@@theoldcameraguy It really is quite something that Cinestill would annihilate there reputation in order to shut down minor sellers on eBay. I wish Catlabs had actually filed a challenge to the copyright - they would win in a heartbeat. I understand not wanting to spend the money on lawyers though. It's very strange that they were granted the trademark.
Incidentally Kodak made an 800T 5289/7289 in it's range of Vision cinema films. It was discontinued in 2004/5 in favour of Vision 3 500T, the film Cinestill strip the remjet layer off.
Agree about cinestill not being interested in us older photographers. Was totally ignored on their recent London photowalk. But when all these 30 something drop film for the best next and us oldies continue to shoot film Cinestill will be interested in us then.
Cinestill didn’t sue anyone because they know that their trademark claim on “800T” would not hold up for long in court. It’s as ridiculous as a creamery trademarking “1 Gallon”.
@@aengusmacnaughton1375 I know. That's not the point. The point is: if anyone ever attacked that trademark in a lawsuit, that trademark would not hold up for very long. There is so much precedent in case law against it - like Intel and their CPU trademarks where combinations of letters and numbers were not worthy of protection. The trademark office made a mistake in their appeal judgement. The best thing would be for someone like B&H to to just challenge the trademark.
@@aengusmacnaughton1375 they did... however, the trademark should never have been granted since "800T" is a technical specification which cannot be trademarked. If someone wanted to challenge it in court there is a very high likelihood that the trademark would be revoked.
As word spreads hard about cinestill... They will feel it deep in their pockets... As photographers realize they are taking photography away... They will realize the film community will feel sick EVERYTIME someone uses their product. They are Bud lit-ing themselves on fire.
I didn’t understand the commentary part, but stayed for the photos! Fun stuff! Great to see your photos from the NY city trip and Frankenmuth from our home state 🧡
Thanks Michelle - We had a great time in Michigan - we hit Frankenmuth, Charlevoix, Petoskey, Harbor Springs, St. Ignace and Mackinac, all in a long weekend. More Michigan videos to come
I stand to be corrected. But I don't think Cinestill remove any remjet . Instead they buy it direct from Kodak with it never having a remjet layer . Who knows of any Kodak 500T motion picture film in 120 ? Another great video .
I've heard it both ways. Given all the film flaws and problems Cinestill had with its film products initially, I'm fairly sure that they started by removing remjet from standard Vision 3 film. In fact, it's the only thing they added to "make" their product. As their film sales volume has greatly increased, it would make sense to seek Kodak's help by omitting the remjet during manufacture, but as far as I know, no one has verified that happening.
I have shot Cinestill 800T and enjoyed it, but like you I'm cheap. I love the cheaper end of the colour film world and can get Vision 3 films much cheaper elsewhere that still has the remjet layer, which I don't mind working with.
Let's not forget that in the late 90's, Kodak release with the first version of Vision motion picture stocks, an 800T (5289/7289) which was produced until the mid 2000's, and used on films like Kill Bill or Matrix. the current "800T" refurbished rolls are just 500T Vision 3.
There’s other videos about this topic. However, I appreciated your breakdown and it was easier to understand and comprehend what’s going on with this situation. Also cool to see your NYC trip and the photos you took! After hearing your stories 😂😊
Great video with a balanced view that only the wisdom of age can provide (mostly!). I've been using Lomo800 for the past year purely because I'm cheap too. Decent number of keepers in that final roll... Wish I could hit that rate!
Glad you made this video, I appreciate your honest commentary. After hearing both sides, I won't be purchasing anymore CineStill either. We're all adults here, and I also have no hard feelings if anyone wishes to continue using CS... just not for me haha (too pretentious anyhow IMO) 😂 Thanks again for sharing another roll of film! The WTC shots were fantastic.🤩
So this has puzzled me -- if you remove the remjet from the Kodak Vision films and you get halations -- the remjet is to help reduce that. Why don't we have remjet on typical Kodak still film? And since we do not, why doesn't typical Kodak still film producr halations?
@@theoldcameraguy -- well, you'd think that someone at Kodak would say, "Hey -- did you see all of these people who resell our Vision3 motion picture film as still picture film? We still make our Vision3 film for movies -- why don't we also sell it, minus remjet, as still picture film????"
