Can’t believe you’re still shy of 100k subscribers Nick. Easily one of the most informative and entertaining photo YT channels out there. I recommended your channel to Ilford a while back and they said they’d check you out.
Agree. I only discovered him today as my film photography no longer is an hobby and I sold my film camera. But really Nick is a PRO and some other photographers are getting more views with less professional content in their movies. Oh well - life is unjust - we knew that already...
to be honest, post some young girl shaking their body 10second for no reason, and keep posting for like few week, you can probably bait more click than any actual high quality content, that's sad but ture. Most of people only want these basic animal needs. That's the reason why some people like him create high quality content just to isolate himself from those viewers that he doesn't want. Therefore we saw most of high quality content creater, never post too often, and rarely got higher follower count.
Well said on the "Hallation and good photos". I sometime feel, In general, that the people in the "Film Groups" on FB - Forget the photos needs to be .... Well, Good photos. And not only shitty photos on film.
Loved this video Nick, along with all your content. Entertaining and an unbelievably great learning resource. I often wondered about T Vs D balanced films and whether it's easy to just balance the temperature after the fact. If you don't mind me saying, an interesting experiment next time you're shooting Cinestill (or night photography in general, with Portra for example) may be to compare a regular exposure with that using a pro-mist filter. I'm seeing more and more film photographers use these to soften point light sources, such as artificial sources at night, and the effect is often pretty cool. I'm not entirely sure but it may even help diffuse the border around halations too. Just a thought. Great stuff Nick. Cheers from Wales UK
Hi Nick!! As usual, GREAT to see another video from you!! Interesting on the Cine-Still. I've not tried it yet, but plan to indulge in the near future. I think I'm about to try Ektar and Ektachrome first for my different than usual films ( I always use Portra 400 for color and Ilford HP5 400 for B&W)..... I know it ia a LOT of effort to shoot and then edit these pieces, especially the on location ones, but MAN...they are entertaining, educational and inspirational. I live around New Orleans, so, my environment is way different than yours, but when I see you shoot on locations, it gives me ideas on how to "see" my own area in maybe a different way and look for stories here in different ways. So, thanks and looking forward to more (always). CC ps. I liked the 2x tires when I first saw them.
I would recommend just shooting Cinestill 800t at 500 since the repackaged film is Kodak Vision3 500t. They say the ISO increases with remjet removal but that's just bs, it's still a 500-ISO emulsion.
As a fwiw aside, I like the look of the daylight Cinestill photo that isn’t warmed etc. more. It may not be as natural but it pops more on my screen with a nicer red and, deeper, green , and the road is more interesting to look at to my eyes .
I like Cinestill just dont like the halo's. In Australia we have a service where you can buy 120 cinefilm and get it developed in the correct chemicals, much like Silbersalz but not just limited to 35mm.
Northern Film Lab in the UK do the same, there’s really no need to pay stupid money for such a crappy looking film as Cinestill (having said that, Nick’s photo is possibly the nicest use of 800T I’ve seen so far, almost none of those obnoxious halations)
When I used to work at Kodak I was trained to read each individual negative frame in a second so I knew exactly how much density and red, green, blue, magenta for different types of film. This was before scanners could convert negative films into positive images on a screen, so I was evaluating each frame in reverse of how it would actually turn out. To clean a film of dust you’d slide the film through your index finger and middle finger and that way you wouldn’t get the natural oils from your fingers on the negs as you would if you slid them through your finger and thumb. Sunny days when high pressure weather came to town you’d get more natural static in the air and thus more dust on the film negatives. Oh and if you had a scratched negative you could fill in the scratch by rubbing your finger on the outside of you nostril, greasing your finger with nose oil and rubbing it on the scratched neg. It worked a treat. All these little techniques fell by the wayside as technology came in.
I think the composition works really well because the main Firestone sign isn’t lit, and the questions it prompts. Otherwise it would have been too dominant in the shot, but now it’s far more mysterious and atmospheric. Dare I suggest that there is Something of the Hopper about it. Would certainly get into my portfolio!
The halation fad is like the narrow depth of field thing. It's like a cheapish trick, a distraction which keeps people from evaluation a picture as a whole. And - sadly - more often than not it keeps people from becoming better photographers. Speaking digital: I started on full frame and went APS-C in 2016 (XT2) because of budget concerns. Now my budget allows basically anything but I didn't return to full frame. Rather, for my private stuff I added an even smaller Micro Four Thirds system because it allows me to carry a film camera and a digital camera when I'm travelling. Now, M43 can be limiting especially when you are shooting primes. But I noticed that during the last couple of months my compositions got why better than they have been in the past - simply because I actually have to consider the background for every shot. I can't just blur it out. The halation thing and the expired film thing have similar issues in my mind. Very often you see film photographers positing pictures of mediocre subjects with mediocre framing and mediocre lighting and they are still proud and they still get a lot of praise just because of the halation or the effects of the expired film or the light leaks... And of course that can be fine, but I believe it keeps a lot of folks from actually improving their photography. Just one man's opinion, though...
