Tbh as a lab tech it really just depends whos scanning it how your colors are gonna come out with any film. Its funny to me when people say they shoot film for the "purity" of it. But originally you had to edit your pictures in the darkroom using filters. Doesnt make sense to me seeing people do reviews of certain films. Some have characteristics thatre different yes. But it really depends on if you nailed exposure or not otherwise the tones in your scans can get thrown off. Development is a big factor too.
Is it normal for film to have different colour tones and white balances with just changes in exposure? I have 2 shots of a scene, one taken maybe a stop brighter, and they look totally different. I remember someone told me exposure affects the different layers in different ways e.g. the reds might be more sensitive to exposure vs the greens or blues (correct me if I'm wrong). Is that right?
@@ThePhotoDept That's super interesting to know. But also reaaaaally hard to work with on full manual cameras where the light meter is just a vague needle on a scale. Maybe I should just stick to aperture priority.
@@professionalpotato4764 thats a great thing to point out. When relying on the meter in your camera, it going to change the exposure drastically, depending on what is in the frame. I use the built in meter on my F2 all the time, but I also will meter for ambient light with an incident meter if it's something critical I need to be dead on. In my video about 400D, i metered the entire roll with my phone. Mind you, I was in an Ikea...
@@professionalpotato4764 oh yeah. It does. I've noticed when scanning batches of film from a single person that when things were underexposed things just get muddy. It can vary in color depending how the scanner is interpreting it, and it's my job to fix it the best I can without it looking too crunchy or like technicolor vomit. Id say it's actually better to overexpose because I can recover a lot more of the image but it'll muddy your highlights depending on the severity. I'd say a stop or over is recoverable. Better than underexposure.
I have probably shot close to 50 rolls of 250D/5207 that I made from short ends, and even some 120 that I rolled myself from short ends my dude, I think I can confidently say it’s meant to be color graded.
Man, that intro made me smile Tight presentation overall. Funny but never feels like you're wasting time I would definitely watch more stuff in the vein of "Phototube says ___ so I tried it for myself" from you
I’m not an agrarian photographer, I’m a hunter. I think it’s so funny because I’ve been getting these colors for five years now, shooting 800T in daylight with an 85 filter. And yeah people can not get on the same page about what saturation, contrast, and especially green and magenta are. Also I own a Frontier and it actually doesn’t have any LUTs specific to film stocks it applies. You can make “LUTs” with later software yourself and assign that to bar codes but you can still apply them to films without codes. The only thing that changes if it recognizes a bar code (which is only for Fuji films anyway) is that it handles the automatic color correction differently, which also only adjust the global CMY values like the operator would with the keyboard manually. I’ve heard often that the Frontiers can be inconstant from frame to frame with their auto correction because the balance each frame individually but at least with mine and the software I use it has been incredibly constant throughout and I have it on full correction with Hyper Tone. Hyper Tone is also the only correction the scanner does automatically that alters the curve. Anything else is just global CMY and density points. 400D just like 800T and 50D is just a funky film because it’s rem yet less movie stock pulled through the wrong developer and often underexposure. I don’t think the fact that it’s a cinema film with a slightly different film base is actually a problem for lab scanners. I’ve scanned ECN2 developed Vision3 on my Frontier no problem. CineStill is just fucked up cinema film. I personally don’t edit my scans and haven’t before I had my own Frontier, when I got Frontier scans from a lab. I like the way film looks with global printer point adjustments only. But off course good scans are a great bases for edits.
@@trels203 Does it though. Any curve correction is burned quite deep and doesn’t do much at all and except for some really broad and subtle base settings that only apply to special situations, the only control you really have is brighter/darker and more or less CMY. That’s about as minimal as it gets. The only other controls are the shadow/highlight/all soft to dark settings which can be nice if you want to add a tat more contrast or soften your highlights but they’re a bit clunky and the soft options can often brake an image. It’s really just CMY density for controls.
great video! (and i haven’t even made it past the intro) love seeing the film community get creative and break the format of a “traditional” film photography video. can’t wait to see more
This was a great video dude! Cool to see more film photographers in the KC area! I totally agree that the color cast is fairly inconsistent with 400D. The only thing I noticed consistently when I tested it was that it didn't really handle overexposure as well as other films. Who knows though. Everybody else might have a different experience depending on how they develop/scan.