Remjet is actually to prevent scratchig from the film gate in motion cameras. Removing it just happens to also remove the antihalation layer, or the remjet doubles as an antihalation layer on motion film. not sure which.
@@theoldcameraguy jakeaaron is correct about remjet protecting motion film from scratching, in the camera. Stills films have an anti-halation layer in the form of a dyed sub-coat, on the film base, before the emulsion is applied. C-41 uses an EDTA silver bleach, due to anti-pollution laws. This replaced using a potasium fericyanide bleach/pot bromide, which produces superior colour negatives, suited to make film positives, the movie industry prefered. C-22 also used pot-feri bleach.
My opinion of Catlabs and Reflx have fallen off a cliff ... arguing the merits of Cinestill's possible over-embrace of capitalism aside, Catlabs lied blatantly to generate hate and Reflx is playing up their "mom and pop" look a lot despite maybe being tied to Shanghai (the film company) and passing off inferior remjet removal as an equal product to something manufactured to high standards. Good point about Cinestill not including enough older people in marketing, but also anyone who tried to talk to old people on a message board about film photography ... yikes. YIKES. haha. (I say that as someone outside of the general cool range, too.) But yeah ... a much more balanced commentary than I was afraid of hearing. Nice shots, and shooting more and different film is indeed nice!
Thanks Jamie. Yeah, I’m not a big fan of misinformation and there has been plenty of it in this matter. I’ve mostly stayed off message boards, but I’ve heard horror stories about grumpy old gatekeepers getting toxic pretty quickly. I appreciate you taking the time to watch this and consider my perspective on this.
Great video, Dave! I, too, am dismayed that one of the cool players in the community has opted to go after the little guys. I wish them no ill will. But tbh, I’d rather shoot the remjet stuff for much less, you know, just bulk roll it at will and enjoy the process. As far as the photos. They are beautiful. Great job balancing everything, sir!
Definitely a bummer all the way around about the controversy. As a Gen-Xer, I can totally relate with having been around long enough to understand that nothing is black and white (dad joke). Great video, great photos🙏
I agree there is an ICK factor that is hard to take right now. As for their films they are indeed expensive for what they really are. Also for me the results have been spotty at best. Now I do shoot mostly nature and scenic images and I now believe that their films really aren't geared to those types of images. Your photos are very nice just not the type I normally take.
I came for the photos and you didn't disappoint. If you want some real cheap halation, there's always a digital camera and a Tiffen Black Pro mist 1/4 filter. No Cinestill necessary. 😅
Is the other 800 amber and grain film identical to cinestill look? I haven't shot them. That's crazy with the controversy, was my favorite film 400d & bwxx at least. Also love the shots in the video of the diner! How long were you in nyc?
I haven’t tried the Grain version yet, but I did shoot a roll of Amber and it is very very similar to my CineStill results. I was in NYC 4 full days and one extra night. I was able to shoot a ton of film while I was there.
Great photos as always Dave. A fantastic final roll hit ratio there. I have got to say I've never shot any Cinestill 800T for two reasons, first, we don't have a huge amount on Neon here in the UK and certainly not locally and secondly I'm way too cheap! As for Cinestill's business practices, surely the way to look uncool to your target market is to act like a bunch of corporation stuffed suits. It might not work in their favour long term.
I've only shot 1 roll of Cinestill in my 3 years since getting into film. That roll cost me $35 and $10 to develop for a total of $45. I liked the film but quickly decided that it wasn't for me based on prices. I live in Asia so it's more expensive here for many film products. I wanted to support them, but they were just too expensive. Now there is this recent news from them and it just makes me want to stay away even more. With that said, it doesn't mean that I wouldn't shoot some if it was given to me or at an extremely cheap price. Like less than any budget film on the market price. Anyway, I started bulk loading Vision3 films almost 2 years ago and prefer that for my color stuff.
