Any experience with CineStill films

[stric]

<p>Hello,<br>

I am wondering if anyone has had any experience with CineStill films. Reportedly, these are films for motion pictures that are re-purposed for still photography. A long time ago, I've read somewhere, that motion picture film is generally lower quality than true photographic film; it's simply no good for still photography (I don't know if this is true). It appears that CineStill is designed to be developed by utilizing C41 process. Does anyone have any experience with these films? Good? Bad? What are your opinions about this type of film?<br>

Thanks</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Well yes and no. I do shoot Vision film but I shoot it with the remjet backing on and process it myself in a modified CD-3 developer that is closer to the films native ECN2 developer than C-41 is. I have made my own by removing the backing and drying it in the dark then loading it in the cartridge. With the backing removed I got some weird haloes because it is also the films AH layer.<br>

Many like it and processed in C-41. Sorry no examples on this computer as it is an on going project.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Eastman Camera Negative films are the best color films Kodak makes, have the most advanced technology. <br>

But they are not designed for consumer still photography.<br>

The rem-jet backing is an optimal anti-halation process for motion picture films because it provides lubrication and protection of the back of the film base during the very vigorous path through the motion picture camera.<br>

The films are not designed for long shelf-life, or storage without refrigeration. All the negative film for a movie (it's a LOT) is generally made-to-order, kept refrigerated until the day of exposure, and processed that night. Latent image keeping isn't a design concern.<br>

They are designed for the ECN-2 process, which uses a different color developer than the C-41 process. Dye stability will suffer in C-41 process.<br>

They are designed for a different contrast curve than C-41 films, so printing via methods calibrated for C-41 films will provide "off" results. The contrast is lower to allow more generations of printing.<br>

The CineStill films, shot without any anti-halation treatment, will have serious halation problems. I think this is what provides them with the "hipster" chic (in the style of Lomography). If you want that look, that would be the reason to use them.<br>

You can get almost all the same technology in Kodak's Portra 160 and Portra 400 films. These are superb films, they blow away Kodak's "consumer" films.<br>

Now, 30 years ago Kodak's movie film stocks (both negative and print) had HORRIBLE color stability. Eastman 5247 was famous for this. A lot of movies are in dire shape. The studios have learned that the only way to preserve color films archivally is to make B&W separation negatives, one each for red, green, and blue, on films like KODAK Panchromatic Separation Film 2238. </p>

[wogears]

<p>I mostly agree with John Shriver; however, it is always useful in cases like this to do a Flickr tag search on "cinestill". You will see a lot of pseudo-hipster images, but also a number of very fine shots taken by people who know how to avoid the (very real) problems that John mentions.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Much agree with Les above. I've used RGB (Hollywood) repacked mot. pic. shorts for around 30yrs and have some really nice images...many could not be done better if used another stock. Still have couple of dozen films in the refridge :>) of this type. The ASA 200 was my *go to* film and v. sharp. The DR was v. nice too. It sure had a different look than the 'chrome, but I guess the cost justified the means. I always got a set of slides accompany the negative. For me it was a mail-order thing, so when I traveled somewhere (especially Europe)....by the time I got home all the film was already processed and awaiting me...well maybe except a roll or two. </p>

<p>Anyway, this was v. quality oriented vendor and I never had any double exposures or some other issues. Unfortunately, they closed when the digital became really strong. One of the fun details: most often I was able to get 38 and sometimes even 40 exposures out of the roll.</p>

<p>If I were you I'd test it and see if the images work for you. By saying 'test it', what I mean is try sending your roll/s so they receive sometimes during the week - Monday (in such lab) sees too much film taken over the weekend.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Aside from the issue of the remjet coating, I don't think it was any better (or, for that matter, worse) than the existing C/N films back in the day when it seemed that every other ad in the photo magazines was for using this kind of film (Kodak 5247 and its kin). Wilhelm's studies of color fading showed essentially the same results as regular C/N film.<br>

Here's an ad for 5247, etc, from 1983. The thing here was <em>they</em> took off the remjet coating that makes it harder for home processing (cf. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik7OSgkgKng">link</a>, if you can stand the soundtrack longer than I did)</p><div></div>

[eddy_d]

<p>They have, supposedly, removed the REm backing and you can just have it developed at a lab with no worries. Freestyle and photwarehouse both carry it.</p>