The reason why Papa Carver got a thinner negative on Cinestill is because the motion pic film they repackaged it from is a ISO 500 film: Kodak Vision 3 500T 5219/7219. Rating it at 800 is essentially underexposing. Also, high ISO films have a much stronger reciprocity failure after 1 second because they were originally designed to be shot handheld under dim light situations (plus reciprocity failure will never be a thing with motion pic films).
His expressed confusion for the existence of a tungsten balanced film isn't so confusing if you remember what the film was intended to do. It is a movie film, Vision 3 500 then stripped of its remjet layer and repackaged by Cinestill as a 800 iso film. It was intended to be shot on movie sets with highly controlled lighting, where they really care to do such things with precision. It is then to be printed onto movie print film, not scanned on a Epson or printed in a darkroom. So, if you take the Cinestill film, under expose it at 800, cross process it in C-41 getting color shifts for your effort, and then dragging it through Photoshop or equiv to try to offset such variances from "Normal", who knows what you get in the end, and no one else cares. Of course, being willing to pay $18-20 a roll for Cinestill 800 compared to $12-14 for Porta makes you nuts anyway, so again, who cares.
yeah Cinestill 800T is Kodak’s 5219 / Vision3 500T which is preferable to the 250D because of the higher ISO and flexibility with artificial lighting most would only shoot (for cinema) 500T and 50D for super bright daylight
Randall, you got it right! Cine film is not intended to be printed on paper. It is copied onto another roll of film (which is then used at the cinema), using a tungsten light source. Same in the studio - tungsten light everywhere! So, tungsten balance is the way to go. Shooting the same film in bright daylight outdoors could be accomplished with a conversion filter in front of the camera lens. And in low light conditions, a blue color shift was desired anyway.
On reciprocity failure - the power-formula is quite common and shown in the Wikipedia article about reciprocity, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(photography) . CineStill seems to be similar to Portra 160 and 400 in this regard, and Portra 800 might be more or less the same (so 1.3 to 1.34 should do the trick for all of them), which makes sense.
Using the 85 filter when shooting tungsten film in daylight is something I did as matter of course for years until I read that Roger Deakins shot No Country for Old Men all on tungsten stock and didn't use an 85 filter in daylight. Once motion picture film scanning and digital intermediates became the norm, the 85 filter really wasn't mission critical anymore. Something I should have figured out sooner, since I'm not old enough, and the budgets of the films I shot were never large enough to do color correction in a lab.
Both provide a different look. If you don’t add a filter and correct to the same overall colour balance as using a filter, the end result is you effectively get different spectral sensitivities of the film layers, and different corresponding dye colours
The tungsten balance makes it easier to colour grade/create positives for projection in its Kodak Vision3 500T cinefilm guise. As a print film that colour balance is indeed pretty useless.
Worked at a tire shop where the tire seagulls would shop during the day. Dig through the pile then leave it a mess. Wasn't allowed to confront anyone (took time, but had time to clean it up).
Hey Nick, for what you usually shoot. Have you ever shot with the Fuji GX680iii? IMO, it's a better camera than the RZ67. It has the tilt/shift built in. Especially with the ridiculous low price point right now. I'm in LA so if you ever want to borrow it to try it out, let me know.
I have to disagree. Halation is not a selling point for me when it comes to cinestill. I had a chance to shoot with both kodak Vision3 500T, and Cinestill 800T. (which is the same film) I love the look of this film, but Kodak has to be developed in ECN-2 process which is expensive and complicated, and surely is not widely avalible in 35mm in rolls Poland. Cinestill can be developed in C41 and is relatively easy to buy. Yes, the halation is there, but in my case this is not a selling pont by any means
I have used an equivalent of Cinestill 800t, Amber Tungsten, a cheaper version of cinestill, and some of my pictures I took outdoors at night (of jolly artificial lights of an open air summer bar) - look like they are taken in broad daylight. The reason of this is unclear to me. I've read that you should use an UV filter on Cinestill T when using outdoors (besides the 85), maybe this has something to do with it. Any ideas or other people who experienced something similar?
I´ve shot a grafiti vandalised section of an appartment building in black and white which spoke "verträumt" = "dreamy". And I love that picture although it is vandalim obviously. 2 things happened: 1) The next day I walked by again, the quote was oversprayed with another grafiti which was terribly ugly. 2) A fellow photographer asked me why I worshipped this vandalism by capturing it. I explained him my thoughts -> vandalism indeed, but I just record it, I don´t judge it. The viewer does. Maybe my thoughts add some depth to your scene...
That’s not really a good comparison situation. Tungsten balanced film helps when you can’t really control the exposure. For example when you shoot it handheld in dim tungsten light. That where you just get really yellow or magenta skin tones. CineStill 800T looks great in daytime with or without a filter. If your lab or yourself correct the blue cast in daylight. Movies still have quit a bit halation regardless of the rem yet.
Given that pretty much any colour negative film can be digitally corrected to look like one another, what's the point in shooting different film stocks other than speed and grain?