I've shot a bunch of 800T with a cc30m magenta filter and it *still* comes out green, at least when the halation doesn't shove it more toward red. Dagnabbit, scanners.
Worked in a fuji lab for 5 years. Ypu are 100% correct about how the frontier is reading this film. Non bar coded film is a pain in the ass. Anytime i got it i had to manually adjust the white balance on every frame to get some kind of consistency. With specialty films like this you're way better off scanning them yourself. More time consuming but accurate. Also every lab will be different depending on how well the maintain their developer. E6 and other positive films will mess with the c41 chemistry if too many are run through consecutively.
I shot one roll of 400D 35mm when it first came out and found the film to be overall unimpressive. It had its own unique look and colors were mostly accurate. However, I shot a series of sunset photos starting about 10 minutes before sunset. The sunset was unique in that all the colors were soft pastels--yellow, oranges and pink. Unfortunately the film rended these distinct colors as mostly green---pale pastel green. I just loaded my second roll of 400D. This time 120 film. Hoping for no big disappointments.
KC here too. Scans definitely make a difference. I haven't used the 400D, I go with the stock Eastman 250D with remjet and home develop- I actually shot and developed a roll yesterday, with recently acquired ECN-2 chemistry for the first time. I've used C-41 in the past. I'm interested to see if the color is better in it's native ECN-2, I do so far like the colors on C-41 film developed in ECN-2.
You need to understand that different lab has different processing methods which result in different colors. If you want to see how it works with your workflow, you need to do your own camera scanning setup and using negative lab pro to have a consistant comparison between this and other films
CineStill 400D in 35mm worked the best for me, 120 I had a lot of issues with it but probably due to my own error. It was something I been waiting for, hopefully CineStill keeps pushing out film stocks. Their B&W film is probably the best out of all of their film available.
If I may harp for a second about Ultramax, I think that film stock is too good for what it is. Consumer films have without question been some of my absolute favorites. Gold is probably my favorite film stock, Fuji C200 is delightful, Ultramax renders green really nicely. I still have to try Superia from Fuji and ColorPlus from Kodak, the latter of which I finally managed to get my hands on two rolls to try in the near future. The consumer films are really capable, you don't NEED to buy Portra 400 or Fuji Pro 400H or Ektar 100 or Ektachrome E100, etc. You can get buy with cheaper film stocks and get great results. Black and white too, but I've noticed a bigger difference between slightly cheaper B&W film to getting HP5 or TMAX than an equivalent with color film, the dynamic range is clearly better on higher end B&W films like that.
I would go as far as to say that certain film stock don't even have a signature look. If I would do a blind test, I think 95% couldn't identify cinestill 50d, 400d, portra 400, gold 200, colorplus 200, fuji c200 etc.
I’ve only shot 2 rolls and it just screws up whites, they blowout on otherwise perfectly exposed images. The true measure of this for me will be how it looks when printed in a darkroom, scans and edited scans means you can fix issues, but if it doesn’t print well I won’t be shooting it in future. Haven’t printed it yet but I’ve realised this year how much I don’t like halation on my images. Yes they can look cool for sure and can be an awesome creative choice but if they don’t work/suit, then your image is fucked.
great video, very enlightening about a controversial film that divides opinions, Have you already tested Reflex Lab 400d film the cheaper alternative version of Cinestill.
