[K David]

YES - but iut is a long way to go in the last days

I saw that. It looks like a camera project may not be backed -- something that doesn't often happen.

I guess CineStill has a hard time to explain, why they want $360k just to modify existing Kodak film while Ferrania asked for $110000 less to produce new film from scratch in four different formats

I agree that probably the reason. I've used 50D before -- their new 35mm format -- and I have an enlargement from it on my wall. The print is 20X30 and there's no visible grain, so I had hoped that CineStill would be able to catch on in spades. I still hope that will happen, and I think it could. Kodak would be wise to release their motion picture films without remjet for general use. That would probably kill CineStill, but their color films are simply amazing. 250D is incredibly as a black and white film, as is 500T.

[Jonathan Mac]

The 120 Cinestill isn't going to make it, which is a shame, but I don't understand what the money is for. I think the biggest problem (with Ferrania too) is that you get very little for the money, especially if you live outside the US.

[aurele]

I think the biggest problem (with Ferrania too) is that you get very little for the money, especially if you live outside the US.

Indeed ! The cinestill seems nice but 8.50€ to 10€ for a roll ? really ? I'd better buy a Fuji / kodak slow film and overexpose it a bit to get more or less the same results in grain.

I have an enlargement from it on my wall. The print is 20X30 and there's no visible grain,

You know, i made some enlargement in 20x30 and 30 x45 from 10 years old expired film (Kodak gold 100 / fuji superia 200) that are grainless too. I think i can go to 45x60 to start to see the noise patern, "grain peeping" the piece of paper

All that to say, that low speed film with low grain already exists and they do very well. We underestimate them a lot. And i don't think Cinestill can really do better. Or better to the point that it justify the high price.

[klaus123]

Hello

Meanwhile I got back my first CineStillFilm: Klaus-takes-Pictures - The Blog: 1St Experiences with #CineStillFilm #800T

[gofour3]

Hello

Meanwhile I got back my first CineStillFilm: Klaus-takes-Pictures - The Blog: 1St Experiences with #CineStillFilm #800T

Nice results. My local film store should be getting some of the Cine daylight 50 ISO film soon, will have to try it out.

Phil.

[gofour3]

A local film supply store just got the CineStillFilm Daylight 50 ISO 135 format in today. Freestyle has had it since Nov 14th.

Unfortunately Vancouver is usually too dark & gloomy this time of year for slower film, ISO 400 is about right for today. If this film had been released about 10 days ago we were in the middle of an 8 day stretch of beautiful sunny weather, which may not happen again for weeks/months.

Freestyle cost is $9.99 USD per single roll.

Beau Photo in Vancouver sells it for $15.93 CDN per single roll.

Phil.

[6BQ5]

I got two rolls of Cine Still 50 from Freestyle today. Happy days!

[turboseize]

I tried Cinestill 800T. I had planned to use it indoors or on the streets of Berlin, where I'd get artificial light - instead, OHL* ordered me to make a trip to lake Ammersee. So I shot most of the Film in broad daylight, without any correction filter at all. Now I ask: where is my blue tint? Shouldn't there be a colour shift?

Lab claims scans are filtered "neutral", that is they just remove the mask and leave everything else "as is". If I wanted colour correction, I'd have to pay extra. So I doubt the lab corrected it.


Here's some examples:







These two were shot under a street lantern. Note "halo" on th ehood.






This is a mix of daylight and artificial light. I used a cross-screen-filter on this. Note the "halo" effect surrounding the starburst and the highlights at the trousers... suppose this is due to the removed remjet?






This portrait was shot in very low light on a cludy, overhung, afternoon. It's a little bit soft, guess I didn't get focus right. And 1/20s at 135mm didn't help either...


All the rest were shot at Ammersee or in the surrounding mountains on a bright, sunny day.












Note the halo on this one.




Here we really maxed out dynamic range. :-)


So, where's my tungsten-film-in-natural-light blue cast? More pictures can bes foun don my blog (picures link to blog).
Oh, and could somebody explain how to "fit" pictures into the forum, that is automatically resize them so you don't have to scroll? I remember this being done automatically, but somehow this doesn't work anymore?


*OHL = Oberste Heeresleitung, traditional pet name for wife in our family since ages.

[6BQ5]

I haven't shot with this film yet but I have read about the blue tint you mention. The lab may have adjusted the white balance and warmed up the picture to cancel the blue tint. White balance adjustment is separate from film base tint removal. The white balance adjustment they perform may be an automatic function they enable with a check box in their software and there was no human adjustment.

The shots came out looking nice though.

[SoMENick]

Shot at 500, processed at 800
K1000/55mm1.8
LIghting was mixed, window light from behind through an off-white, patterned cloth and a regular tungsten bulb from subject's left.
Only editing was curves and some dust spotting in CS6.

[Eyewanders]

Digging up this thread to post a few 800t shots from recently.



---------- Post added 08-26-15 at 01:10 PM ----------



---------- Post added 08-26-15 at 01:15 PM ----------

[Eyewanders]

Incidentally..... I picked up 2 or 3 rolls of 50D quite a while back and shot one of them some months ago. I never posted anything from those however - I was a little nonplussed by the results. Had a couple keepers, and noted that it does seem to scan very flat in a good way and responds very well to post-processing in LR, but yeah.... overall I felt it was rather lackluster, especially the out the box results. It also seemed to colorcast quite a bit when under or overexposed much... not unusable, but not terribly pleasant looking to me.
Any other more recent thoughts here on the stuff (50D)??

---------- Post added 08-26-15 at 03:05 PM ----------

Actually I take part of the above back... There was one family photo from that roll which I posted and quite liked, but it really was the only one.

[gofour3]

Any other more recent thoughts here on the stuff (50D)??

I really like the CineStill Film 50. Nice colours and fine grain:



Phil.

[aiwa]

I tested both 800 tungsten and 50Daylight films. Tungsten is my favourite low light film now. 50D - found it good, but Portra 160 does have similar look with less expense and fuss.
For those who like to get bored, please find my reports for both films.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/01/21/cinestill-800-xpro-tungsten-35mm-fi...aivaras-sidla/

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/06/26/shooting-cinestill-50-daylight-xpro...aivaras-sidla/

[Eyewanders]

I tested both 800 tungsten and 50Daylight films. Tungsten is my favourite low light film now. 50D - found it good, but Portra 160 does have similar look with less expense and fuss.
For those who like to get bored, please find my reports for both films.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/01/21/cinestill-800-xpro-tungsten-35mm-fi...aivaras-sidla/

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/06/26/shooting-cinestill-50-daylight-xpro...aivaras-sidla/

I agree 100%.