What is wrong with this roll of Cinestill 50

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

Hi Erl,

that doesn't mean that the problem wasn't with the preparation of the original film emulsion.

Mark

Edited May 9, 2016 by MarkP

[erl]

Mark, on the film quality I cannot comment, but the several times over the years I have had that effect on my own films it was definitely low developer in the tank (my mistake) and during agitation the froth thus created forms bubbles with surface tension holding developer at the edge of each bubble. Hence the dark line outlining the bubbles formed.

 

Let's see what the labs may say.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[earleygallery]

The only thing I can add is that in all my years of using film I've never had a 'bad' film, ever! 

 

I too think that what you see here are processing faults, especially given the obvious care the lab has shown in handling the first film!!

Edited May 9, 2016 by earleygallery

[Doc Henry]

James, as I have to wait and as I see that some films have colors that seem not conform
(light veil or dominant) , I decided to develop myself
it is mostly cheaper and I can do it on Sunday when the laboratory is closed

Rg

Henry

[A miller]

If the rolls were hand processed at the same time frothing is still a definite possibility, one roll has to be at the top of the pile, the rest will be fully under the developer and applies to both yours and Mark's films. It may be that Cinestill is prone to holding onto the froth by surface tension because of the type of emulsion or some aspect of removing the remjet layer, but it still doesn't mean it is a bad batch.

Thanks, Steve.  Very sensible. 

Spoke to my lab today and shared a sample image and that are pretty adamant that it is not their doing.  Seems that the leading theory is that the schmootz on the film was caused by the process by which the anti-halation layer was removed. 

 

I will share more samples in the coming days and also will try to obtain a view on this from Cinestill.

[MarkP]

My lab's thoughts too.

Edited May 9, 2016 by MarkP

[fotomas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I tried one CineStill 50 last year. It was processed by me along with 5 other rolls of film in the same tank. And it also has a lot of marks and scratches. Not as worse as in Your examples here, but all the other 5 films went out well. So my guess: it is more the film, not the lab.

[earleygallery]

I tried one CineStill 50 last year. It was processed by me along with 5 other rolls of film in the same tank. And it also has a lot of marks and scratches. Not as worse as in Your examples here, but all the other 5 films went out well. So my guess: it is more the film, not the lab.

 

And what did they have to say about the shocking state they returned your negs in - crud and scratches all over them - did they feel that was the film too?

[MarkP]

Who knows...I now wonder whether the embedded dirt and scratches were also supplied free with the film ;-)

 

My lab used a dip and dunk processing technique for 4 rolls at a time so scratches shouldn't occur.

I have always had pristine negatives back from them the past.

 

 

 

 

I too have never had a dud roll of film in the 40 years or so I've been using film and hence thought this was a processing problem.

But then again this is the only film I have ever used that has had post-production manipulation before it gotto me.

Edited May 10, 2016 by MarkP

[A miller]

This is from a different roll of Cinestill 50 that was processed with the roll that was bad...  No real issues with this roll

M-A, 35mm summilux asph fle

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[gbealnz]

Ah, your with our Neil then, he was on "one of those shoots", nice.

Gary

[Joshua Lowe]

Just found this thread.  I also think it's an issue with the film.  I had a roll of 800t come back from the lab (Richard Photo Lab) with the exact same sort of bubbling in the top half of the frames.

 

I usually send 5 to 10 rolls of film at a time to this lab.  Most often a mix of Portra 160, 400, and Cinestill 800t.  The bubbling was only found on a single roll of CineStill.  

Edited May 11, 2016 by Joshua Lowe

[pico]

My experience in cine film is quite old, but it was unreliable and definitely not made to archival standards. It was an inter-media never intended to last longer than necessary for editing to create the real film. The stuff we got  for our tiny runs for 35mm stills came from outdated or film lots of questionable origin.

.

Edited May 11, 2016 by pico

[Joshua Lowe]

I've shot around 25 rolls of 800T and so far only 1 has had issues.  I'm not too concerned about it, though I'm generally kind of "over" the look of 800t and ready to move on for a while.

 

If I had to hazard a guess, the bubbling is probably related to CineStill's chemical process for removing the remjet coating from the film

Edited May 12, 2016 by Joshua Lowe

[A miller]

I heard more detail on this from Cinestill. They said that their film has a shelf life of only about 1 year from the date of production and after this it becomes highly sensitive to (in my words) "schmootzing" as a result of being exposed (at some point from production to procurement) to sub-optimal transport and storage.

How does one come to know the date of production? They said they will soon be labeling their film cassettes with this date.

How does one be sure that the film that they purchase online has an unexpired date? Doesn't seem to be an answer for this other than to write to Cinestill if you come across an expired date upon delivery and arrange for a swapping of rolls (or more likely that they will just send you good rolls).

What do you do if you have CS film in your home right now w/o any clue of production date? Notify CS and it seems like they will replace them with "fresh" rolls.

Is this film too much of a hassle to bother with? That's totally a matter of personal preference...

Edited May 25, 2016 by A miller

[MarkP]

Interesting I was told no such thing!

Nevertheless, my supplier is replacing my Cinestill with Kodak Ektar and Portra.

I'll wait a while 'till this is sorted before going back to Cinestill.

[A miller]

Interesting I was told no such thing!

Nevertheless, my supplier is replacing my Cinestill with Kodak Ektar and Portra.

I'll wait a while 'till this is sorted before going back to Cinestill.

 

I guess that's what you get when you cut out the middle man...? 

I got this info after going back and forth in a little of a rant as to the questions that I posed above.

Good thing is that the Wrights are good people and will act accordingly to make things right.  

 

Another example of the "schmootz mitosis" for those who didn't see in the "I like film" forum...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited May 26, 2016 by A miller

[bwright]

This is Brandon Wright with CineStill Film. Sorry for just chiming in on this. It is a busy time for us right now setting up our new manufacturing facility for medium format.

 

First, I want to say that we guarantee our film to be defect free and that if anyone has any problem please contact CineStill directly so that we may help!

 

info@cinestillfilm.com

 

Concerning the problem at hand... It seems to be an age issue as Adam mentioned above. Unexposed/Undeveloped CineStill film is more delicate and also more sensitive to heat and age than other film. CineStill should always be clean and without defect if it is fresh when shot. We take responsibility for this issue since we did not have expiration dates on our film before and will gladly replace any questionable rolls if you contact us.

 

I can say for certain that dust and scratch issues are not possible with our standards in manufacturing. All of our film is clean and professionally rolled into brand new canisters in a clean environment. Any dust and scratches that may occur can only have been introduced sometime after manufacturing. CineStill scratches more easily than other films due to its nature but we test film from every batch and I personally have shot hundreds, if not thousands, of rolls of CineStill and this has never been a problem.

 

All film currently in production has expiration dates so questions about age should not be a problem in the future. We are continually working to improve our product and expiration dates is one way we are doing that. Extended shelf life and durability is another way and our new manufacturing will allows sto improve that as well.

 

Please contact CineStill directly if you have any further questions. info@cinestillfilm.com

[pico]

bwright's contribution is helpful. I wish to remind our readership that film used in the professional cine industry is held to critical standards most of still-photographers have never considered. Cine folks standards work within a critical time-frame that we never have to deal with.
Thank you to bwright,

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

I am reporting back that I rec'd "fresh" replacement rolls in the mail today from Cinestill.  I look forward to using them on the beach this summer