Thank you as always Nick for another awesome video. I have purchased several rolls of Cinestill 800T over the past few months but have yet to use them. That will end this weekend. Also, I will tag onto a previous comment here - What about a comparison with Portra 800??
Obnoxious blabbing about obnoxious behaviour makes you obnoxiously funny. A big thank you for the reciprocity formula tip. Makes me think, I'll try to punch in the numbers for other films as well to reverse calculate their powers for correction, will save me an app on the field.
For sure you can adjust color after scanning but... The point is in sensitivity curves for these films. They are different. T-films are more sensitive for yellow specter than films for day light. So in other words higher ISO for artificial light. You might notice that ISO in datasheets is for different light conditions.
Something everyone should learn early in life, is that you are ALWAYS somebody’s else obnoxious guy. There’s always gonna be someone to think you’re an ass hole. Once you realize that, it makes things a lot easier. It is quite liberating to know there’s always be at least one person out there thinking you’re an idiot, so that you won’t refrain saying what’s on your mind.
You can balance daylight film for tungsten but it's challenging to get right if it's not mixed lighting. Also daylight film and tungsten film are sensitive to different wavelengths, Portra is be more sensitive to blue light and less sensitive to yellow/tungsten light and vice versa. You won't be getting true box speed shooting Portra in tungsten and 500t in daylight.
I try to go into planned shoot during business hrs and tell them what I'm planning. They are always helpful wich was one 50s burger joint I found out they where going to be redoing there parking lot. So I shot it before I had planned to get that aged parking lot. Pluss the owner stayed late and left all the lights for a bit.
My take on the two tires. Customer shows up late with two bald front tires. Tire Shop mechanic works 10 minutes past closing to put new tires on. Customer leaves and mechanic hurls two tires on the top of the pile. They roll off the pile as the overhead door closes. Employee locks up shop and sees the tires that rolled off the pile. "Screw it! I need a beer!" 😀
There’s the reciprocity for Kodak Vision 3 500, which is cinestill 800. “Reciprocity No filter corrections or exposure adjustments for exposure times from 1/1000 of a second to 1 second. In the 10-second range, increase exposure 1 stop and use a KODAK WRATTEN 2 Color Compensating Filter CC10R.”
So I decided to give your lab of choice (ProPhoto) a try and it was one of the worst experiences I’ve had. I guess one most be famous to be treated fair...
How do you feel about the Firestone sign not being lit? You know that if you had gone over there to move those rouge tires that's when the PO PO would have driven by and you would have some spainin to do.
"That's no different than having a really shitty photo but it's super saturated so people are like wow colour" a lot of 500px Landscape Photographers felt that hahaha
I mean its clear they put in the no loitering sign because they kept seeing some sketchy lookin' fella with an old camera hanging out across the street.
I love this video. Very reasoned and insightful. What I’ve found with some high speed films (Ilford and Kodak’s 3200 B&W films, I’m looking at you) the high rating is optimistic; I get best results around ISO 1250-1600. That might be the cause for your slightly thin negatives; Cinestill’s 800T is branded by Kodak as 500T. I once used 250D pushed +1 for a 16mm project and metered on the side of more exposure with amazing results. Vision 3 is amazing. The added benefit Vision 3 brings to the table for still frame shooters, as I understand, is the last remaining Tungsten balanced film in production. This came in handy when I shot BTS photos at night in mixed artificial lights, resulting in organic vibrant colors straight from Indie Film Lab’s scans. Keep your videos coming! 😎🎥
I shoot bulk loaded 500t with my Nikon S2, can confirm you definitely don't need the 85b filter. The results I get from using one and not then adjusting in post are identical.
Thanks a bunch for that one! I shoot cinestill 800 for a long time and then discovered porta and felt sooo confused, because i liked porta a lot as well 🤔
So, if I pre-soak my Portra 100 to remove the anti halation layer and shot it at 2/3 under; would I still be an unknown cool photographer shooting halos on film?? Informative video, thanks Mr. Carver
Those tires are probably moved around because amateur drifters are always looking for decent used tires to use as practice rubber at drift events. This is generally something tire shops are cool with. That's my guess from my experience, but it could also just be below bar age hooligans pushing tires around with sticks. But if it is from sloppy drifters looking to recycle tires that would otherwise be burned in a less fun way, I think you'd love to have a beer with them. Who knows, maybe someone less understanding yelled at them so they left before the cops would get called or the situation escalated in some other way.
To the confusion with the tungsten balance - it is exposure related: since under tungsten light (3200K) the peak wavelength of the light source is shifted towards red (plancks radiation law), there is less of blueish light available at the source. Therefore, non-tungsten-balanced film can't 'see' the blue parts of an image as intense as tungsten balanced films with an enhanced blue sensitivity. So tungsten film counters the absence of blue light with higher sensitivity to provide an even exposure across the spectral range. If this effect palys a big roll with todays wide exposure laditudes is another question ...
My first thought was that tires had fallen, and one rolled a ways away. On reflection, the two standing tires are more in line with the scenario you describe, Nick. Tires falling off the stack would likely not roll much at all, and wouldn’t usually land upright. I get a lot out of your discussion of the process and results. Thinking about what I should do with that information.
