Cinestill 800

>>3017578
No.

Also

>800

kek

its grainier than shit, and overpriced

expose at 320 or 400

>>3010449
>>3010451
>>3010452
>>3012538
>>3013673
>>3013674
>>3013720
these were shot on kodak vision 3 500t, which is the same stock. first off, although its tungsten balanced, there's no need to filter when shooting in daylight since you can change the balance when you scan. second, I've heard that it can have pretty bad grain, weird colors, and lower speed in c41, since it's technically cross-processing. mine were developed in ecn-2 so I can't comment on how accurate these claims are but most pictures I've seen on flickr don't look too bad. It's not actually 800 speed but 500 and color negative film always prefers over exposure to underexposure, so err on the side of caution and shoot at 400 imo. I don't think the grain is too bad, my shots were shot on half frame and I still like the grain structure. if you like the stock, I'd recommend buying 500t in bulk, loading and processing it yourself in its native ecn-2 chemistry. better results and way, way cheaper, probably the cheapest way to shoot color film period.

File: 800.jpg (228KB, 800x591px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 800x591px

>>3017578
everyone bitches about it... its kind of cool for what it is... and its not that expensive.. I personally like the 50 a lot but i dont have any scans on this computer of the 50. here is a print i made of nyc on nye from cinestill 800. Just ensure your exposure is correct and you will be fine

File: skyline96.jpg (386KB, 800x507px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 800x507px

>>3017856
that was a really bad shot and incorrect print i actually don't even have a photo of the corrected print. the photo looked like this howerver.

File: windshield.jpg (313KB, 799x515px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 799x515px

>>3017865
a bit grainy but fun.

i shot this one on the way back through the windshield

File: CINE 200T.jpg (1MB, 2000x645px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x645px

im more of a 200T man.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	GT-X770
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	28622
Image Height	3144
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	3200 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:02:07 21:15:56
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	645

>>3017865
print looks better lol.

>>3017872
the final print actually came out pretty well even though the photo is shit.

>>3017871
Where did you find it?

>>3017881
got a 400ft canister for 75 cents at a flea market.

>>3017884
thats fucking awesome congrats m8. I may pick up some short ends. How are you developing? ecn-2 or c-41?

>>3017871
how did you remove the remjet? I ruined a whole roll because I thought I had rinsed all of it, but there were still a fuckton of tiny specs that I only saw when scanning.

>>3017886
maual page 23

http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedfiles/motion/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_processing_h333.pdf

>>3017886
http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedfiles/motion/h2407.pdf

more info relevant to mechanical processes used in labs to give you an idea of how its professionally done and what you would have to replicate in terms of physical process at home.

>>3017885
>thats fucking awesome congrats m8.
bought it when i didnt even shoot film yet and didnt plan to, ever. one day, out of boredom, almost opened the canister and black plastic bag to see the film lmao. lots of fuckers (proper, school of photography photographers) told me that such film was impossible to develop. but i never trust uni educated fucks.

>>3017886
>how did you remove the remjet?
bleach. works way better than baking soda. that roll in particular came out awesome. then i was all hyped and shot another roll and happened the same that happened to you, i got parts unwashed that fucked the whole roll.

what i found to be good practice is to do short spoolings, like 60cm ones, because there is more probability of getting them properly rem jet removed than longer strips. for half frame its still lots of photos.

File: _DSF1104.jpg (317KB, 849x1138px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 849x1138px

>>3017887
>>3017891
cheers, don't know how I could diy a pressured water jet in pitch darkness though.

>>3017895
so you bleach after the prebath and before dev? is it the same bleach as after the stop step? if I can't even guarantee results, I might just stick with cinestill, it's not too expensive when shot half frame, and you can get cool aura effects from the lack of anti-halation. (pic related)

>>3017902
i shoot it. then i go to the bathroom in total darkness, pull out the film, wash it, let it dry, once its dried i put it into the film roll again then i take it to develop in some lab. i use literal bleach gel, bleach for toilet cleaning, that one.