I heard from a friend who has studied the different variants of 800T and those knock-offs coming from China are washing the film in a processor-like system where the emulsion is washed and affected. The film's response to light is changed dramtically and sure you will obtain colors but they will not be correct to the look of Cinestill 800T nor the actual Kodak 5219 stock. Buyers beware of this difference....cheaper yes, but much worse color imaging.
i really like your analysis - i hope some film youtuber will cover the Ferrania story one day and how they collecter over 300k from backers on kickstarter and today sell film and promote stuff while they still haven't sent any film out to their backers. Not a good foundation to build a company on.
I did not know you were an Eye Dr. Cool. Fuji put out 64t and kodak had 160t before we heard of cinestill. If anything those companies should go after cinestill.
still, I'm primarily a b&w film user and as you noted I'm also cheap. Further I prefer daylight balance if I'm going to shoot color. I've got a couple rolls shot recently and will wait until I finish the current roll before I mix the C41 kit I've got. I want to get as many rolls as it will do and not "die" on the shelf. Keep on keeping on love your stuff.
Nice images! Enjoyed hearing your thoughts on the matter, especially agree with the whole ick factor. Thanks for keeping your channel a positive place! 👍
Great stuff as always! I was once a digital camera guy, but I have fallen out of interest recently. I enjoy all of your content and wish I could take pictures like you do! The controversy with film companies is distressing for I feel as you say, competition is good. But enough of my ranting. Again, Great show and I just wish I could shoot as good as you!😀
Nice photos. I've never shot Cinestill 800T or any of the other 800 Tungsten films. Really just because I was trying all the other wonderful traditional color film stocks that are available.
I agree with your take 100%. My first reaction was to call for a boycott, but I waited until they issued their response. Overall, I felt they overreacched & their response did them no favors. My response to them is no response - I just simply don't plan on buying anymore film from them (for varying reasons). Anyway, good video & keep shooting film!
Thank you for being a(nother) voice of reason. Cinestill isn’t murdering puppies so there is no reason to boycott; however, have they gone a little overboard…? Perhaps…. Btw, love the photos. Your talent isn’t defined solely by the film.
CineStill clearly plays trademark games (I have some experience with trademarks, even though not as a lawyer, but having consulted lawyers in the process of registering some here in Germany). One aspect might be the difference between "TM" and "(R)", but whatever they did, they would most likely not be able to defend "800T" in court (only "CineStill 800T"). And they did go after the small business people, not the "real infringers" - that's a sure sign that they know. They might now know that it was a silly move. (I'm not a big fan of the look anyways and would rather go the Silbersalz route of shooting the real stuff with ECN-2 development, being in Germany … 😁) I like the look of your shots, though (and astonishingly low halation, I remember it being stronger - but maybe this was the 50D I tried).
I stopped buying their film years ago and buy my cine film from overseas with the rem-jet still on it (cheaper and I don't mind removing the rem-jet in between dev and fix.) B&H and Adorama have tons of money so they won't go after them because they would lose. Better for them to shut mom and pop shops down to stay the main supplier. But with the cost of color film these days, everyone is looking for a option for price. Including the young hip crowd! LOL But with the cost of color now days. I stick to B&W when I do shoot film these days. Good video and a good place to leave off for not suing their film anymore.
You got some good photos and valid points, Dave. I only shot Cinestill 800T once, it was just ok, so I will never buy this film in 35mm format. Price wise not a chance against Vision3 500T which I'm obsessed with 😅 As far as 800T in 120 format, I had only good experience, plus for some reason it prints so well in darkroom. I've seen 120 version of Vision3 on ebay that I might try sometime.
If you can deal with the remjet on the Vision3 500T (35mm and 120) -- then stick with that, since Cinestill is only charging a bunch extra for the exact same film with the remjet removed....
As we say here in Ohio, Cinestill "really stepped in it". Based on what I've read, they really could have done some things better. They should have started using distinctive branding (say calling it CS800T* or something) and pushed marketing on that, along with why their film was better than 'cheap imitations'. But I'm afraid they listened to too many west coast lawyers and VC IP brainiacs. From what I've seen, nothing they did generated any goodwill towards their brand. And film, as a fungible commodity, is easily substituted with something else. Kinda like light beer in a blue can. I'm not big on 500t/800t due to color balance, I gotta have an 85B on my lens for that stuff. You did a good balanced job explaining your position, and made some great photos with the 800T. Like you Dave, I'm an old film photog guy, and too cheap to be their target market. (But I did buy some film in their 400D campaign). My current film project is slitting down 65mm 50D & 250D to 120 width and spooling it up. Plenty of remjet to go around with this stuff! And no halation.