There must be a hundred YT videos "reviewing" Cinestill 400D, and hundreds more doing much the same with the other two Vison 3 color films Cinestill modifies to sell for non-movie purposes. Very few say much negative, although as demonstrated here, there is no lack of reason to criticize. Further, those reviews are contradictory: It's too contrasty; It lacks contrast; it has too much saturation, or it lacks saturation. Most of these discrepancies are explained by an unwillingness to criticize the judgments of others on YT. Also, there is a considerable lack of technical sophistication as to film technical photography on YT, i.e., they just do not know any better. Also, color and contrast is effected by scanner technique, and once "post" is applied, any results are rendered meaningless. There are off color shadows (and other colors) is shown in the few technically competent videos. Vision 3 film are carefully designed to the ECN-2 process, the target being to match a specific color print film used make the films shown in theatres. While it gives the "touch and feel" of consumer color negative materials, it is not the same. They use different color dyes in the materials and different developers than C-41/RA-4 processes. When cross-processed in C-41, Cinestill films have two color cross-overs, which give the shadow greens and the purple skies, and that cannot be corrected in digital processing of the sort available to home users. Issues reported re contrast and saturation are mostly just the result of poor scanning and technical ignorance of folks hacking away in Photoshop. Several years ago, I really wanted Vision 3 to be my new color negative film, and I had the then rare option of ECN-2 processing available, but I also print my color images in the darkroom, and frankly, the unmatched dyes between ECN-2 film and RA-4 print materials means that this is never going to work. If Cinestill color film cost half as much as normal film products, it's existence could be justified as "experimental" or just for fun. At the pricing actually used, its a poor technical joke played on purchasers.
What if we are all just being gaslight and every roll of film ever is just randomly dipped in whatever chemicals they had at the time. I have completely given up on consistency with my film at this point.
So, most (if not all) "film" UA-camrs have no idea about the minutia of image processing (development, scanning, color negative conversion and color grading). Cinestill 400D is a cine film stock (Kodak Vision3 250D with remjet removed), meant to give highest consistency when handled, developed (ECN-2) and scanned correctly, having extremely low contrast to give the largest dynamic range possible (ever wondered how people like Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan manage to get gorgeous results that exactly look the way the want it, using this exact film stock?) - which leads to "unusual" results if the process doesn't match the standards this film stock is made for (like inconsistent exposure, using the wrong chemicals, inconsistent scanning and inconsistent conversion)! For those who want consistent results with "normal" treatment - they should stick to C-41 stock (there at least the development is mostly correct, and those film stocks are meant for "everyday shooting"; getting inconsistent results is still very likely due to all the automatic changes in the conversion process, like NLP normally does). Or, for short: You can get any colors you want out of Kodak Vision3 250D if handled correctly - we amateurs just lack the consistency, tools, processes and practice to do so.
The green cast of these films, complained of in the video, results from cross-processing them in C-41 chemistry. When you adjust the digital scans to remove that green cast, that injects purple casts elsewhere in the image. Guys, that's how it works. And there is practically nothing you can do about it, despite Cinestill's claims that you can process in C-41. Solution: skip Cinestill totally. Buy Vision 3 repackaged film (or a 400 foot Kodak bulk roll if you are really committed) and process in an ECN-2 chemistry kit instead.
I don't shoot nearly as much film as you but I shot one roll of 400d and definitely enjoyed it! Most of the images I shot on 400d can be found in this video: ua-cam.com/video/kAhKSsqYlpg/v-deo.html
The only 400D video that matters. This film is trash, especially for the price. When it hits, 2-3 shots per roll, it's awesome. Mostly is a color casted mess.
Cinestill 400D is my favorite black and white film stock
I'm howling at this lol
😂😂😂
Yup. Blooming highlights can be nice in mono. In colour I’m a halation hater.
💀
I really enjoy how the greens are very magenta and how saturated the unsaturated-ness is
Tbh as a lab tech it really just depends whos scanning it how your colors are gonna come out with any film. Its funny to me when people say they shoot film for the "purity" of it. But originally you had to edit your pictures in the darkroom using filters. Doesnt make sense to me seeing people do reviews of certain films. Some have characteristics thatre different yes. But it really depends on if you nailed exposure or not otherwise the tones in your scans can get thrown off. Development is a big factor too.
