Видео

Looks like the same film to me. I´m completely fine with the Kodak Color Plus 200 on my part. I have also done some testing on my ovn and so far I prefere the Color Plus 200. 😊

In any kind of digital scanning, the problem is you can't fully avoid scanners and computer programs from interpreting and correcting the negatives. If you want to compare two pictures, hand printing to a RA-4 paper will be completely the same for both films, with no bias from the scanner, digital camera or software used.

Very very very nice content. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!

since heard about this I won't buy cinestill products

Nope.

Why is it named after Ilford east London

Great video. Seems like Kodak Colorplus 200 is slightly better IMO. Been saying this since the dawn of time: Kodak ColorPlus 200 is goated. The best film out there.

It's all just Portra and Gold in fake mustaches and geisha costumes isn't it

While I have had luck making purchases on KEH, what I don't like is the lack of info on a product. If I buy a modern lens and they say it's in EX+ condition, I have no doubt it'll be fine. When buying something like an old film camera, and it's listed as AI, a description of what's wrong with it would go a long way, and also photos of the actual item. Also annoying (as I'm looking now) they have cameras up in EX condition, but are inoperative.

Very nice tips! I had already seen some of these tips, but the Reciprocity Failure calculation was completely new for me. Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge :D

3:16 Arcadia bay? 👀that's a Max Caulfield shot if I ever saw one!

I got three right. I think i like the lomo best in all but tbe brightest shots

ECN2 films are flatter for printing onto print and intermediate films not editing.

I’ve always felt that the Lomography is just off spec portra

The data sheets for Ultramax 800 and Portra 800 are the same. Assuming the datasheets are correct, the best guess is that portra is higher quality in some or multiple ways such as halide size and distribution, dye quality, base quality (we know the bases are different, manufacturing processes, and/or post-manufactoring quality control. Or they are completely the same but portra has a thicker base. I had the same thought regarding Kodak producing a film specifically for disposable cameras. Very unlikely. For anyone still reading, I will give you a hint to a film insight: a popular and pricey discontinued film stock most likely followed the same fate as portra 800 / funsaver 800 today. ;) And a not as useful tidbit: Portra 800 and Portra 400 aren't really siblings, more like cousins. Their datasheets show quite different spectral-sensitivity curves - aka colors render differently. Portra 800 is not just more sensitive Portra 400. This is the same for Ultramax 400 vs 800, and thus Ultramax 400 and Portra 400.

Thank you so much for the tips! This might be a weird compliment/piece of feedback, but I really appreciate your speaking pace. I’m new at photography and a lot of these terms are foreign to me. You didn’t speak too fast (many RUclipsrs do this), so I felt like I was able to really listen and understand better. Thank you 😁

On lomography’s site a 3 pack of 800 is almost $20.00 a role. Not good

I wish they sold Lomo 800 in single rolls. The 3 pack that's sold here in Germany is too expensive for me.

This is great, but i feel like the automatic element of Negative Lab Pro have tainted the results too much. i would like to see these manually inverted with identical settings to see how they truly compare. As it stands, they're clearly very different stocks to me.

Dirty hands are the best

does anyone have an answer to what Aurora 800 original stock really is?

Love the zoom ins so we can really see the grain structure and finer details!! Lol when you did the guess-the-stock portion I guessed Portra was Lomo 100% of the time. At least its consistent. Thanks very much for an awesome video and awesome experiment!!

Love the analysis in this one, Daren! This was lots of fun. 100% with you on the differences being virtually irrelevant... but still gonna shoot Porta for things that matter 😂

Great video! Really interesting and engaging. Keep up the good work!

Great video and tips! Thanks. Question. If for nighttime photography I set my Kodak Tri-X 400 35mm box speed to 200 or even 100 for one photo, can I changed my ASA back to the box speed of my film (400) or (200) depending on if it’s night or day, and the given lighting situation, for all subsequent shots on the roll of film? I heard that once you set your ASA to a certain value, it has to stay at that value for the entire roll of film? Is that true or not? I shoot with a Nikon F (1972 model year).

Is there a way to test for phenol content in a homemade solution? That would certainly make it easier to figure out the concentration and effectiveness of a home brew solution.

Getting too close of inspiration from smarter every days video lol

Nothing about sensitization dyes?? So far You told us how poor speed orthochromatic film works.

Regarding Ebay it's important to carefully read the description for the article. Often it says "the shutter releases, but I'm unable to test this properly because I'm not a photographer". These "fluffy" descriptions come with the high risk that you'll have disputes with the seller and cannot return it. Therefore it's good to watch out for remarks like "100% tested, all works properly, see attached pictures taken with the camera". I bought a Leicaflex SL2 for 400€, "fluffy" description as above, the light meter seemed to have issues, seller returned 200€. Due to some scratches I send it to a company that services Leica cameras since some decades. Bringing it into a very good condition cost me another 600€, because they found a couple of other things that needed to be repaired.

3:39 I love this little market by english bay. One of my personal fav places to shoot at always, for some reason.

