help me diagnose weird looking roll

[denada]

yo look at this ...

this is cinestill 800t out of a mjuii without light leaks. machine developed. scanned on a fuji frontier sp. why does it look like garbage? in the bottom left corner you can see the biggest problem. i don't know how to describe that effect, but it's present in almost frame. also the frame looks dirty, there's some stain by the door frame, and there's some light leak looking pattern.

and look at this girl's pupils ...

[photo is very cropped]

how could one of them be shifted like that? the other one doesn't look right either; the contrast is weird.

an old roll (it was cinestill's new packaging so it can't be too terribly old)? manufacturing defect? something go wrong during development? something go wrong during scan?

i do not have access to the roll or a scanner, and will not for a long time. i'm wondering if i wait and rescan the roll, will i be able to fix this? or is this just the way the negatives look and i should make do with whatever i can manage in post?

oh. the other roll that got developed with this one looks like trash too. it isn't dirty or showing the light leak pattern, but it has that same weird contrast effect. it's kodak gold, so not like it's a bad batch of film.

thanks!

 

[cgw]

Others who know more/better will surely answer but to me, under-exposure(flash misfire?), spent chemistry+bum processing seem likely. Recall Fuji Superia 800 shot under-exposed and run through Noritsu/Fuji lines having that murky look.

 

[jcdeboever]

I am not thinking under exposed as this film will take on a blue cast (new stock) but it may have been adjusted in the scanning process. The old stock had a rem jet layer the new does not. It almost looks like the old stock and the rem jet layer was not removed completely. If it is the newer stock then I would be suspect of the scan. I have many questions, mostly how was the film stored, is the new stock or old stock? The flash on one of those point and shoots are not very powerful and you have very little control of the exposure, hence why I hate them things so it may be a little of that. That film is not a favorite of mine, any mixed lighting in a scene can throw undesirable color casts which I am partially seeing. If you want a more reliable film stock, then Portra 800 is gonna be advantageous. That cinestill film has to be kept proper (fridge) and developed immediately after exposure. It is a very finicky film and a lot of things have to go right. In film making, the film crew have all resources to produce favorable outcomes. In my experience and how still photographers work, it is best suited for night scenes with tungsten lights. To me it is a little gimmicky in that the results generally not controllable. You compound that by using a very non controllable camera. You need to shoot a high end, wide latitude film stock like Portra, and a slr with a proper guided flash unit. To be brutally honest, I am surprised at how well these turned out through a point and shoot. The eye shift is probably movement and lack of flash power to freeze the entire scene or inexperienced lab technician

 

[denada]

ok talked to the lab guy. the eyes are red eye correct. he also says he cannot otherwise see what i’m talking about, which is a hot nail in my brain.

the cinestill certainly has the remjet removed. i got it out of the fridge that day but i mean i’m not gonna swear it was always properly stored (especially as it looks like ****). yeah this isn’t the ideal lighting for it and i haven’t color corrected or done any post, but it’s completely fine to use out of a p&s. shot over a hundred rolls of it and this is first time it’s ever come back looking like this.

here is another cropped example. i don't know what to call that effect. it's like the film is underwater. and there is a dark aura around objects. part of the crop is a little underexposed, but i mean that technically. snapshots have underexposed areas; it's usually just shadowy. it almost looks like the effect a scanner creates when struggling to scan slide film. the can in front has the dark aura too.

 

[webestang64]

My take.....
The problem is that Cinistill is pawning off .....MOTION PICTURE FILM.....more than likely old stock, for color print film. It is not color print film, it was never meant to be processed in C-41 chem. Same thing goes for cross-process E-6, it will not look like C-41 film. Results will always be mixed.
That film is also tungsten based so the lighting has to be orange -standard soft white light bulb (for shooting in sunlight or flash a blue filter is used). Mixed lighting it gets weird. I used to do film process for a shoe company, inside those shoe stores are about 5 or 6 types of lighting, the end result was a rainbow of colors through out the photo.
Not sure about the Kodak you have but it could be a develop problem. If the lab does not use control strips for their C-41 processor than it would worry me.

 

[cgw]

My take.....
The problem is that Cinistill is pawning off .....MOTION PICTURE FILM.....more than likely old stock, for color print film. It is not color print film, it was never meant to be processed in C-41 chem. Same thing goes for cross-process E-6, it will not look like C-41 film. Results will always be mixed.
That film is also tungsten based so the lighting has to be orange -standard soft white light bulb (for shooting in sunlight or flash a blue filter is used). Mixed lighting it gets weird. I used to do film process for a shoe company, inside those shoe stores are about 5 or 6 types of lighting, the end result was a rainbow of colors through out the photo.
Not sure about the Kodak you have but it could be a develop problem. If the lab does not use control strips for their C-41 processor than it would worry me.

Agree totally. Cinestill is a bit of a con. Influencers oversold it while neglecting to elaborate its limitations and the lighting/processing requirements Scotty outlined. Shoot Kodak materials if you want consistent results from a tight C-41 lab. Then there's the old Oly p&s...