Is it normal for film to have different colour tones and white balances with just changes in exposure? I have 2 shots of a scene, one taken maybe a stop brighter, and they look totally different. I remember someone told me exposure affects the different layers in different ways e.g. the reds might be more sensitive to exposure vs the greens or blues (correct me if I'm wrong). Is that right?
@@professionalpotato4764 yes. exposure makes all the difference. with ANY film.
@@ThePhotoDept That's super interesting to know. But also reaaaaally hard to work with on full manual cameras where the light meter is just a vague needle on a scale. Maybe I should just stick to aperture priority.
@@professionalpotato4764 thats a great thing to point out. When relying on the meter in your camera, it going to change the exposure drastically, depending on what is in the frame. I use the built in meter on my F2 all the time, but I also will meter for ambient light with an incident meter if it's something critical I need to be dead on. In my video about 400D, i metered the entire roll with my phone. Mind you, I was in an Ikea...
@@professionalpotato4764 oh yeah. It does. I've noticed when scanning batches of film from a single person that when things were underexposed things just get muddy. It can vary in color depending how the scanner is interpreting it, and it's my job to fix it the best I can without it looking too crunchy or like technicolor vomit. Id say it's actually better to overexpose because I can recover a lot more of the image but it'll muddy your highlights depending on the severity. I'd say a stop or over is recoverable. Better than underexposure.
Guys. It’s Vision3 250D. You are SUPPOSED to color grade it. That is the entire point of the film…
dont lie for these hack jobs
I have probably shot close to 50 rolls of 250D/5207 that I made from short ends, and even some 120 that I rolled myself from short ends my dude, I think I can confidently say it’s meant to be color graded.
🤣I've yet to try 400D but that intro had me dying. I never noticed there were so many contrarian thoughts about this film!
Thanks for watching!!!
I'm only at the 2:30 minute mark, but this video is hilarious...cause that's exactly how it is. lol!!
only 3 minutes into this video and I'm cracking up already cause I've seen all these reviews. great video.
thank you my friend🤝
Man, that intro made me smile
Tight presentation overall. Funny but never feels like you're wasting time
I would definitely watch more stuff in the vein of "Phototube says ___ so I tried it for myself" from you
thanks you zess! I really appreciate it
One time i shot a roll of 400D and there were some images i could look at
bro is out here lying for a cinestill sponsorship 😪
devastating outcome.
Loved the content of this one. The explanations, images, & breakdowns were all depicted or described so well👏
thanks brother 🙏
Brilliant video! Love the narration 🤣
Absolutely epic, nailed that first part of the video! 👏 Looking forward to more videos like this!
thank you!
The production of this was stellar!! Absolutely loved it
thank you!!!
I’m not an agrarian photographer, I’m a hunter.
I think it’s so funny because I’ve been getting these colors for five years now, shooting 800T in daylight with an 85 filter.
And yeah people can not get on the same page about what saturation, contrast, and especially green and magenta are.
Also I own a Frontier and it actually doesn’t have any LUTs specific to film stocks it applies. You can make “LUTs” with later software yourself and assign that to bar codes but you can still apply them to films without codes. The only thing that changes if it recognizes a bar code (which is only for Fuji films anyway) is that it handles the automatic color correction differently, which also only adjust the global CMY values like the operator would with the keyboard manually. I’ve heard often that the Frontiers can be inconstant from frame to frame with their auto correction because the balance each frame individually but at least with mine and the software I use it has been incredibly constant throughout and I have it on full correction with Hyper Tone. Hyper Tone is also the only correction the scanner does automatically that alters the curve. Anything else is just global CMY and density points. 400D just like 800T and 50D is just a funky film because it’s rem yet less movie stock pulled through the wrong developer and often underexposure. I don’t think the fact that it’s a cinema film with a slightly different film base is actually a problem for lab scanners. I’ve scanned ECN2 developed Vision3 on my Frontier no problem. CineStill is just fucked up cinema film.