Hey your paterson looks even more taped up than mine! That's the sign of a reel dawgie! I love that you test it all before hand. I'm too lazy. Dude I think we'd be friends IRL. Nice video. You broke it down real concise. Subbed! I'm working on part III of my dev at home youtube shorts series. Just posted a teaser today so now I'm on a PR comment bombing run but your vid is actually good so please take no offense that I'm out here plugging my stuff. You seem awesome and I can't wait to see another vid from you soon!

Just picked up a Nikon F3 with 3 rolls of b&w iso 400 film. I can’t wait to get out and learn to shoot this classic camera.

They technically only make one film sensitivity at a chemical level, all SX-70 film is literally just 600 film with an ND filter as part of the negative.

What is the best setting if you plan to take Polaroids at a concert?

Thanks for this info. I'm just going back to shoot film after a 12 years and I would never want to buy film from such a scammy company.

Wow, I have watched a handful of videos on how to scan Polaroids and this video has the best advice BY FAR. I have never even heard of using museum glass before. Brilliant.

At 2:48 , calling photography "lens-based art" is... Well, I'd avoid that in the future. Other than that, I really like this test, it's very thorough in excluding variables. I kinda have say: no difference seems significant by the end. Great video.

My theory is that datasheets aren't published for budget stocks to allow manufacturers to put what they like in the box, so sometimes that might be premium brands that fall slightly out of spec in the qc process and may just be the start/end of the master roll. They obviously can't qc every roll so need to be cautious to protect their core brands.

I wonder if, with the Epson scanner, the focus distance was not optimal. Perhaps if you raised the polaroid a millimeter or two you'd hit the sharpest focus and it would compare more favorably with the DSLR.

just took my first polaroid600 photo it was ducking horrible aint no way am i waiting a 20 dollar roll so here i am

Why do you light from below?

It's not the gear: It's the photographer.

Is it bad if I wanna know if your diet would change the results?

Thanks! This really helped!

I really loved this video, amazing insights explained easy. I wonder, how do you get to know all this info, only looking at their balance sheet 😮

With respect, but not PC, I want to stress a previous comment about showing example photos instead of unrelated images. But most important is the absolute disconnection with the different elements of your speech. Composition, but get closer… well, maybe not for the composition I want. Vignetting the corners, this is a software thing, not a shooting thing, unless you could use quite expensive lenses for that specific effect that probably won’t be necessary or adding value every time, and work for both color and b/w. Simple compositions, well, that applies to any kind of photography too… Level up your videos if you want to get any benefit from them.

Civil war movie made this look a lot less complicated 😂

I honestly like the photos that are "mistakes" just as much as the corrected ones. Both are super cool.

ISO number and either D or T are descriptive terms. They cannot be trademark and thus aren't. The 800T trademark is so obviously wrong that is must be considered invalid, i.e. like it never existed. I was one of the early adopters and liked Cinestill for quite some time... Now I boycott them. I will never buy another roll until they stop this bullshit.

I think they are TOTALLY in the right trying to trademark 800T and 400D for reasons you and most people don't consider. The film they are selling is not 800 or 400 iso, therefore 800t and 400D are not film descriptors. The name is entirely a marketing term to sell the film, probably chosen because color 800iso film is practically non existent and 2/3rd stop underexposed is totally acceptable for vision 3's latitude, same goes for 400D. No matter how much the social media people at cinestill want to try and gaslight you into believing they are selling 800 iso film, removing the remjet and developing in c41 does NOT magically transform vision 3 500T into 800iso film. Many people have tested this showing that you get far better results shooting the film at the correct speed (500). The funny thing is they don't market vision 3 50D as 80D even though it also has the remjet removed and is expected to be developed in c41, because the key selling point of that film is that it IS slow! The fact they are now getting the film from kodak directly without the remjet at all means it COULD be argued that it is a "unique" emulsion under their unique marketing name "800T" or "400D". Nobody else has an agreement with kodak so cinestill are the ONLY ones selling these films that never had the remjet to begin with. This means anyone else marketing a 800T or 400D film which has had the remjet removed after the fact WOULD technically make it a counterfeit of cinestill's "unique" film that no one else currently sells (till kodak makes a deal with someone else). I really think other companies should just market the films correctly as 500T/250D with or without the remjet. reflex lab sells both 250D and 500T with and without remjet but they also up the rating for the remjet removed films by 2/3rds of a stop. It is all 100% marketing, and cinestill is actually in the right to trademark their made up fake term, even though it is completely disingenuous. Though trying to trademark "cine" or "cinefilm" is laughable because those ARE descriptors of the film, since the film they sell is in fact just cinematography film. It is really unfortunate all of fuji's cine film stocks are discontinued because it means everyone selling cine film is selling kodak vision 3 just like cinestill. Remember kodak only makes 50D, 200T, 250D, and 500T cinema film (they might still make some kind of color intermediary film for "printing" but I don't think anyone has ever tried to shoot that in a camera). Also cinestill and other company's non remjet removing ECN2 kits are great, not because it is made just for remjet removed ECN2 film but because you can develop regular color film in ECN2 and get better results, no point in including the extra remjet removal step in the development process if you are just developing regular film that never had it. ECN2 is objectively better than C41 in the modern era and it is probably what everyone should be using but old habits die hard especially with film photographers for some reason.