Wait, so the halation is red because it's hitting the film from the back (same effect as redscaling)? never thought about it but makes a lot of sense...
I suspect the red fringing is due to the light being scattered after reflecting off the base of the film, in the same way the atmosphere scatters the light at sunset.
You should try 50D if you haven't already. The different characteristic of that film is the super fine grain which I really like and again adds to the 'cinematic' look. I feel like it's the less popular option of the two, probably because of the 50 ISO, but I personally prefer it.
@Frank Silvers Thanks smart guy.. The difference is, its vision 3 motion picture film.. used to shoot motion picture films. I was suggesting a film I like, get a life.
Nowadays it is really not that important to compare the negative films, because you can do so many corrections in the post, including selective corrections. We used to order huge quantities of the same batch of film in the photo studio. When a new batch was ordered, we took a photo of a gray card with the old and the new batch and filtered the gray card to neutral gray on the same enlarger on the same paper. Then the same scenes were photographed and enlarged with the previously determined filtering. this is the only way to determine whether one film has different characteristics than the other. Selective color corrections were only possible with great effort using masking. Today it's a breeze… And today with colorprofiles you have much more tools to get the colors more correct if wanted…
@Frank Silvers It depends what you want and must. If doing product photography you need correct colours. If you are doing landscape photography you can change the colours to your taste.
@Frank Silvers I work as a retoucher since 1989 and even in that analogue times we had to "correct" so many pictures into the desired colours that the art directors wanted to see and that were almost never the correct colours of the scene. The only correct colors were wanted in productphotography were we had to match the colour of the product. But 90% our anlogue postwork was achieving the wanted look of the agencies…
@@SD_Alias Shirely is a reference negative. Named after the original model Kodak used in their reference negatives sent to labs so people could learn how to print each type of film. Different industries use strange names for reference. At one place were had pedros (pee-dro). Nobody new why.
I like your thoughts on returning to a location to refine the image. I have an almost pathological distaste for repeating myself and the idea of reshooting something bothers me almost as much as removing an object in the scene. But ultimately photography is about communicating something we have experienced and sometimes that experience doesn’t come through in the first exposure. If I think of a reshoot as an opportunity to see the scene a little deeper, a little more carefully, then maybe that would work for me. I did a project a few years ago that was shot digitally. I’m thinking of exploring the same material on large format film. Maybe I’ll just think of the digital images as a rough sketch that I did in preparation for shooting on 8x10. Anyway, thanks for the entertaining and informative videos.
@@tompoynton thanks for the reply, here where I live is impossible to get new film, that's why i asked, to maybe find out some good places to buy it, I also wonder if the film get mess up when passes through customs? by their machines that inspect packages...
Can’t believe you’re still shy of 100k subscribers Nick. Easily one of the most informative and entertaining photo YT channels out there. I recommended your channel to Ilford a while back and they said they’d check you out.
Totalmente agree
Agree. I only discovered him today as my film photography no longer is an hobby and I sold my film camera. But really Nick is a PRO and some other photographers are getting more views with less professional content in their movies. Oh well - life is unjust - we knew that already...
to be honest, post some young girl shaking their body 10second for no reason, and keep posting for like few week, you can probably bait more click than any actual high quality content, that's sad but ture. Most of people only want these basic animal needs. That's the reason why some people like him create high quality content just to isolate himself from those viewers that he doesn't want. Therefore we saw most of high quality content creater, never post too often, and rarely got higher follower count.
Excellent video. I really enjoy the way you work through problems and choices, and then explore solutions. Huge thumbs up!
Nick CSI Tire Hooligan Profiles. Thanks for posting, great way to start the Weekend on a Thursday.
Well said on the "Hallation and good photos". I sometime feel, In general, that the people in the "Film Groups" on FB - Forget the photos needs to be .... Well, Good photos. And not only shitty photos on film.
Loved this video Nick, along with all your content. Entertaining and an unbelievably great learning resource. I often wondered about T Vs D balanced films and whether it's easy to just balance the temperature after the fact.
If you don't mind me saying, an interesting experiment next time you're shooting Cinestill (or night photography in general, with Portra for example) may be to compare a regular exposure with that using a pro-mist filter. I'm seeing more and more film photographers use these to soften point light sources, such as artificial sources at night, and the effect is often pretty cool. I'm not entirely sure but it may even help diffuse the border around halations too. Just a thought. Great stuff Nick. Cheers from Wales UK
Hi Nick!!
As usual, GREAT to see another video from you!! Interesting on the Cine-Still. I've not tried it yet, but plan to indulge in the near future.
I think I'm about to try Ektar and Ektachrome first for my different than usual films ( I always use Portra 400 for color and Ilford HP5 400 for B&W).....
I know it ia a LOT of effort to shoot and then edit these pieces, especially the on location ones, but MAN...they are entertaining, educational and inspirational.
I live around New Orleans, so, my environment is way different than yours, but when I see you shoot on locations, it gives me ideas on how to "see" my own area in maybe a different way and look for stories here in different ways.
