PICK YOUR ISO?? why you should be using Cinestill 400D film

[@pembridgehouse]

As a former film wedding shooter I used to use Ilford XP2 black and white film that was processed in colour chemistry. I found that film had such a wide exposure latitude that you could probably make the same call re using whatever ISO you chose. It had great detail in shadows and highlights. Still available and you film guys should try it if you haven't.

[@ribsy]

interesting. i find BW def lets you play around a bit more

[@ReimannPembroke]

I’ve been really happy with the rolls of 400D I’ve shot so far! Great video as usual man!

[@ribsy]

yea 400D is good

[@AlexOnStreets]

Cinestill 400D costs an average of $34 in Japan per roll. Luckily I got in on the kickstarter with a bunch of rolls, my family sent me more and also I have some other vision 3 250D repackaged stuff too. So I'm sitting ok right now but it's a shame I wont be able to just freely pick up rolls here without importing from China or B&H paying extra shipping. And as for other Cinestill film in Japan, it's also around the same prices. Other repackaged stuff in retail too. So I have to think about bulk rolling vision3 myself in the future if I really get hooked on it. Too bad thats also nowhere to be found here in Japan.

[@ribsy]

oh my lord - $34 LOL What!? --- bulk rolling vision3 is def the smartest way to go

[@jestintzi]

I feel like the "you can do anywhere from 200 to 800" is kind of a labeling gimmick to try and make this seem like a more versatile film, even though it looks really not much different from much of any negative film? Also I definitely think the halations during the daytime looks bad (and also, feels like a waste of 250D emulsion, which I've been shooting and having dev'd with Midwest Film Co, which does beautiful daylight shots)

[@ribsy]

def marketing - i don't see this film handling under/over exposure better or worse than any other color negative film

[@billhackley3540]

as shared not a color shooter but watched because you always have great content and info. on a side note i'd like to share that things lined up and i picked up a couple enlarger lenses from KEH a few days ago, always read good things about them, it's true. my lenses are far better than the listed rating. will check their site before any future purchases

[@ribsy]

KEH is great!

[@Owwliv]

I'm really leaning into checking sites like KEH before I resort to Ebay- got a lens with a scratched rear element the other day via some ebay idiot, and it would be a lot easier to deal with a business which knows how to grade camera equipment.

[@StanleyVaughn-xk3wv]

OUTSTANDING tutorial! LOVE your channel!!

[@ribsy]

thanks for watching!

[@sophietucker1255]

I did the deal for the 220 rolls that they were trying to do. Of course that didn’t work out and I now have 10 rolls of 120. I haven’t shot it yet but honestly I’m not that big a fan of the CineStill films I shot other than the the 800T at night. I did this only because I was hoping for some 220 choices to be out there. I thought that the images you showed shot at 400 were the best but that could be because of the screen I’m using to view your videos.

[@ribsy]

yea i think this film looks best rated at 400

[@ColHogan-zg2pc]

Holy cow i had no idea ECN 2 processing had auch a drastic difference compared to C41!

[@erichstocker8358]

Unfortunately, 250D does not come in 120. I like that film and have a 100ft roll for 35mm but 400D about the only way to get it for 120.

[@ribsy]

yea fo real! id love to shoot 250D in 120

[@sambrumley_productions]

@@ribsy I think the closest you might get to that is 250D in 65mm

[@BMV01]

So far I've shot 2 rolls.. 1 at box speed & overall I was happy with the results, however there were a couple shots that came out weird colorwise.. The other roll I push processed at 1600 ISO & those came out phenomenal.. The next roll I shoot I'm going to rate at 250 ISO.. Very interested to see how they turn out

[@ribsy]

yea its a fun film to experiment with

[@flicksbymarlon]

still gotta.try this stock, been loving the results i see online.

