p.1 #1 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
I would like people's opinions & experiences on using these two ultra fine grain films. Both of these films claim to be the finest grain films in their particular category. I'd like info on development, exposure, suitable subjects for such slow films, do they handle strobes well, filters, etc. The two films are:
CineStill 50D ISO 50 Color negative film
Kodak 2238 Pan ISO 25 Black and White negative film
p.1 #2 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
I've only used CineStill 50D. It was developed in a C-41 chemistry by a lab.
Grain is not something I pay attention to as I have embraced it. Even if I didn't, my scanner probably cannot resolve the grain of this film. Still, I like to argue that some amount of grain is good, and it is supposed to be there. Anyway, what killed this film for me was the amount of halation. It's just too over the top.
I am perhaps mixing things up, but I thought this film can be developed in ECN-2. Those who have done it swear by it, but I have never seen sample images which makes me suspicious.
p.1 #3 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
theHUN wrote:
I've only used CineStill 50D. It was developed in a C-41 chemistry by a lab.
Grain is not something I pay attention to as I have embraced it. Even if I didn't, my scanner probably cannot resolve the grain of this film. Still, I like to argue that some amount of grain is good, and it is supposed to be there. Anyway, what killed this film for me was the amount of halation. It's just too over the top.
I am perhaps mixing things up, but I thought this film can be developed in ECN-2. Those who have done it swear by it, but I have never seen sample images which makes me suspicious....Show more →
I thought I read that CineStill had Kodak strip some layer off the film just so you can use C-41 instead of ECN-2 processing. I have a couple thoughts going on about these two films. I have not one but two half frame cameras coming, and I thought a finer grain may make up for some of the loss of format size in image quality. Two, about 20 years ago I sold a 100 foot roll of Techpan, and a bunch of technical pan developer. A 35mm techpan negative really looked like medium format - it was amazing. So, I have regrets about not shooting more of it. The B&W Kodak film is called the "poor man's Panatomic-X" - which I also sold a 100 foot roll - going digital back then. It was good, but not as good as Techpan - imo.
p.1 #4 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
Haven't used either of them. My only contribution is that if I really wanted minimal grain I'd shoot digital. I'm not crazy about coarse grain but if shooting film I want some subtle grain visible.
p.1 #5 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
If you miss TechPan, you can still buy that stuff online, though you will need to cut it yourself if you want to shoot it in a 35mm camera. A handroller over on photrio was selling some earlier this year, and I grabbed a few rolls. My results in 120 and developed in Rodinal.
p.1 #6 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
I have shot some of the 50D; it was the actual Vision 3 50D with the antihalation layer included, so it needs to be developed in ECN-2 (it was in my case) or else there's a way to do a prebath and then develop in C-41. You can get this film in two flavours: one with the antihalation layer removed so it can be processed in C-41 (but the halation can be pretty distracting; I don't like it) or one with the antihalation layer included, which must be processed in ECN-2 or else with a prebath and then C-41. And now Kodak has released a new version that I believe has antihalation layer but can be processed in C-41. I haven't seen it yet and not sure it'll be available for respoolers.
I was happy with the results from the one roll I shot; I shot this one on a Canon P with a Color-Skopar 35/2.5 LTM lens. The film itself is cheap (I got mine from Flic Film; it's the cheapest colour film I've seen, even cheaper than Ultramax or Gold) but ECN-2 processing is expensive so it evens out in the end.
The Vision 3 films are meant to be color-graded digitally in post; they tend to be relatively flat and low in saturation with a basic scan; these films were designed for modern cinema workflows where a log or otherwise flat image is graded in post.
p.1 #7 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
theHUN wrote:
If you miss TechPan, you can still buy that stuff online, though you will need to cut it yourself if you want to shoot it in a 35mm camera. A handroller over on photrio was selling some earlier this year, and I grabbed a few rolls. My results in 120 and developed in Rodinal.
That's the ticket. It has a shimmer that I love - I think it is the grain crystals that do it. Unfortunately, the site still denies access to contact the seller. I sent the site a msg - well see
p.1 #8 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
bjhurley wrote:
I have shot some of the 50D; it was the actual Vision 3 50D with the antihalation layer included, so it needs to be developed in ECN-2 (it was in my case) or else there's a way to do a prebath and then develop in C-41. You can get this film in two flavours: one with the antihalation layer removed so it can be processed in C-41 (but the halation can be pretty distracting; I don't like it) or one with the antihalation layer included, which must be processed in ECN-2 or else with a prebath and then C-41. And now Kodak has released a new version that I believe has antihalation layer but can be processed in C-41. I haven't seen it yet and not sure it'll be available for respoolers.
I was happy with the results from the one roll I shot; I shot this one on a Canon P with a Color-Skopar 35/2.5 LTM lens. The film itself is cheap (I got mine from Flic Film; it's the cheapest colour film I've seen, even cheaper than Ultramax or Gold) but ECN-2 processing is expensive so it evens out in the end.
The Vision 3 films are meant to be color-graded digitally in post; they tend to be relatively flat and low in saturation with a basic scan; these films were designed for modern cinema workflows where a log or otherwise flat image is graded in post.
p.1 #9 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
I havent used the Cinestill 50D, but I did try some Kodak Vision 50D which I assume is the same with the remjet still on. I really like it, and it seems to thrive in bright, harsh light.
p.1 #10 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
I was looking at 50D in an effort to find what I considered acceptable results with the ability to enlarge some of the better images. I decided that Ektar was my best choice for fine grain and Portra 160 best for resolution.
Once the Leica Monopan 50 is released, you will see a number of comparisons with other slow films.
p.1 #12 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
James Markus wrote:
That's the ticket. It has a shimmer that I love - I think it is the grain crystals that do it. Unfortunately, the site still denies access to contact the seller. I sent the site a msg - well see
I have to admit, I have gotten similar looks/vibes from Acros and FP4, which makes me think that other film stocks (PanF, Delta 100, Tmax100, Ortho 80 Plus) would work equally well*. I am not trying to talk you out of TechPan, but given its limited stock, I would seriously consider something that is still being made today.
*I think it has to do with the lighting of the scene and the curve being applied during the digitization step.
p.1 #13 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
theHUN wrote:
I have to admit, I have gotten similar looks/vibes from Acros and FP4, which makes me think that other film stocks (PanF, Delta 100, Tmax100, Ortho 80 Plus) would work equally well*. I am not trying to talk you out of TechPan, but given its limited stock, I would seriously consider something that is still being made today.
*I think it has to do with the lighting of the scene and the curve being applied during the digitization step.
I have been wanting to try Neopan 100 Acros, or Neopan 100 Acros II. Currently ther seems to be a shortage of fresh rolls. Is Fuji going to continue production?
p.1 #14 · Opinions & experience on these ultra films
James Markus wrote:
I have been wanting to try Neopan 100 Acros, or Neopan 100 Acros II. Currently ther seems to be a shortage of fresh rolls. Is Fuji going to continue production?
I would forget Acros I, as it has been discontinued. Acros II is the replacement. Same (excellent) reciprocity characteristics as Acros I. One difference I am aware of (perhaps only rumored?) is that it is produced by Harman. The rebate text of Acros II certainly looks more like any Ilford film than Acros I.
But god only knows what Fuji/Harman decide to do with this in the long term. The excellent reciprocity characteristics make it unique enough for me to keep shooting with it.
