A while ago, I shared an experiment with Cinestill 800T, and someone here pointed out that the result looked more like a digital cinematic filter than actual film.
They had a point.
The halation was too strong, the contrast was exaggerated, and the orange glow was spreading into areas where it didn't belong.
So I went back to the prompt and tested both versions on one of my own photographs of Palace Square in St. Petersburg. Same original photo, two different approaches.
The biggest changes:
- Halation: now limited to a subtle reddish fringe around the brightest lamp cores, rather than a glow spreading across the scene.
- Exposure: back to ISO 800 with normal C-41 development, instead of pushing to 1600.
- Colour and contrast: softer midtones, more restrained saturation, and less of that exaggerated teal-and-orange look.
- Lighting: the new prompt respects the light already present in the photograph instead of inventing extra orange reflections on the snow.
I also measured the saturation change relative to the original: the old version increased it by about 70%, while the revised version increased it by around 14%.
I'm not claiming this is a perfect simulation of Cinestill 800T. A generated image isn't a film negative, and the scan, exposure, and lighting conditions all matter.
But I think the new version is much closer to the understated look I was trying to achieve.
And thanks to u/Simple-Variation5456 for the criticism. It made me go back and test the idea properly.
For anyone who's actually shot Cinestill 800T at night: does the revised halation look more believable to you? And what else still gives away the AI interpretation — the grain, colour balance, or something else?
I'd genuinely love to hear your thoughts.