In this video The Old Camera Guy presents some well-developed arguments, without being totally black-and-white, and successfully reached a fixed conclusion. 🙂
Nice one guys, let’s all boycott a film producer and send them out of business for protecting themselves. Perhaps we can bankrupt them and then everyone can moan there aren’t enough films. Bloody foolish.
Honestly, I want to keep film alive period. I plan to continue shooting CineStill 800T along with Amber 800T and VIBE 800. I have gradually stocked up about three of each over the course of the last year and my mindset going forward is I will by the version of the film my local lab and camera stores are currently stocked with. I am not one to jump on the hate train just because it is there, I need to know more first.
Shell can't trademark 10w-30, Ford can't trademark V8, and Cinestill can't trademark 800T.
Great shots as always!
Thanks Jeremy
@@theoldcameraguy It really is quite something that Cinestill would annihilate there reputation in order to shut down minor sellers on eBay. I wish Catlabs had actually filed a challenge to the copyright - they would win in a heartbeat. I understand not wanting to spend the money on lawyers though. It's very strange that they were granted the trademark.
Cinestill has overreached their place in this little film bubble community by copyright-ing descriptive terms. Poor decisions lead to bad business.
It’s also just not a nice film stock, period. I will always prefer the real deal Vision 3 over it, every day of the week
😂 I’m old and I’m cheap…therefore I’m invisible to these people. Great photos as always!
Thanks Sara
"I don't think Cinestill thinks I exist...because I'm over 30." Keen observation. Cheers Dave.
Thanks man
Incidentally Kodak made an 800T 5289/7289 in it's range of Vision cinema films. It was discontinued in 2004/5 in favour of Vision 3 500T, the film Cinestill strip the remjet layer off.
Agree about cinestill not being interested in us older photographers. Was totally ignored on their recent London photowalk.
But when all these 30 something drop film for the best next and us oldies continue to shoot film Cinestill will be interested in us then.
I feel eventually there will be a DSLR run similar to what we are seeing with CCD sensor cameras. No one cared about those sensors a few years ago
9:19 !!!!!!!!! so good holy crap man
Thanks man!
I'm old, so I can use novelty filters from the '70s if I want the cinestill look with other film.
"Nuance and thoughtful discussion." hahahah
Cinestill didn’t sue anyone because they know that their trademark claim on “800T” would not hold up for long in court. It’s as ridiculous as a creamery trademarking “1 Gallon”.
Ufortunately it does look like they did indeed trademark 800T....
@@aengusmacnaughton1375 I know. That's not the point. The point is: if anyone ever attacked that trademark in a lawsuit, that trademark would not hold up for very long. There is so much precedent in case law against it - like Intel and their CPU trademarks where combinations of letters and numbers were not worthy of protection. The trademark office made a mistake in their appeal judgement. The best thing would be for someone like B&H to to just challenge the trademark.
Well, I'm gonna fight BIg Dairy, and register 2% Homogenized.
@@aengusmacnaughton1375 they did... however, the trademark should never have been granted since "800T" is a technical specification which cannot be trademarked. If someone wanted to challenge it in court there is a very high likelihood that the trademark would be revoked.
@aengusmacnaughton1375 There are numerous instances of trademarks not holding up in court even after they have been issued.
The universe is grey...so says my lightmeter.
Honestly I don’t really even like 800T, the halation is often exaggerated and you can get softer halation off standard Kodak Vision3.
As word spreads hard about cinestill... They will feel it deep in their pockets... As photographers realize they are taking photography away... They will realize the film community will feel sick EVERYTIME someone uses their product. They are Bud lit-ing themselves on fire.