So, thanks and looking forward to more (always).
CC
ps. I liked the 2x tires when I first saw them.
I would recommend just shooting Cinestill 800t at 500 since the repackaged film is Kodak Vision3 500t. They say the ISO increases with remjet removal but that's just bs, it's still a 500-ISO emulsion.
As a fwiw aside, I like the look of the daylight Cinestill photo that isn’t warmed etc. more. It may not be as natural but it pops more on my screen with a nicer red and, deeper, green , and the road is more interesting to look at to my eyes .
Very interesting!
I like Cinestill just dont like the halo's. In Australia we have a service where you can buy 120 cinefilm and get it developed in the correct chemicals, much like Silbersalz but not just limited to 35mm.
Northern Film Lab in the UK do the same, there’s really no need to pay stupid money for such a crappy looking film as Cinestill (having said that, Nick’s photo is possibly the nicest use of 800T I’ve seen so far, almost none of those obnoxious halations)
Shoot a grey card and balance to that!?
When I used to work at Kodak I was trained to read each individual negative frame in a second so I knew exactly how much density and red, green, blue, magenta for different types of film. This was before scanners could convert negative films into positive images on a screen, so I was evaluating each frame in reverse of how it would actually turn out. To clean a film of dust you’d slide the film through your index finger and middle finger and that way you wouldn’t get the natural oils from your fingers on the negs as you would if you slid them through your finger and thumb. Sunny days when high pressure weather came to town you’d get more natural static in the air and thus more dust on the film negatives. Oh and if you had a scratched negative you could fill in the scratch by rubbing your finger on the outside of you nostril, greasing your finger with nose oil and rubbing it on the scratched neg. It worked a treat. All these little techniques fell by the wayside as technology came in.
Next on the Nick Carver Show: Logarithms!
It's a good day when Nick posts
Two videos in just a couple weeks. What a treat.
I've heard that a mist filter can do wonders with the halos of Cinestill 800T
Fascinating. I hope people made it to the exposure raised to the 1.3 power tip, that is so good to know. Cheers!
Hey, cameramemes
I know that you're here 😅
Hey Nick. Ilford gives reciprocity calculations in terms of ^ too.
Enjoyed the video!
I think the composition works really well because the main Firestone sign isn’t lit, and the questions it prompts.
Otherwise it would have been too dominant in the shot, but now it’s far more mysterious and atmospheric. Dare I suggest that there is
Something of the Hopper about it. Would certainly get into my portfolio!
I agree, and I much prefer the look of fluorescent lighting to neon, which is wildly overrated and over-photographed
The halation fad is like the narrow depth of field thing. It's like a cheapish trick, a distraction which keeps people from evaluation a picture as a whole. And - sadly - more often than not it keeps people from becoming better photographers. Speaking digital: I started on full frame and went APS-C in 2016 (XT2) because of budget concerns. Now my budget allows basically anything but I didn't return to full frame. Rather, for my private stuff I added an even smaller Micro Four Thirds system because it allows me to carry a film camera and a digital camera when I'm travelling. Now, M43 can be limiting especially when you are shooting primes. But I noticed that during the last couple of months my compositions got why better than they have been in the past - simply because I actually have to consider the background for every shot. I can't just blur it out. The halation thing and the expired film thing have similar issues in my mind. Very often you see film photographers positing pictures of mediocre subjects with mediocre framing and mediocre lighting and they are still proud and they still get a lot of praise just because of the halation or the effects of the expired film or the light leaks... And of course that can be fine, but I believe it keeps a lot of folks from actually improving their photography. Just one man's opinion, though...
Hear hear
The reason why Papa Carver got a thinner negative on Cinestill is because the motion pic film they repackaged it from is a ISO 500 film: Kodak Vision 3 500T 5219/7219. Rating it at 800 is essentially underexposing. Also, high ISO films have a much stronger reciprocity failure after 1 second because they were originally designed to be shot handheld under dim light situations (plus reciprocity failure will never be a thing with motion pic films).
Making my thursday into a friday.
His expressed confusion for the existence of a tungsten balanced film isn't so confusing if you remember what the film was intended to do. It is a movie film, Vision 3 500 then stripped of its remjet layer and repackaged by Cinestill as a 800 iso film. It was intended to be shot on movie sets with highly controlled lighting, where they really care to do such things with precision. It is then to be printed onto movie print film, not scanned on a Epson or printed in a darkroom. So, if you take the Cinestill film, under expose it at 800, cross process it in C-41 getting color shifts for your effort, and then dragging it through Photoshop or equiv to try to offset such variances from "Normal", who knows what you get in the end, and no one else cares. Of course, being willing to pay $18-20 a roll for Cinestill 800 compared to $12-14 for Porta makes you nuts anyway, so again, who cares.
yeah Cinestill 800T is Kodak’s 5219 / Vision3 500T which is preferable to the 250D because of the higher ISO and flexibility with artificial lighting
most would only shoot (for cinema) 500T and 50D for super bright daylight
but back in the day, there was Portra tungsten balanced film; 100T.