I personally don’t edit my scans and haven’t before I had my own Frontier, when I got Frontier scans from a lab. I like the way film looks with global printer point adjustments only. But off course good scans are a great bases for edits.
bruh i aint reading allat
@@FlyyFr Ok.
@@VariTimo i am, appreciate the info. Very interesting. Frontier has pretty impressive control.
@@trels203 Does it though. Any curve correction is burned quite deep and doesn’t do much at all and except for some really broad and subtle base settings that only apply to special situations, the only control you really have is brighter/darker and more or less CMY. That’s about as minimal as it gets. The only other controls are the shadow/highlight/all soft to dark settings which can be nice if you want to add a tat more contrast or soften your highlights but they’re a bit clunky and the soft options can often brake an image. It’s really just CMY density for controls.
Love this whole video my dude
Thanks so much slater
That Lynch esc intro was a cinematic masterpiece and made my morning.
great video! (and i haven’t even made it past the intro) love seeing the film community get creative and break the format of a “traditional” film photography video. can’t wait to see more
No one does it like u. My favorite farmer around
real ah message at the end 💯
This was a great video dude! Cool to see more film photographers in the KC area! I totally agree that the color cast is fairly inconsistent with 400D. The only thing I noticed consistently when I tested it was that it didn't really handle overexposure as well as other films. Who knows though. Everybody else might have a different experience depending on how they develop/scan.
I noticed the overexposure issue when dipped in C-41. I overexpose it with success when using ecn-2 kit.
@@YoYoYo interesting!
Would make sense since they removed remjet which would specifically allow highlights to blow out vs normal vision3
😂😂😂😂 dude you’ve earned my subscription that was mad entertaining
I've shot a bunch of 800T with a cc30m magenta filter and it *still* comes out green, at least when the halation doesn't shove it more toward red. Dagnabbit, scanners.
The new format is dope bro
Thank you so much🤝
Oh hey! I recognize a few of those folks! Nice work man, subscribed 🎉
Thanks!
Hey, just bought some expire 2009 Kodak gold 200 not sure if I should put the iso to 100 or lower
Finally someone who chose to speak facts
Love the format & humour btw keep up great content like that hope you blow up !
Haha, this was great, dude!
Thanks friend, I enjoy your videos!
SantaColor 100 and Cinestill 400D are my absolute favourites
Worked in a fuji lab for 5 years. Ypu are 100% correct about how the frontier is reading this film. Non bar coded film is a pain in the ass. Anytime i got it i had to manually adjust the white balance on every frame to get some kind of consistency. With specialty films like this you're way better off scanning them yourself. More time consuming but accurate. Also every lab will be different depending on how well the maintain their developer. E6 and other positive films will mess with the c41 chemistry if too many are run through consecutively.
I shot one roll of 400D 35mm when it first came out and found the film to be overall unimpressive. It had its own unique look and colors were mostly accurate. However, I shot a series of sunset photos starting about 10 minutes before sunset. The sunset was unique in that all the colors were soft pastels--yellow, oranges and pink. Unfortunately the film rended these distinct colors as mostly green---pale pastel green.
I just loaded my second roll of 400D. This time 120 film. Hoping for no big disappointments.
I bought, no joke, like 30 rolls during Black Friday for $7 because it was cheap and now.. I still have a lot of it to get through..
The intro had me rolling 😂
The names of which I forgott, but his dogs where really photogenic
Nice video, mate. Made me laugh and that’s impressive. I haven’t laughed since last Thursday when my cat died. And that was hilarious.
You’re locking scanner exposure for the whole roll right?
This video was hilarious 😂 😂 😂
As someone who shot both 400D and it's true form, Vision3 250D. Go with the latter. You'll notice a difference.