[@ribsy]

yea you can def create beautiful images with this

[@sambrumley_productions]

Portra 400 is going for $79.99 for a 5-pack of 35mm on B&H, which makes it about $16 per roll. CineStill 400D is $14.99 per roll. A 3-pack of Lomography 800 is priced at $47.90 and is currently out of stock, and per roll that would be about $15.97. I thought paying that much for Lomography was absurd, but then I see B&H is also selling ColorPlus 200 for $16.99. On another note, I'm kinda curious as to how 400D will look at night (will it be like Portra 400 but with CineStill 800T style halations?)

[@ribsy]

i still don't understand the gold at $16 -- that's simply gotta be them taking advantage of the demand cuz i know for a fact the factory cost isn't near that

[@VariTimo]

C41 totally rips through motion picture films. Sure you can do it. Yea it can have gorgeous colors but it’s not comparable to Vision3 film processed in native ECN2. Also the cross process adding speed is total horse shit. 400D is a 250 speed film and 800T is a 500 speed film. I honestly don’t see much of a point in shooting 400D since it’s just as expensive as Portra 400 not as consistent, or fine grain, has crazy halation, and if I want those colors in daylight I can just shoot 800T with an 85 filter and also have a film I can shoot well in indoor lighting and get correct colors. If I want muted warm tones, I just shoot color plus.

[@ribsy]

its def not comparable to ECN2, but i think its still acceptable

[@VariTimo]

@@ribsy Sure.

[@RobertBergan]

Why does it offend you personally so much.

[@arricammarques1955]

Hasselblad 503CX+ 50mm, 80mm & 150mm with 120mm Kentmere 400 ASA

[@ribsy]

what about it?

[@tomjanowski8584]

I shot a roll and while it was OK overall, some photos were destroyed by the colors. A pale yellow, pink and orange sunset rendered pale shades of green. Half of the roll was sunsets and not one came out looking natural.

[@ribsy]

i tend to like the colors

[@tomjanowski8584]

@@ribsy but green sunsets??

[@SinaFarhat]

Nice!

[@ribsy]

😀

[@KEHcamera]

🧡👏🙌

[@ribsy]

bravo!

[@MakersTeleMark]

Just shoot Lomo 400 for half the cost. No halation, and native C41. IMHO, 400D embodies the worst qualities of of stripped down cine film. 250D on the other hand is beautiful when done right.

[@ribsy]

i agree that 250D is beautiful

[@tompoynton]

Thank god I’m not the only one who really doesn’t not like those 800T halations, really gross look and utterly overhyped

[@ribsy]

hahaha fair point. i don't like it in daylight shots

[@tompoynton]

@@ribsy Yeah it’s not great in daylight shot but I also feel it just overwhelms any image and takes away from the subject too much. I do get why people like it and for a while I was into to too but it’s just far too overused and we need to move beyond 2017 lol

[@VariTimo]

Practically every film has halation. It’s just a matter of how strong.

[@ribsy]

ok

[@VariTimo]

@@ribsy ok

[@shounhill4005]

Are u in NYC??

[@ribsy]

yup

[@VariTimo]

Bro still doesn’t understand how motion picture film works. It’s not flat for scanning! It’s flat for printing onto intermediate and print film. The scanner scans it flat because it was designed to do so, to save on data storage and bandwidth! Put an ECN2 negative into a still photography scanner or print it onto RA4 paper and you will get a flatter image compared to C41 film, not an outrageously flat image. No Hollywood colorist grades straight Log footage. Because that’s not what it’s there for. It there to fit more data into smaller files. They use a gamma transform to give it normal contrast and colors before they grade with it. The ECN2 process is from the 70s, way before scanning. And these negs were flatter too because going through a dupe cycle with intermediate film and printing onto print film introduces contrast. Someone in r/analogcommunity asked what our unpopular film photography options are. Mine is that still photographers and videographers don’t understand how motion picture film works. But gotta love the confidence with which he explains things that are incorrect.

[@ribsy]

thanks for commenting so much

[@VariTimo]

@@ribsy Felt it would be more elegant to separate by topic.