Randall, you got it right! Cine film is not intended to be printed on paper. It is copied onto another roll of film (which is then used at the cinema), using a tungsten light source. Same in the studio - tungsten light everywhere! So, tungsten balance is the way to go. Shooting the same film in bright daylight outdoors could be accomplished with a conversion filter in front of the camera lens. And in low light conditions, a blue color shift was desired anyway.
Amen dude, you know your cine films!
Agree with your comments except for the price issue- 800T is $12.99 for 35mm and $13.99 for 120.
Please don't shoot more cinestill.
On reciprocity failure - the power-formula is quite common and shown in the Wikipedia article about reciprocity, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(photography) . CineStill seems to be similar to Portra 160 and 400 in this regard, and Portra 800 might be more or less the same (so 1.3 to 1.34 should do the trick for all of them), which makes sense.
Using the 85 filter when shooting tungsten film in daylight is something I did as matter of course for years until I read that Roger Deakins shot No Country for Old Men all on tungsten stock and didn't use an 85 filter in daylight. Once motion picture film scanning and digital intermediates became the norm, the 85 filter really wasn't mission critical anymore. Something I should have figured out sooner, since I'm not old enough, and the budgets of the films I shot were never large enough to do color correction in a lab.
Both provide a different look. If you don’t add a filter and correct to the same overall colour balance as using a filter, the end result is you effectively get different spectral sensitivities of the film layers, and different corresponding dye colours
I haven't been this early since I went through puberty
Bruh i was thinking the same
The tungsten balance makes it easier to colour grade/create positives for projection in its Kodak Vision3 500T cinefilm guise. As a print film that colour balance is indeed pretty useless.
Depends on the application. "useless" is a very subjective term.
Good lord, a YT channel not touting the Freewell Magnetic Filter System! :)
Try Kodak Vision 3 50D in stead of CineStill 800T. Then you compare appels with apples …. (Portra versus Vision 3)
I loved the two tires from the first time i saw them. Am still imagening what that invisible car looks like.
Whoever pulled those two tires out was probably "shopping" for used tires in the middle of the night.
Worked at a tire shop where the tire seagulls would shop during the day. Dig through the pile then leave it a mess. Wasn't allowed to confront anyone (took time, but had time to clean it up).
Hey Nick, for what you usually shoot. Have you ever shot with the Fuji GX680iii? IMO, it's a better camera than the RZ67. It has the tilt/shift built in. Especially with the ridiculous low price point right now. I'm in LA so if you ever want to borrow it to try it out, let me know.
I have to disagree. Halation is not a selling point for me when it comes to cinestill.
I had a chance to shoot with both kodak Vision3 500T, and Cinestill 800T. (which is the same film)
I love the look of this film, but Kodak has to be developed in ECN-2 process which is expensive and complicated, and surely is not widely avalible in 35mm in rolls Poland.
Cinestill can be developed in C41 and is relatively easy to buy. Yes, the halation is there, but in my case this is not a selling pont by any means
I have used an equivalent of Cinestill 800t, Amber Tungsten, a cheaper version of cinestill, and some of my pictures I took outdoors at night (of jolly artificial lights of an open air summer bar) - look like they are taken in broad daylight. The reason of this is unclear to me. I've read that you should use an UV filter on Cinestill T when using outdoors (besides the 85), maybe this has something to do with it. Any ideas or other people who experienced something similar?
I´ve shot a grafiti vandalised section of an appartment building in black and white which spoke "verträumt" = "dreamy". And I love that picture although it is vandalim obviously. 2 things happened: 1) The next day I walked by again, the quote was oversprayed with another grafiti which was terribly ugly. 2) A fellow photographer asked me why I worshipped this vandalism by capturing it. I explained him my thoughts -> vandalism indeed, but I just record it, I don´t judge it. The viewer does. Maybe my thoughts add some depth to your scene...
That’s not really a good comparison situation. Tungsten balanced film helps when you can’t really control the exposure. For example when you shoot it handheld in dim tungsten light. That where you just get really yellow or magenta skin tones.
CineStill 800T looks great in daytime with or without a filter. If your lab or yourself correct the blue cast in daylight. Movies still have quit a bit halation regardless of the rem yet.
Given that pretty much any colour negative film can be digitally corrected to look like one another, what's the point in shooting different film stocks other than speed and grain?
Thank you as always Nick for another awesome video. I have purchased several rolls of Cinestill 800T over the past few months but have yet to use them. That will end this weekend. Also, I will tag onto a previous comment here - What about a comparison with Portra 800??
Obnoxious blabbing about obnoxious behaviour makes you obnoxiously funny.
A big thank you for the reciprocity formula tip. Makes me think, I'll try to punch in the numbers for other films as well to reverse calculate their powers for correction, will save me an app on the field.
If you're a DIY guy I believe Vision3 500T is a much better look. You can buy the 65mm rolls for 120 film.
Your comment about slightly thinner negatives, it's almost as if the cinestill is rated at 500 ISO by Kodak...