KC here too. Scans definitely make a difference. I haven't used the 400D, I go with the stock Eastman 250D with remjet and home develop- I actually shot and developed a roll yesterday, with recently acquired ECN-2 chemistry for the first time. I've used C-41 in the past. I'm interested to see if the color is better in it's native ECN-2, I do so far like the colors on C-41 film developed in ECN-2.
I use it with ECN-2 and have no issue with color consistency. The inconsistency in this video is from the scan operator.
You need to understand that different lab has different processing methods which result in different colors. If you want to see how it works with your workflow, you need to do your own camera scanning setup and using negative lab pro to have a consistant comparison between this and other films
Cool man, do more videos
just for you, my friend
@@TommyGrisselFilmsgood boy
CineStill 400D in 35mm worked the best for me, 120 I had a lot of issues with it but probably due to my own error. It was something I been waiting for, hopefully CineStill keeps pushing out film stocks. Their B&W film is probably the best out of all of their film available.
If I may harp for a second about Ultramax, I think that film stock is too good for what it is. Consumer films have without question been some of my absolute favorites. Gold is probably my favorite film stock, Fuji C200 is delightful, Ultramax renders green really nicely. I still have to try Superia from Fuji and ColorPlus from Kodak, the latter of which I finally managed to get my hands on two rolls to try in the near future. The consumer films are really capable, you don't NEED to buy Portra 400 or Fuji Pro 400H or Ektar 100 or Ektachrome E100, etc. You can get buy with cheaper film stocks and get great results. Black and white too, but I've noticed a bigger difference between slightly cheaper B&W film to getting HP5 or TMAX than an equivalent with color film, the dynamic range is clearly better on higher end B&W films like that.
I would go as far as to say that certain film stock don't even have a signature look. If I would do a blind test, I think 95% couldn't identify cinestill 50d, 400d, portra 400, gold 200, colorplus 200, fuji c200 etc.
"try my hands at the D" huehuehue
Lolol
Wait Cinestill 400D is a new film? I’m not a film photographer so I thought it was an old film.
It's almost as if processing is a variable or something!
I’ve only shot 2 rolls and it just screws up whites, they blowout on otherwise perfectly exposed images.
The true measure of this for me will be how it looks when printed in a darkroom, scans and edited scans means you can fix issues, but if it doesn’t print well I won’t be shooting it in future.
Haven’t printed it yet but I’ve realised this year how much I don’t like halation on my images.
Yes they can look cool for sure and can be an awesome creative choice but if they don’t work/suit, then your image is fucked.
Had no idea that Frugal Aesthetic started doing photography videos lol, great content tho
SP-3000 doesn't read the film type and apply LUTs. :D
this is just an example that negative film is no lock in to a single look, especially cinema film
Bingo.
great video, very enlightening about a controversial film that divides opinions, Have you already tested Reflex Lab 400d film the cheaper alternative version of Cinestill.
I still need to try that out, I just watched a video about it recently! Thanks for watching
@@TommyGrisselFilms I'm shooting with this film, only with the 800T version , I will take it for development soon to see the results .
There must be a hundred YT videos "reviewing" Cinestill 400D, and hundreds more doing much the same with the other two Vison 3 color films Cinestill modifies to sell for non-movie purposes. Very few say much negative, although as demonstrated here, there is no lack of reason to criticize. Further, those reviews are contradictory: It's too contrasty; It lacks contrast; it has too much saturation, or it lacks saturation. Most of these discrepancies are explained by an unwillingness to criticize the judgments of others on YT. Also, there is a considerable lack of technical sophistication as to film technical photography on YT, i.e., they just do not know any better. Also, color and contrast is effected by scanner technique, and once "post" is applied, any results are rendered meaningless. There are off color shadows (and other colors) is shown in the few technically competent videos. Vision 3 film are carefully designed to the ECN-2 process, the target being to match a specific color print film used make the films shown in theatres. While it gives the "touch and feel" of consumer color negative materials, it is not the same. They use different color dyes in the materials and different developers than C-41/RA-4 processes. When cross-processed in C-41, Cinestill films have two color cross-overs, which give the shadow greens and the purple skies, and that cannot be corrected in digital processing of the sort available to home users. Issues reported re contrast and saturation are mostly just the result of poor scanning and technical ignorance of folks hacking away in Photoshop. Several years ago, I really wanted Vision 3 to be my new color negative film, and I had the then rare option of ECN-2 processing available, but I also print my color images in the darkroom, and frankly, the unmatched dyes between ECN-2 film and RA-4 print materials means that this is never going to work. If Cinestill color film cost half as much as normal film products, it's existence could be justified as "experimental" or just for fun. At the pricing actually used, its a poor technical joke played on purchasers.