I didn’t understand the commentary part, but stayed for the photos! Fun stuff! Great to see your photos from the NY city trip and Frankenmuth from our home state 🧡
Thanks Michelle - We had a great time in Michigan - we hit Frankenmuth, Charlevoix, Petoskey, Harbor Springs, St. Ignace and Mackinac, all in a long weekend. More Michigan videos to come
@@theoldcameraguy I look forward to seeing them ☺️
Another great video from the OCG. Really enjoyed hearing your commentary and thoughts about all this👍
Thanks Joe
I stand to be corrected. But I don't think Cinestill remove any remjet . Instead they buy it direct from Kodak with it never having a remjet layer . Who knows of any Kodak 500T motion picture film in 120 ? Another great video .
I've heard it both ways. Given all the film flaws and problems Cinestill had with its film products initially, I'm fairly sure that they started by removing remjet from standard Vision 3 film. In fact, it's the only thing they added to "make" their product. As their film sales volume has greatly increased, it would make sense to seek Kodak's help by omitting the remjet during manufacture, but as far as I know, no one has verified that happening.
I have shot Cinestill 800T and enjoyed it, but like you I'm cheap. I love the cheaper end of the colour film world and can get Vision 3 films much cheaper elsewhere that still has the remjet layer, which I don't mind working with.
Yes, remjet isn’t a dealbreaker for me either
Let's not forget that in the late 90's, Kodak release with the first version of Vision motion picture stocks, an 800T (5289/7289) which was produced until the mid 2000's, and used on films like Kill Bill or Matrix. the current "800T" refurbished rolls are just 500T Vision 3.
There’s other videos about this topic.
However, I appreciated your breakdown and it was easier to understand and comprehend what’s going on with this situation.
Also cool to see your NYC trip and the photos you took! After hearing your stories 😂😊
Thanks Joan! I’ve got a few more NYC videos scheduled over the next two months.
Great video with a balanced view that only the wisdom of age can provide (mostly!). I've been using Lomo800 for the past year purely because I'm cheap too. Decent number of keepers in that final roll... Wish I could hit that rate!
I was done with Cinestill when they started charging $13 for a roll of 35mm Kodak Double X.
"I'm over 30."🤣🤣🤣
Me too - WAY over 🤣
Glad you made this video, I appreciate your honest commentary. After hearing both sides, I won't be purchasing anymore CineStill either.
We're all adults here, and I also have no hard feelings if anyone wishes to continue using CS... just not for me haha (too pretentious anyhow IMO) 😂
Thanks again for sharing another roll of film! The WTC shots were fantastic.🤩
Thanks JT! Yeah, I made my decision, and to each his own.
@@theoldcameraguy I highly respect that!
So this has puzzled me -- if you remove the remjet from the Kodak Vision films and you get halations -- the remjet is to help reduce that. Why don't we have remjet on typical Kodak still film? And since we do not, why doesn't typical Kodak still film producr halations?
I’m assuming it’s because the emulsion of motion picture film is different than traditional consumer still film, but I don’t really know how.
@@theoldcameraguy -- well, you'd think that someone at Kodak would say, "Hey -- did you see all of these people who resell our Vision3 motion picture film as still picture film? We still make our Vision3 film for movies -- why don't we also sell it, minus remjet, as still picture film????"
Remjet is actually to prevent scratchig from the film gate in motion cameras.
Removing it just happens to also remove the antihalation layer, or the remjet doubles as an antihalation layer on motion film.
not sure which.
@@theoldcameraguy jakeaaron is correct about remjet protecting motion film from scratching, in the camera. Stills films have an anti-halation layer in the form of a dyed sub-coat, on the film base, before the emulsion is applied. C-41 uses an EDTA silver bleach, due to anti-pollution laws. This replaced using a potasium fericyanide bleach/pot bromide, which produces superior colour negatives, suited to make film positives, the movie industry prefered. C-22 also used pot-feri bleach.
My opinion of Catlabs and Reflx have fallen off a cliff ... arguing the merits of Cinestill's possible over-embrace of capitalism aside, Catlabs lied blatantly to generate hate and Reflx is playing up their "mom and pop" look a lot despite maybe being tied to Shanghai (the film company) and passing off inferior remjet removal as an equal product to something manufactured to high standards. Good point about Cinestill not including enough older people in marketing, but also anyone who tried to talk to old people on a message board about film photography ... yikes. YIKES. haha. (I say that as someone outside of the general cool range, too.) But yeah ... a much more balanced commentary than I was afraid of hearing. Nice shots, and shooting more and different film is indeed nice!