For sure you can adjust color after scanning but... The point is in sensitivity curves for these films. They are different. T-films are more sensitive for yellow specter than films for day light. So in other words higher ISO for artificial light. You might notice that ISO in datasheets is for different light conditions.
Totally not relevant: your evening pictures remind me of René Magritte's The Empire of Light .
Something everyone should learn early in life, is that you are ALWAYS somebody’s else obnoxious guy. There’s always gonna be someone to think you’re an ass hole. Once you realize that, it makes things a lot easier. It is quite liberating to know there’s always be at least one person out there thinking you’re an idiot, so that you won’t refrain saying what’s on your mind.
You can balance daylight film for tungsten but it's challenging to get right if it's not mixed lighting. Also daylight film and tungsten film are sensitive to different wavelengths, Portra is be more sensitive to blue light and less sensitive to yellow/tungsten light and vice versa. You won't be getting true box speed shooting Portra in tungsten and 500t in daylight.
If a Porta 800 vs Cinestill800T video ever gets made by Mr. Carver, I won’t complain one bit.
Your videos are awesome. The Tire Shop video was phenomenal. The photo was great, and you told a great story about how the photo was captured.
I try to go into planned shoot during business hrs and tell them what I'm planning. They are always helpful wich was one 50s burger joint I found out they where going to be redoing there parking lot.
So I shot it before I had planned to get that aged parking lot. Pluss the owner stayed late and left all the lights for a bit.
Isn't Cinestill tungsten balanced because it's movie film where the lighting is tungsten? The color balance is not for still photographers.
My take on the two tires. Customer shows up late with two bald front tires. Tire Shop mechanic works 10 minutes past closing to put new tires on. Customer leaves and mechanic hurls two tires on the top of the pile. They roll off the pile as the overhead door closes. Employee locks up shop and sees the tires that rolled off the pile. "Screw it! I need a beer!" 😀
There’s the reciprocity for Kodak Vision 3 500, which is cinestill 800.
“Reciprocity
No filter corrections or exposure adjustments for exposure times from 1/1000 of a second to 1 second. In the 10-second range, increase exposure
1 stop and use a KODAK WRATTEN 2 Color Compensating Filter CC10R.”
I get where you are coming from Nick but I thought those two tyres made the shot.
roger deakins is publishing a book on his still photos...Hmmmm... interesting.
Cheers to you and all you do there!!
So I decided to give your lab of choice (ProPhoto) a try and it was one of the worst experiences I’ve had. I guess one most be famous to be treated fair...
They put the sign up because some lunatic was loitering with some weird bazooka looking machine on a tripod aimed at the shop over and over again. ;)
Bro got real mad over what could've been even some younger employees leaving stuff around on the jobsite 💀💀
How do you feel about the Firestone sign not being lit? You know that if you had gone over there to move those rouge tires that's when the PO PO would have driven by and you would have some spainin to do.
"That's no different than having a really shitty photo but it's super saturated so people are like wow colour" a lot of 500px Landscape Photographers felt that hahaha
I think Ilford is the only manufacturer that releases hard data on correction values. I wish all manufactures did!
A pro mist filter can be used to give that diffused light spillover without the color that Cinestill yields.
I´m the person, that do not like 800T looks at all, but I do like the colour of all Portraits film.
Very enjoyable content as usual! What's the plate between the camera lens and body of the mamiya?
A reason to shooting tungsten films is you get more exposure in the blue spectrum which can be lacking otherwise.
I mean its clear they put in the no loitering sign because they kept seeing some sketchy lookin' fella with an old camera hanging out across the street.
I only shoot in digital but your videos help me understand so much
Excellent use of the word alcove. But are you sure you wouldn’t call it a nook or cranny instead? 😉
The tyres look great under the light. Much better than if the lights were shining on empty space.
Love that RZ67. Thanks for an interesting video.
A new Nick video is always a good day
Wow this tire thing has really triggered you. Very nice photograph.
I love this video. Very reasoned and insightful. What I’ve found with some high speed films (Ilford and Kodak’s 3200 B&W films, I’m looking at you) the high rating is optimistic; I get best results around ISO 1250-1600. That might be the cause for your slightly thin negatives; Cinestill’s 800T is branded by Kodak as 500T. I once used 250D pushed +1 for a 16mm project and metered on the side of more exposure with amazing results. Vision 3 is amazing. The added benefit Vision 3 brings to the table for still frame shooters, as I understand, is the last remaining Tungsten balanced film in production. This came in handy when I shot BTS photos at night in mixed artificial lights, resulting in organic vibrant colors straight from Indie Film Lab’s scans. Keep your videos coming! 😎🎥
I shoot bulk loaded 500t with my Nikon S2, can confirm you definitely don't need the 85b filter. The results I get from using one and not then adjusting in post are identical.
Thanks a bunch for that one! I shoot cinestill 800 for a long time and then discovered porta and felt sooo confused, because i liked porta a lot as well 🤔
Hey Nick, what is that square piece behind the lens on the RZ?
An interesting analysis... in retrospect.