bruh i aint reading allat
@@FlyyFr Right, I get that you are a "I like it 'cause its cool." kind of guy. Good luck with that.
Lmao bro this is hilarious.
thank you!
What if we are all just being gaslight and every roll of film ever is just randomly dipped in whatever chemicals they had at the time. I have completely given up on consistency with my film at this point.
So, most (if not all) "film" UA-camrs have no idea about the minutia of image processing (development, scanning, color negative conversion and color grading). Cinestill 400D is a cine film stock (Kodak Vision3 250D with remjet removed), meant to give highest consistency when handled, developed (ECN-2) and scanned correctly, having extremely low contrast to give the largest dynamic range possible (ever wondered how people like Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan manage to get gorgeous results that exactly look the way the want it, using this exact film stock?) - which leads to "unusual" results if the process doesn't match the standards this film stock is made for (like inconsistent exposure, using the wrong chemicals, inconsistent scanning and inconsistent conversion)! For those who want consistent results with "normal" treatment - they should stick to C-41 stock (there at least the development is mostly correct, and those film stocks are meant for "everyday shooting"; getting inconsistent results is still very likely due to all the automatic changes in the conversion process, like NLP normally does). Or, for short: You can get any colors you want out of Kodak Vision3 250D if handled correctly - we amateurs just lack the consistency, tools, processes and practice to do so.
The green cast of these films, complained of in the video, results from cross-processing them in C-41 chemistry. When you adjust the digital scans to remove that green cast, that injects purple casts elsewhere in the image. Guys, that's how it works. And there is practically nothing you can do about it, despite Cinestill's claims that you can process in C-41. Solution: skip Cinestill totally. Buy Vision 3 repackaged film (or a 400 foot Kodak bulk roll if you are really committed) and process in an ECN-2 chemistry kit instead.
Yeah, I mentioned that at the very end. It’s a tricky situation to be in with color negative film haha
I dont even know whos the presenter in this video. First time here I thought you're part of the meme in the intro
I don't shoot nearly as much film as you but I shot one roll of 400d and definitely enjoyed it! Most of the images I shot on 400d can be found in this video: ua-cam.com/video/kAhKSsqYlpg/v-deo.html
definitely an enjoyable film. Also, great photos! You captured some great colors
@@TommyGrisselFilms thanks! I think I got really lucky with the light that day, it worked well for the stock
wheres that twisted tea sponsorship at
I will be contacting their marketing department.
Cinestill does not make their own film. They order it direct from Kodak without the anti halation layer. It's literally just Kodak vision 3...
Whaaat, you’re kidding. Where did you hear about this?
this video is so real people are just saying shit
no you get it dude, everyone is getting different results; for example mine are dogshit bad
This video is little a little Green
not satisfied at all with what i got. kind of regretting i bought so much of it
At first I was sad I didn’t back the kickstarter, now I’m happy I didn’t. Still a *decent* film though.
I don’t like cinestill. If I want halation I go for harman phoenix
The only 400D video that matters. This film is trash, especially for the price. When it hits, 2-3 shots per roll, it's awesome. Mostly is a color casted mess.
prius photo was better
The film is 💩