Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-05-2013, 05:59 PM   #1
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 828
CineStill film (800 Tungsten C-41) - anyone using it?

Came across CineStill film online recently. Looks pretty interesting. Anybody have experience with it?
CineStill Film

I should probably spring for a role (which, at $10 is pretty close to Portra pricing at this speed) and find out.

11-05-2013, 06:27 PM   #2
Site Supporter
mattt's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Niagara
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,805
Never shot it myself... But how about this:

11-06-2013, 08:18 AM   #3
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,334
The only issue I see is that it’s Tungsten film and if you use it outside in daylight you will get a heavy blue cast in your shots. You will need to use a colour correction filter (#85) to compensate for the temperature difference in the lighting.

Phil.
11-06-2013, 09:27 AM   #4
Senior Member
Skullsroad's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 267
I have three rolls but I haven't got around to shooting them yet. Going to try shooting in mixed conditions, with and w/o a warming filter.

PF member "wuzet" posted up a shot here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/8-pentax-film-slr-discussion/53503-cool-l...ml#post2541611

11-06-2013, 09:38 AM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 828
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Skullsroad Quote
I have three rolls but I haven't got around to shooting them yet. Going to try shooting in mixed conditions, with and w/o a warming filter.

PF member "wuzet" posted up a shot here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/8-pentax-film-slr-discussion/53503-cool-l...ml#post2541611
Cool. Interested to hear what you think. Thx for the link to wuzet's photo; I'd missed that (and didn't come across it in Search).

Re: filters, lazy person that I am, I'd probably opt for embracing the blue cast rather than try to make it true to life. Like to get a sense for just how out of balance it's likely to be.

I shoot so much indoor mixed natural light I find this film really intriguing.
06-02-2014, 10:37 PM   #6
Pentaxian
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,993
QuoteOriginally posted by alan_smithee_photos Quote
Cool. Interested to hear what you think. Thx for the link to wuzet's photo; I'd missed that (and didn't come across it in Search).

Re: filters, lazy person that I am, I'd probably opt for embracing the blue cast rather than try to make it true to life. Like to get a sense for just how out of balance it's likely to be.

I shoot so much indoor mixed natural light I find this film really intriguing.
I just went searching the forums to find a thread on the stuff and here it is.

You guys shot any of it yet? It's crazy fun stuff. I've a couple shots with it up on my flickr stream from the past couple months.








06-03-2014, 12:25 AM   #7
Veteran Member
hks_kansei's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 795
I've looked at the website, but the details seem vague.

So it's an 800asa Tungsten balanced 35mm film, I got that bit.

But it keeps mentioning Xpro and C41?

is it a positive E6 (or some other process) film that they recommend to cross process in C41 chems? or is it a natural C41 negative film that may be processed in E6 if you wish?



It always throws me when film manufacturers label things as "cross process" since to me cross processing is nothing to do with the film, and all to do with what chemicals you decide to dunk it in.



Basically, say one were to use this in Tungsten light, exposed at 800asa, and then developed in C41 chemicals.
Would you get a normal balanced negative? or would you get a colour shifted, cross processed looking, positive?
06-03-2014, 07:47 AM   #8
Pentaxian
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,993
QuoteOriginally posted by hks_kansei Quote
I've looked at the website, but the details seem vague.

So it's an 800asa Tungsten balanced 35mm film, I got that bit.

But it keeps mentioning Xpro and C41?

is it a positive E6 (or some other process) film that they recommend to cross process in C41 chems? or is it a natural C41 negative film that may be processed in E6 if you wish?

It always throws me when film manufacturers label things as "cross process" since to me cross processing is nothing to do with the film, and all to do with what chemicals you decide to dunk it in.

Basically, say one were to use this in Tungsten light, exposed at 800asa, and then developed in C41 chemicals.
Would you get a normal balanced negative? or would you get a colour shifted, cross processed looking, positive?
My understanding (and someone can correct me if I'm slightly off) is this is simply motion picture film that *normally* would require ECN-2 chemistry development, ala Seattle Filmworks and several others over the years who made it possible to use the stuff in 35mm format simply by requiring you develop it with them (they would indeed use ECN-2 chemistry and the remjet backing would not be of consequence). These fellas have developed a way to somehow (they're not saying exactly how and who would blame them) remove the remjet backing layer BEFORE development which enables them to cut and roll it for 35mm AND the shooter can safely develop it in C-41 chemistry. So in essence by doing so it *is* cross-processing and the color shifts and "character" of this particular film (when developed in C-41) as a result of exactly this.... Just as processing C-41 in E6 chemistry or vice-versa creates that x-pro look, or as processing using tetenal does the same.

---------- Post added 06-03-14 at 07:54 AM ----------

Incidentally, the base film stock they use is Kodak Vision3 500T: KODAK: KODAK VISION3 500T Color Negative Film 5219/7219

06-03-2014, 09:25 PM   #9
Veteran Member
hks_kansei's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 795
Ah, that makes sense.
I know very little about movie film and the checmicals/methods they use.

I'm assuming then that this is positive/slide film?
06-03-2014, 09:52 PM   #10
Pentaxian
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,993
QuoteOriginally posted by hks_kansei Quote
Ah, that makes sense.
I know very little about movie film and the checmicals/methods they use.

I'm assuming then that this is positive/slide film?
You clearly didn't click the link above that says "color negative" didja?
06-03-2014, 10:09 PM   #11
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 4,340
This stuff looks very good indeed - wonderful colours!
06-03-2014, 11:29 PM   #12
Pentaxian
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Queens NYC
Posts: 4,856
Last week I received some Eastman 5222 Double X black and white cinema film.
It's ISO200 which IMO is about ideal.
I've seen some very nice results from others using this film, so I'm looking forward to trying it.

Chris
06-04-2014, 03:03 AM   #13
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 12
Waaaaay back when I have used Kodak 5247 (http://125px.com/docs/motionpicture/kodak/ti0835.pdf). They came back as a pair of color neg + slides.
I remember the slides being rather thin in color and quite tinged with green (? ). Need to go digging through boxes in order to refresh my memories.
The film was purported to have a very wide exposure lattitude.
06-23-2014, 03:27 PM   #14
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8
I just got my first roll of this back from being developed, here's a couple of examples:









They were all shot rated at ISO 500 without any correction filters in fading daylight, the last one with only light from a convenient streetlight.

In all I'm really impressed with the film, though perhaps not the most accurate of colour renditions it produces pleasant, if a little cold skin tones and seems to have an impressive exposure latitude. Anything really underexposed is somewhat grainy but that's not entirely unappealing at times.
06-23-2014, 05:33 PM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
Nice work. If this stuff really is repackaged Kodak 5219 stock, you will see dramatically improved grain results if you rate it at 320 iso. I have seen a ton of this stock shot at both 320 and 500, and the difference is dramatic.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, c-41, c41, chemicals, chemistry, cinestill, color, colour, e6, film, flickr, foto, kevin, kodak, pm, post, process, remjet, results, scratch, tungsten
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Developing B/W film with C-41 ftpaddict Pentax Film SLR Discussion 21 05-27-2014 06:47 PM
For Sale - Sold: C-41 / E6 Water Bath Heater (4 available) Jamey777 Sold Items 4 07-04-2013 09:43 AM
C-41 and E6 120 processing? grhazelton Pentax Medium Format 15 06-04-2012 01:59 PM
C-41 film processed in Rodinal Todd Adamson Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 3 05-18-2012 03:58 AM
Questions about C-41 and non C-41 BW film. SuperAkuma Pentax Film SLR Discussion 23 02-14-2009 12:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:13 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top