Thanks Jamie. Yeah, I’m not a big fan of misinformation and there has been plenty of it in this matter. I’ve mostly stayed off message boards, but I’ve heard horror stories about grumpy old gatekeepers getting toxic pretty quickly. I appreciate you taking the time to watch this and consider my perspective on this.
I love the transitions from video to stills, and how unexpected they are.
Thanks Cherry
Great video, Dave! I, too, am dismayed that one of the cool players in the community has opted to go after the little guys. I wish them no ill will. But tbh, I’d rather shoot the remjet stuff for much less, you know, just bulk roll it at will and enjoy the process. As far as the photos. They are beautiful. Great job balancing everything, sir!
Thanks Mario! Yes, I’m ok dealing with the remjet too.
Definitely a bummer all the way around about the controversy. As a Gen-Xer, I can totally relate with having been around long enough to understand that nothing is black and white (dad joke). Great video, great photos🙏
Thanks!
Youth is a temporary affliction.
I was cured many years ago
I agree there is an ICK factor that is hard to take right now. As for their films they are indeed expensive for what they really are. Also for me the results have been spotty at best. Now I do shoot mostly nature and scenic images and I now believe that their films really aren't geared to those types of images. Your photos are very nice just not the type I normally take.
Yes, there are other films better suited for nature scenes. I do like the 800T for neons and nightlife.
ISO is considered (at least from the film shooter’s perspective) to have some wiggle room, right? Introducing Amber 795T.
Perfect solution!
I came for the photos and you didn't disappoint.
If you want some real cheap halation, there's always a digital camera and a Tiffen Black Pro mist 1/4 filter. No Cinestill necessary. 😅
Thanks Chris - Good point about that filter too
Or even cheaper vesrsion of pro mist - good ol hairspray over cheap uv filter 😅 I tried both and both great
@@AnalogueDiaries ah, the ol' hairspray trick! 🤌
A company acting like a company... really not all that suprising...
Is the other 800 amber and grain film identical to cinestill look? I haven't shot them.
That's crazy with the controversy, was my favorite film 400d & bwxx at least.
Also love the shots in the video of the diner! How long were you in nyc?
I haven’t tried the Grain version yet, but I did shoot a roll of Amber and it is very very similar to my CineStill results. I was in NYC 4 full days and one extra night. I was able to shoot a ton of film while I was there.
@@theoldcameraguy that's dope, loving the images so far!
Thanks Nick!
@@nicksucio
Great photos as always Dave. A fantastic final roll hit ratio there.
I have got to say I've never shot any Cinestill 800T for two reasons, first, we don't have a huge amount on Neon here in the UK and certainly not locally and secondly I'm way too cheap! As for Cinestill's business practices, surely the way to look uncool to your target market is to act like a bunch of corporation stuffed suits. It might not work in their favour long term.
Thanks Andy - They are definitely taking a hit in the short term. We’ll see what happens in the long run.
I thought old folks were the Tyrannosaurus Rex of the film world 😊
You may be right 🦖
Oh man, it would be really hard for me to drop DF96. ☹️
It is super convenient
I've only shot 1 roll of Cinestill in my 3 years since getting into film. That roll cost me $35 and $10 to develop for a total of $45. I liked the film but quickly decided that it wasn't for me based on prices. I live in Asia so it's more expensive here for many film products. I wanted to support them, but they were just too expensive. Now there is this recent news from them and it just makes me want to stay away even more. With that said, it doesn't mean that I wouldn't shoot some if it was given to me or at an extremely cheap price. Like less than any budget film on the market price. Anyway, I started bulk loading Vision3 films almost 2 years ago and prefer that for my color stuff.