So, if I pre-soak my Portra 100 to remove the anti halation layer and shot it at 2/3 under; would I still be an unknown cool photographer shooting halos on film?? Informative video, thanks Mr. Carver
I really want some Portra 100 too :))
Reciprocity is a logarithmic function essentially.
I like the colours of Portra better
Awesome video. Thanks for sharing!!
Those tires are probably moved around because amateur drifters are always looking for decent used tires to use as practice rubber at drift events. This is generally something tire shops are cool with. That's my guess from my experience, but it could also just be below bar age hooligans pushing tires around with sticks. But if it is from sloppy drifters looking to recycle tires that would otherwise be burned in a less fun way, I think you'd love to have a beer with them. Who knows, maybe someone less understanding yelled at them so they left before the cops would get called or the situation escalated in some other way.
Yeah his reaction was a bit over the top right
To the confusion with the tungsten balance - it is exposure related: since under tungsten light (3200K) the peak wavelength of the light source is shifted towards red (plancks radiation law), there is less of blueish light available at the source. Therefore, non-tungsten-balanced film can't 'see' the blue parts of an image as intense as tungsten balanced films with an enhanced blue sensitivity. So tungsten film counters the absence of blue light with higher sensitivity to provide an even exposure across the spectral range. If this effect palys a big roll with todays wide exposure laditudes is another question ...
My first thought was that tires had fallen, and one rolled a ways away. On reflection, the two standing tires are more in line with the scenario you describe, Nick. Tires falling off the stack would likely not roll much at all, and wouldn’t usually land upright.
I get a lot out of your discussion of the process and results. Thinking about what I should do with that information.
Wait, so the halation is red because it's hitting the film from the back (same effect as redscaling)? never thought about it but makes a lot of sense...
That actually makes a lot of sense
I suspect the red fringing is due to the light being scattered after reflecting off the base of the film, in the same way the atmosphere scatters the light at sunset.
Excellent and brilliant…thank you!!!
You should try 50D if you haven't already. The different characteristic of that film is the super fine grain which I really like and again adds to the 'cinematic' look. I feel like it's the less popular option of the two, probably because of the 50 ISO, but I personally prefer it.
@Frank Silvers Thanks smart guy.. The difference is, its vision 3 motion picture film.. used to shoot motion picture films. I was suggesting a film I like, get a life.
I like halation to be the best thing in my photos so suck it lol
Nowadays it is really not that important to compare the negative films, because you can do so many corrections in the post, including selective corrections.
We used to order huge quantities of the same batch of film in the photo studio. When a new batch was ordered, we took a photo of a gray card with the old and the new batch and filtered the gray card to neutral gray on the same enlarger on the same paper. Then the same scenes were photographed and enlarged with the previously determined filtering. this is the only way to determine whether one film has different characteristics than the other. Selective color corrections were only possible with great effort using masking. Today it's a breeze…
And today with colorprofiles you have much more tools to get the colors more correct if wanted…
Another photographer that shot Shirley!
@@Pixelwaster who is Shirley?
@Frank Silvers It depends what you want and must. If doing product photography you need correct colours.
If you are doing landscape photography you can change the colours to your taste.
@Frank Silvers I work as a retoucher since 1989 and even in that analogue times we had to "correct" so many pictures into the desired colours that the art directors wanted to see and that were almost never the correct colours of the scene. The only correct colors were wanted in productphotography were we had to match the colour of the product.
But 90% our anlogue postwork was achieving the wanted look of the agencies…
@@SD_Alias Shirely is a reference negative. Named after the original model Kodak used in their reference negatives sent to labs so people could learn how to print each type of film.
Different industries use strange names for reference. At one place were had pedros (pee-dro). Nobody new why.
I like your thoughts on returning to a location to refine the image. I have an almost pathological distaste for repeating myself and the idea of reshooting something bothers me almost as much as removing an object in the scene. But ultimately photography is about communicating something we have experienced and sometimes that experience doesn’t come through in the first exposure. If I think of a reshoot as an opportunity to see the scene a little deeper, a little more carefully, then maybe that would work for me. I did a project a few years ago that was shot digitally. I’m thinking of exploring the same material on large format film. Maybe I’ll just think of the digital images as a rough sketch that I did in preparation for shooting on 8x10. Anyway, thanks for the entertaining and informative videos.
great post. who make that nice mouse pad.
I’m sooooo glad you didn’t move those tires haha
you really do tickle my fancy nick
Whoever moved the tires will never see thus video.
Are you that slow-mo guy?
try silbersalz
No 120er film available…
@@SD_Alias oh yeah right I forgot, nick doesn’t really shoot 35mm
see those trouble makers are a net benefit
That grain is ..... a problem
that 1 dislike is CineStill :)
NIck, can you make a video about film? do you shoot with new film or expired? where do you buy it, what's your favorite, etc.
Every video Nick makes is about film, and from what I can see he shoots new film every time.
@@tompoynton thanks for the reply, here where I live is impossible to get new film, that's why i asked, to maybe find out some good places to buy it, I also wonder if the film get mess up when passes through customs? by their machines that inspect packages...