Anyone else trying film stock as film for their 35mm shooting?
Most difficult part is the dreaded rem jet removal. Usually you should use baking soda or borax. Tried (by accident) household bleach gel today and it removes the rem stuff like nothing.
Could this bleach washing damage the emulsion side of the film?
>>2829066
You already bleached it, develop it and see.
>>2829071
I dont develop. I was intending this as a prewash before shooting it.
Motion pickture film as still film is shit, they only reason it looks clear in movies is because of grain doubling, where one of crystals doesn't capture something the others on the next frame will and it looks clear
>>2829071
Yup.
You can cut off a strip and you'll likely see that it's been visibly damaged.
>>2829084
Josef Koudelka made some of the best images of all time on motion picture film,.
>>2829114
Was that because of the film, though?
>>2829117
It was in spite of it.
>>2829084
You sound real fucking dumb.
The only reason you think it looks shits is because of grain doubling, where a super 35 frame is half the size of a still camera frame, so the grain appears double the size,
>how these pseudoscience nonsense terms get so much currency in photography is astounding to me; must just be caused by the intersection of a technical field with art-school-level retardation.
>>2829066
>borax
you hipsters should drink that shit.
>>2829114
>Josef Koudelka made some of the best images of all time on motion picture film,.
wut?
>>2829066
Is there any reason you're removing it? Labs won't trust that you did it right, so you'll have to develop it yourself anyway.
>>2829187
Well show me a picture of vision3 50D that is actually clear than portray or ektar ?
>>2829385
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Vision3%2050d
Or just find any Cinestill 50D photo, their process doesn't change the grain structure.
>>2829277
Really? If you fuck up and not remove the rem-jet backing completely, it will break their machines...
You're trying to remove the layer before or after shooting? Anyway, make it a scientific experiment: have a control roll, take photos of colored pencils or something under the same lighting, and compare the color reproduction to see if you're damaging the emulsion.
IT.
FUCKING.
WORKED.
PERFECTLY.
BETTER THAN PORTRA OMG.
>>2830055
POST RESULTS
>>2830058
B E T T E R
E
T
T
E
R
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make EPSON Camera Model GT-X770 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 28688 Image Height 3271 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 3200 dpi Vertical Resolution 3200 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:02 21:29:59 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 800 Image Height 1200
>>2830065
>that sky
WORSE
O
R
S
E
needs more
18 STOPS DR
S
T
O
P
S
D
R
>>2830065
Post your process. Which stock is this, btw? I think you're metering wrong, you should get 16 stops of dynamic range with 800T.
>>2830069
B E S T F I L M
E
S
T
F
I
L
M
sky looks realer than real life, m8. its just how it is.
>>2829066
Hey OP shot this with Cinestill 800T. The scanner I used was an old Nikon Coolscan 9000 with the Nikon Scan 4 software from 2002. I feel the scanning was far from perfect since certain shots were color balanced wrong and some had some intense magenta hues. Not sure if it's the stock or the scanner
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Nikon Camera Model Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 ED Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 800 dpi Vertical Resolution 800 dpi Image Created 2016:05:02 21:35:17 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2830115
Shit forgot to resize, my bad
>>2830115
Hey anon, yeah those are your classic "cyany" 800t's cold tones, but i dunno about changing hues in film stock in a same roll, maybe its a reaction to over/underexposure?.
Im liking this 200T, a lot.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make EPSON Camera Model GT-X770 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 28688 Image Height 3271 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 3200 dpi Vertical Resolution 3200 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:03 00:25:53 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 653
>>2830210
Fucking gorgeous colors. What did you rate it at? How was it processed and how was the remjet removed?
>>2830230
>What did you rate it at?
200 in daylight. 100 or 50 at night. For shots like that one, i just count a lot then i close the shutter.
>How was it processed
A cheap lab downtown.
>how was the remjet removed?
As stated in the OP, i used bleach gel and water. Im surprised how easy it was, i expected hell, but it was smoother than that. I refilled the roll by hand directly from the metal canister in my bathroom.
>>2830230
I love T films. The thing with them id that theyre dynamic. If you do long exposure over lights, you tend to get those creamy cyans and greens. But, if you misfire your B mode (giving the camera roughly 1/2 seconds of exposure) as in pic related, you get those tasty deep blues.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make EPSON Camera Model GT-X770 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 28688 Image Height 3271 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 3200 dpi Vertical Resolution 3200 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:03 01:14:32 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 761
Im not shooting that crummy ass Gold film ever again.
Vision is weird, curves feel very weird, tonal response to manipulation is clearly different than usual, like im suddenly in LAB mode or some crazy bullshit like that.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make EPSON Camera Model GT-X770 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 28688 Image Height 3271 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 3200 dpi Vertical Resolution 3200 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:03 01:26:35 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 700 Image Height 1106
>>2830243
Didn't know you were OP, so let me see if I get you.
