFL only once w/ new film--I also don't have enough history w/ them to say much
-- Nevertheless the advantage is indoors not to need a filter. Outdoors there is more light so the filter (not a CC filter--it is 85B) is less of a problem. And it is 2/3 stop outdoors w/ tungston film versus (as I recall) 1.5 stops w/filter and daylight film indoors.
-- Strong highlights will have a halo effect--due to the backing being removed from the kodak verison 3 film. I have seen this on internet photo's, and on the attached fish eye shot I took.
-- You may want to consider using Kodak verizon3 film respooled (it is sold in 27 exposure rolls)--but I forgot the name (Photo . . . Project, Film Society, or something like this), and then using the LFL to process it (they are the only commericial establishment that does 35 mm still camera rolls of ramjet film). But including shipping it is very costly--unless you do lot's of film rolls.
-- As regards using fim outdoors w/o 85B filter and then fixing in the scan (or vice versa w/ daylight film indoors) I used to use a color meter, and make corrections with filters--so I have no first hand experience--but it stands to reason it is best if your film+filter match the light.
-- I don't know that verizon 3 DR is any larger than Ektar 100, except of course the ISO advantage, my usage (one roll) was mostly one theatre production w/black background and spot lighting--so hard to judge. Compared to Porta? Porta (again 1 roll to try it) struck me as poor in DR/I did not liike it/but today getting good commercial scans is problematic so . .

---------- Post added 02-20-17 at 07:58 PM ----------

I don't know what experience you have w/ Ektar 100, I only have a bit w/ the new version--but decades using Ektar 125 and what seemed to be the same--Royal Ektar 100. And if the current Ektar 100 is similar (which it seems to be) I would try Ektar 100--assuming you can manage the iso 100. I also heard that it is basically one of Kodak's movie films (likely the iso 50 you mention), except w/o ramjet and w/o the halo problems.

[dms]

I think another example may be closer to your concern about the specular highlights.

[leekil]

If you are shooting trains in broad daylight, then there might not be an issue with the halos, given that in the halo situations the lights are significant brighter than the rest of the scene, and are therefore "overexposed". I've used a lot of Cinestill, but never in daylight -- I just use regular film for that. Plenty of "lomography" types do shoot it in daylight, you can see their blue-inited photos online form not using a filter.

Do you really need the additional exposure latitude? Is there that much of a difference?

---------- Post added 02-21-17 at 12:43 AM ----------

Actually, why not push Portra 400 to 800, if you need the extra stop of exposure. I've seen people elsewhere talk about doing this, because the Portra 160 & 400 are newer films than the 800 (presumably Vision3-based with the 800 being Vision2?). The Cinestill, and the Vision3 500T it is based on, is rated at 500 natively, so I'm not sure you are really getting a big advantage with the 800 film over pushing the 400, for your application.

[butangmucat]

If you are shooting trains in broad daylight, then there might not be an issue with the halos, given that in the halo situations the lights are significant brighter than the rest of the scene, and are therefore "overexposed". I've used a lot of Cinestill, but never in daylight -- I just use regular film for that. Plenty of "lomography" types do shoot it in daylight, you can see their blue-inited photos online form not using a filter.

Do you really need the additional exposure latitude? Is there that much of a difference?

---------- Post added 02-21-17 at 12:43 AM ----------

Actually, why not push Portra 400 to 800, if you need the extra stop of exposure. I've seen people elsewhere talk about doing this, because the Portra 160 & 400 are newer films than the 800 (presumably Vision3-based with the 800 being Vision2?). The Cinestill, and the Vision3 500T it is based on, is rated at 500 natively, so I'm not sure you are really getting a big advantage with the 800 film over pushing the 400, for your application.

I want to use the 800T with my ME Super to exploit its 1/2000 shutter speed and allow me to 1) shoot at ISO 800 when I need high SS, while still allowing to derate the film to EI 200 or 400 w/o pushing/pulling. Similar to that what can be achieved with Ilford XP2, but in color. For 50D I want to see how fine the grain can be, and also allowing me the flexibility of adjusting from ISO 50-200 w/o pushing or pulling.

[butangmucat]

I think another example may be closer to your concern about the specular highlights.

Actually looks nice.

[dmr]

I've shot several rolls of it now, but I would not want to shoot it in daylight, first because it's tungsten balanced (needing either a filter or quite a bit of tweaking in post) and also because of its high speed. In "sunny 16" conditions, you'll be shooting it with high shutter speeds and stopped way down. I use it for interior shots and available-light night work. See example below. I've never been concerned about the remjet being removed.

Now on the other hand I've had great luck shooting a couple of rolls of Cinestill 50 in daylight. See other example below.

Cinestill 800, Canon GIII:


Cinestill 50, Pentax K1000, Sigma 18mm ultrawide:

[leekil]

I want to use the 800T with my ME Super to exploit its 1/2000 shutter speed and allow me to 1) shoot at ISO 800 when I need high SS, while still allowing to derate the film to EI 200 or 400 w/o pushing/pulling. Similar to that what can be achieved with Ilford XP2, but in color. For 50D I want to see how fine the grain can be, and also allowing me the flexibility of adjusting from ISO 50-200 w/o pushing or pulling.

So here is a comparison of Portra 400 vs. Vision3, by the Brothers Wright, who went on to produce Cinestill 800T. It looks like Portra 400 will do what you described. Portra is more contrasty than the Vision3, which seems consistent with my usage of the Cinestill 800T and 50D, but you won't have to worry about 85B filters.

Twin Lens Life ~ Fine Art Film Photography ~ Los Angeles Southern California ~ Bwright Photography: In The Bleak Midwinter - New Kodak Portra400 vs Vision3 500T 35mm

[butangmucat]

In "sunny 16" conditions, you'll be shooting it with high shutter speeds and stopped way down.

I am planning to shoot this film with my ME Super at 1/2000s shutter and f11 DoF, for trains, under overcast weather. A high shutter speed and a small aperture is needed for my type of work.

---------- Post added 02-22-17 at 04:41 AM ----------

The colors of 500T under daylight doesn't look too far off. Is this because negatives have a larger latitude for color?

[dms]

Your 1/2000 second and f/11 makes no sense.

If overcast maybe 1/iso at f/8--and thus w/ iso 800 film you are at 1/800 sec. at f/8, or 1/400 sec at f/11. Depends how overcast--but any way cannot be what you say.

[butangmucat]

Your 1/2000 second and f/11 makes no sense.

If overcast maybe 1/iso at f/8--and thus w/ iso 800 film you are at 1/800 sec. at f/8, or 1/400 sec at f/11. Depends how overcast--but any way cannot be what you say.

For the sake of protecting highlights, I do underexpose negatives by about 1 stop when shooting trains. Sometimes highlights can get very dramatic.



---------- Post added 02-22-17 at 02:20 PM ----------

Your 1/2000 second and f/11 makes no sense.

If overcast maybe 1/iso at f/8--and thus w/ iso 800 film you are at 1/800 sec. at f/8, or 1/400 sec at f/11. Depends how overcast--but any way cannot be what you say.

I made the numbers up, but what I mean is: being to shoot at 1/2000s and a small aperture to yield high DOF.

[Topsy]

Here are a few of the 50D pushed three stops.

It gets slightly.. green.








I'd love to try another roll of the 50D at iso50 but the development and scanning makes colour film too uneconomical for me to shoot once or twice a year.