MattKing
Moderator
The same applies to good old Tri-X
The same applies to good old Tri-Xdesigned to tear easier so it doesn't destroy the camera mechanism. When I'm done rewinding a roll I can tear the leader off my with teeth or fingers. I can even fashion a leading foot for loading just by tearing.
Thus the Cinestill "glow"You overlook that
-) only yellow can be added this way. Yieldin thus a colour bias.
-) sensitivity varies between layers. Yielding more colour bias
-) halation takes place. Exposure thus is not added at the right locations
The same applies to good old Tri-X
That and cinefilm is more conservatively rated.
T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 too.I guess that Tri-X is not on Estar?
I should have clarified better, I think it's highly unlikely Cinestill is doing/having any chemical adjustment to the film (besides the rem-jet removal). As MattKing mentioned, my understanding is that higher EI rating for their is marketing based upon their assumption that people are developing the film in C41 to a different contrast index. In their product page for 800t: "...produces a complimentary contrast curve for optical printing on RA-4 paper when processed in C-41 chemistry..."What exactly does the adjustment entail? Are they really doing anything else apart from ordering film without remjet?
So you’re saying cinefilm is not rated more conservatively?It's correctly rated - for development in a CD-3 containing developer to a lower CI to match the CI of colour print stock & for exposure that's keyed to protect the highlights. CD-4 is very significantly more active in comparison - and the standard 3m15s is designed to get a C-41 stock to a higher design CI than ECN-2. In the case of the de-remjetted and cross processed Cinestill, the added flare of no anti-hal will both add some effective speed & reduce the contrast a bit too.
T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 too.
Same for Plus-X.
Same for Kodak Gold.
- unless it's just a master roll of Vision 3 250D.
This isn't how film speeds work.So you’re saying cinefilm is not rated more conservatively?
I know it’s flatter, less contrasty for easier printing/scanning. But like lenses, where there is T-stops as a better measure of light throughput than f-stops, film is of rated lower and in exposure index values.
Correct?
There is such a thing as total light sensitivity, that is relatively independent of development. IE how many photons does it take to make a development center.
Not that same as, but related to the concept of quantum efficiency.
Isn’t that density and not contrast?This isn't how film speeds work.
They don't report how sensitive to light the film is.
They report the minimum level of light you need in order to achieve a certain level of contrast when developed appropriately.
When the light level is lower, the details on the slide or negative are there, but they are submerged in muck. When the light levels get high enough, the details start to separate out and provide a usable image.
The speed rating is a measure of that point where the image comes out of the muck.
"muck" is, of course, not a technical term
No Plus-X is made any more, sadly. I referenced it, because I have a couple of rolls left, it was a main film for me for years, and I have intentionally torn of the leader on many, many rolls over many years.They're still making Plus-X?
By the way I have some Aero Plus-X 70mm. Whatever it's coated on is unbreakable.
It is both. Only Zone System practitioners use density alone. That is part of the reason that, by definition, a Zone System speed is 2/3 of a stop slower right from the starting point.Isn’t that density and not contrast?
No Plus-X is made any more, sadly. I referenced it, because I have a couple of rolls left, it was a main film for me for years, and I have intentionally torn of the leader on many, many rolls over many years.
And the Aero films must be dimensionally stable, so they are never on acetate.
The sharing of names "Plus-X" is unfortunately confusing, but think how long the sentence would have been if I had tried to be more specific!
Well to be precise, the human sensor system is very attuned to high frequency changes. Hence why various kinds of compression work. Low frequencies can be compressed (and predicted) extensively, compressing the whole range.It is both. Only Zone System practitioners use density alone. That is part of the reason that, by definition, a Zone System speed is 2/3 of a stop slower right from the starting point.
ISO/ASA/DIN readings use both density and contrast, and are a much more predictable way to measure the response of the film to photographic requirements, because they result in better straight prints.
We don't "see" density. We "see" contrast.
Pretty sure cine Plus-X ("Plus-X Negative") is still available, at least in 16mm and 8mm formats. Not the same as the still Plus-X we all used to use, again, just shared name (originally based mainly on the film speed).
Pretty sure cine Plus-X ("Plus-X Negative") is still available, at least in 16mm and 8mm formats. Not the same as the still Plus-X we all used to use, again, just shared name (originally based mainly on the film speed).
Most of the Cinestill pictures I've seen by amateurs are blah. No contrast, no pop. Maybe that's the post-processing. But photographers seem to like the blah look. I've also seen this blah look in video. I don;t get it.
Most of the Cinestill pictures I've seen by amateurs are blah. No contrast, no pop. Maybe that's the post-processing. But photographers seem to like the blah look. I've also seen this blah look in video. I don;t get it.
I'm not telling you not to use it. I was giving my opinion. Why do I have to actually use a particular film to express my opinion on what I see from others work with it? Do I have to make a pizza pie before giving my opinion on how a particular pizza tastes?Have you used it?
You could show us your results. If you don't like it, we can judge your impression accordingly.
I appreciate you, this isn't a personal attack. But I'll be a little blunt in saying I'm not going to put too much weight. in a film based on impressions of postings random instagrammarians. You have to use a stock in your own workflow to get a really good impression. Even how you scan it make a difference.
I actually didn't care for my first roll of 800t test shots, but someone I took photos for was looking over my work one day and LOVED that they looked like an old movie (He didn't know it was cinestill, he just liked the look). No accounting for taste there. But, for good and not so good in use what I got wasn't what other internetters got. I'll shoot the new stuff before I write it off, too.
So you’re saying cinefilm is not rated more conservatively?
I know it’s flatter, less contrasty for easier printing/scanning.
I'm not telling you not to use it. I was giving my opinion. Why do I have to actually use a particular film to express my opinion on what I see from others work with it? Do I have to make a pizza pie before giving my opinion on how a particular pizza tastes?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?