I heard from a friend who has studied the different variants of 800T and those knock-offs coming from China are washing the film in a processor-like system where the emulsion is washed and affected. The film's response to light is changed dramtically and sure you will obtain colors but they will not be correct to the look of Cinestill 800T nor the actual Kodak 5219 stock. Buyers beware of this difference....cheaper yes, but much worse color imaging.
I tried it once years ago and threw the rest in the trash
i really like your analysis - i hope some film youtuber will cover the Ferrania story one day and how they collecter over 300k from backers on kickstarter and today sell film and promote stuff while they still haven't sent any film out to their backers. Not a good foundation to build a company on.
11:48 Love this photo!
Thank You!
Great photos as always. It is too bad there are not more varieties of choices when it comes to what speeds are available for tungsten film these days.
Thanks - More speed choices would be nice.
I really like the BWXX but I hardly ever use the 800T anyways. I think 50D looks better.
Vision3 ECN-2 for life
Classy way to present the issue, although you had a couple factual inaccuracies, but they weren't monumental. Same as Cinestill.
Me: 👀🍿
I recently shot CineStill 800T and I wanted to make a video out of it, but the drama exploded and now I’m like 😬
I completely relate to that my friend. I wasn’t even sure I wanted to make a CineStill video right now, but here we are😅
@@theoldcameraguy 😂
I did not know you were an Eye Dr. Cool. Fuji put out 64t and kodak had 160t before we heard of cinestill. If anything those companies should go after cinestill.
That “T” designation has been around a long time, true.
still, I'm primarily a b&w film user and as you noted I'm also cheap. Further I prefer daylight balance if I'm going to shoot color. I've got a couple rolls shot recently and will wait until I finish the current roll before I mix the C41 kit I've got. I want to get as many rolls as it will do and not "die" on the shelf. Keep on keeping on love your stuff.
Thanks for watching Curt
Thanks for the summary, well spoken. Keep up the videos, please.
Thanks for watching
Nice images! Enjoyed hearing your thoughts on the matter, especially agree with the whole ick factor. Thanks for keeping your channel a positive place! 👍
Thanks Molly!
Wait a minute those photos are making me want to try some Cinestill !😮😂
Yeah, it is a good looking stock
Great stuff as always! I was once a digital camera guy, but I have fallen out of interest recently. I enjoy all of your content and wish I could take pictures like you do! The controversy with film companies is distressing for I feel as you say, competition is good. But enough of my ranting. Again, Great show and I just wish I could shoot as good as you!😀
Thanks - I really appreciate it!
I bought some a while ago, but I’m not impressed. Now, for sure I won’t buy any of their items; because they sell more than film.
This dinosaur would have to agree with you. Love those shots from NY.
Thanks Gavin
Nice photos. I've never shot Cinestill 800T or any of the other 800 Tungsten films. Really just because I was trying all the other wonderful traditional color film stocks that are available.
Thanks - there are a lot of nice stocks out there
Appreciate your Thoughts. I don't follow forums or Reddit and wasn't aware. Great last roll👍👍
Thanks Mark
I agree with your take 100%. My first reaction was to call for a boycott, but I waited until they issued their response. Overall, I felt they overreacched & their response did them no favors. My response to them is no response - I just simply don't plan on buying anymore film from them (for varying reasons). Anyway, good video & keep shooting film!
Thank You
The original Kodak tin canister that Cinestill purchases to make their film has 800T written on it. Are they going to sue Kodak? 🤣
Thank you for being a(nother) voice of reason. Cinestill isn’t murdering puppies so there is no reason to boycott; however, have they gone a little overboard…? Perhaps….
Btw, love the photos. Your talent isn’t defined solely by the film.
Thank You
Thanks for the video. I enjoyed your commentary. The images were stellar. Thanks for creating a positive space here. Peace
Thanks - I appreciate it
I enjoyed the photos 📸 👍
Thank You
CineStill clearly plays trademark games (I have some experience with trademarks, even though not as a lawyer, but having consulted lawyers in the process of registering some here in Germany). One aspect might be the difference between "TM" and "(R)", but whatever they did, they would most likely not be able to defend "800T" in court (only "CineStill 800T"). And they did go after the small business people, not the "real infringers" - that's a sure sign that they know. They might now know that it was a silly move. (I'm not a big fan of the look anyways and would rather go the Silbersalz route of shooting the real stuff with ECN-2 development, being in Germany … 😁) I like the look of your shots, though (and astonishingly low halation, I remember it being stronger - but maybe this was the 50D I tried).