You wind the film in the developing tank reel, from the 400 feet reel, in complete darkness.
Then you put it in the developing tank, add the bleach gel and water, shake, dispose. Repeat with water until it comes clean. Open the tank in complete darkness, wipe the back with a sponge to remove leftover remjet. Then you spool into a 35mm film canister. Then you take your pictures and then send the roll to to the lab.
My question is, how do you dry the film before rolling it into the 35mm canister?
>>2829066
I've used 16mm and super 8 as photographic stocks!
Though, I just use my Bolex these days. Really fun. one 100ft roll gets you around 4000 shots for less than 50 bucks AND a complete analog still frame film. I like to take random stills on when im on shoots. They're good to use as transitions.
Never 35 but, i feel like the same principle must apply. If you have the right camera and are willing to haul it around, it must be cheaper and work just fine. I'm sure it warrants interesting results just based on the way the camera handles. That's whats attractive about super 8 and 16mm for photography anyway.
>>2829114
yes, please elaborate. I'm a huge Koudelka fan. I had no idea he used some movie film. Post some? Links? Anything? I wan to know.
>>2830255
Not quite.
What i did was:
Went to the bathroom to get a piece of film from the 400ft reel. Put said film into a 35mm canister. Went and shoot. Came back, bathroom again, pulled all the film i just shot. Directly into water with bleach, wiping the back, adding water until i "feel" i washed it all off.
Now i hang the film until it dries (like 2 hours). Put it back into the 35mm canister and then to the lab.
These pics are fly.
Last shot of the roll (it was a 10 shot roll btw). Wanted to try my new flash, and i liked it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 3200 dpi Vertical Resolution 3200 dpi Image Created 2016:05:03 02:02:41 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 794
>>2830263
Ohh, I thought you were shooting after removing the remjet layer. Drying in total darkness is still kinda hard.
You're getting nice results, congrats.
>>2830280
>Ohh, I thought you were shooting after removing the remjet layer.
I tried this once. It was my first time washing and loading anything. The only way to do it fast was removing it after. But ill try doing it before. Ill stick with whatever gives me best IQ.
>Drying in total darkness is still kinda hard.
Blankets over door thresholds and beware of mirrors.
>You're getting nice results, congrats.
Thank you. I got the big canister for $0.5, as a novelty, i didnt even shoot film at the time. It sat for 4 years unused until this very day, i think this is pretty cool.
>>2830210
Exposure stayed the same. I'm talking major shifts between consecutive shots. I'll post two examples, completely untouched straight out of the scanner. I'm blaming the scanning software
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Nikon Camera Model Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 ED Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 800 dpi Vertical Resolution 800 dpi Image Created 2016:05:03 10:52:02 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2830210
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Nikon Camera Model Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 ED Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 800 dpi Vertical Resolution 800 dpi Image Created 2016:05:03 10:52:12 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2829114
b&w films are the same kinds of stocks as still film stocks unlike color
>>2830519
Not true, right now you can only get Double-X in motion picture reels and Tri-X in still photography reels.
i opened like 11 cans of films and all of them are black
wtf
>>2831116
epic.
>>2831116
kek
the patrician way to shoot cinema film is to have it developed by a pro motion picture lab in ecn-2, then color corrected and printed on vision print film processed in ecp-2d. your results will be a roll of color corrected slides, just like they used to project in movie theatres. you can then scan it, with the advantage of having a slide as a color reference.
>>2832723
No shit, but that's prohibitely expensive
>>2832723
>the patrician way
slides are gorgeous, but im working with that i have. i think the nearest ECN-2 develop i have is in argentina, and, by the sample images ive seen, i think i can get better results, less grainy for starters. im still learning the tonal curves of this film, as i said, it seems to store information in weird places lol.
>>2832729
http://www.videofilmsolutions.com/processing
doesn't seem that expensive
>>2832732
Doesn't seem right. That's cheaper than C-41. They likely have higher prices for very small rolls (400ft is already small for 35mm film, I can't imagine how much they'd laugh if I brought in some rolls of 6ft). They have extra material and labor costs for splicing your 36-frames rolls together.
There's also the cost to print the slides, which in my opinion is useless. Movies shot on film today are edited from scanned camera negative footage color corrected to match the prints, not from scanned prints.
>>2830561
You can get Tri-X in motion picture reels too
>>2833041
Only Tri-X 7266, which is reversal film, not negative film. I think it's different from Tri-X for stills.
Well, I guess you could make a custom order and Kodak would probably do it, but it's not in their catalog.