I stopped buying their film years ago and buy my cine film from overseas with the rem-jet still on it (cheaper and I don't mind removing the rem-jet in between dev and fix.) B&H and Adorama have tons of money so they won't go after them because they would lose. Better for them to shut mom and pop shops down to stay the main supplier. But with the cost of color film these days, everyone is looking for a option for price. Including the young hip crowd! LOL But with the cost of color now days. I stick to B&W when I do shoot film these days. Good video and a good place to leave off for not suing their film anymore.
Yeah, I’m becoming more of a BW guy myself man
I bought their "800t" film for underwater photography. I was very disappointed.
Pretty serious discussion! Great video Dave!!! Aren't all V3? :)). Your NY pics = ART!!! How was Pastrami? :))
Thanks Andy! Yes, the films are very similar and the pastrami was great!
You got some good photos and valid points, Dave. I only shot Cinestill 800T once, it was just ok, so I will never buy this film in 35mm format. Price wise not a chance against Vision3 500T which I'm obsessed with 😅 As far as 800T in 120 format, I had only good experience, plus for some reason it prints so well in darkroom. I've seen 120 version of Vision3 on ebay that I might try sometime.
Thanks Marina. Vision 3 stock is great and as you mentioned, priced much lower. Dealing with remjet is not a dealbreaker for me either.
If you can deal with the remjet on the Vision3 500T (35mm and 120) -- then stick with that, since Cinestill is only charging a bunch extra for the exact same film with the remjet removed....
@@aengusmacnaughton1375 the only trick is to find a good supplier for 120
Same here. I can find better places to spend my money. I've lost a lot of respect for cinestill.
From what I’ve seen online, you’re not alone.
As we say here in Ohio, Cinestill "really stepped in it". Based on what I've read, they really could have done some things better. They should have started using distinctive branding (say calling it CS800T* or something) and pushed marketing on that, along with why their film was better than 'cheap imitations'. But I'm afraid they listened to too many west coast lawyers and VC IP brainiacs. From what I've seen, nothing they did generated any goodwill towards their brand. And film, as a fungible commodity, is easily substituted with something else. Kinda like light beer in a blue can.
I'm not big on 500t/800t due to color balance, I gotta have an 85B on my lens for that stuff.
You did a good balanced job explaining your position, and made some great photos with the 800T. Like you Dave, I'm an old film photog guy, and too cheap to be their target market. (But I did buy some film in their 400D campaign). My current film project is slitting down 65mm 50D & 250D to 120 width and spooling it up. Plenty of remjet to go around with this stuff! And no halation.
Yeah man, I know you’re not afraid of a little (or a lot) of remjet. You’re right about the whole distinctive branding thing.
I hear your rant about the company. But the pictures are fab though! 🤩👍🏻
Thanks!
In this video The Old Camera Guy presents some well-developed arguments, without being totally black-and-white, and successfully reached a fixed conclusion. 🙂
That was my goal👍
Great photos!
Thanks Lee!
799t is the way to go guys
Yeah - if you’ve got a great product it’ll sell on its own.
Pinball was my #1 favorite. Although there were many great shots.
Thank You
Lol..... it is all Kodak stuff.....
Solution to this problem, STOP TO BUY CINESTILL PRODUCTS!!!
Hahahaha and hahahahaha! You click baiters.
I only made it 1:33 into this before I bowed out because everything you said was objectively wrong.
Nice one guys, let’s all boycott a film producer and send them out of business for protecting themselves. Perhaps we can bankrupt them and then everyone can moan there aren’t enough films. Bloody foolish.
Honestly, I want to keep film alive period. I plan to continue shooting CineStill 800T along with Amber 800T and VIBE 800. I have gradually stocked up about three of each over the course of the last year and my mindset going forward is I will by the version of the film my local lab and camera stores are currently stocked with. I am not one to jump on the hate train just because it is there, I need to know more first.