Trying Out HAS65 Films

Before I start, here's a bit of context. Kodak Vision3 is a film stock produced for cinematography. It only comes in large spools but certain businesses buy, cut and pack the film into 35 mm canisters. The difference between cine and regular film is the anti-halation layer. Cine film has a black layer called "remjet" (which stands for "removable jet black"). To develop such a film, a different chemical process is used, called ECN-2. However, washing remjet away is possible, allowing the cheaper and more readily available C-41 chemicals to be used instead. The tradeoff is the loss of the anti-halation layer.

Kodak's Vision3 cine film stock range includes four different variants: 50D, 200T, 250D, and 500T. The letters D and T stand for "daylight" and "tungsten" and refer to the white balance to which the films are calibrated. Daylight-calibrated films will render natural colours in sunlight; the 5600 K colour temperature should correspond to white. Tungsten-balanced films will render white for around 3200 K light. In daylight, the 200T and 500T will result in a cool, blue-greenish tint.

The most prominent brand of modified Kodak Vision3 films is CineStill. Every film YouTuber seems to hold it in high regard. However, I suspect the ones who shoot it regularly have only one kidney each. Otherwise, how would they afford this severely overpriced film? Because CineStill is expensive. Excessively so. Alternative brands are available, but they're hard to find and mostly only present in certain regions. Many are also overpriced too.

Here's where HAS65 comes in. As far as I can tell, it's a one-man gig from Poznań, Poland. I don't think the business owner is aiming for massive worldwide distribution but he's got Polish analogue photographers covered and there are shipments to other European countries. He currently offers eight film stocks, seven of which are Kodak:

• HAS65 200D (modified Kodak Vision3 250D), 30 exp.
• HAS65 500T (modified Kodak Vision3 500T), 30 exp.
• HAS65 RED (modified and redscaled Kodak Vision3 250D), 30 exp.
• HAS65 RET (modified and redscaled Kodak Vision3 500T), 30 exp.
• unmodified Kodak Vision3 250D, 36 exp.
• unmodified Kodak Vision3 500T, 36 exp.
• unmodified Kodak Eastman Double-X, 36 exp.

I'm trying out the modified films: HAS65 200D and HAS65 400T. Straight off the bat, before even placing an order, I can see that the ISO speeds are reduced by ⅓ EV relative to Kodak's box speeds. This is the exact opposite of what CineStill does; their films are rated at ISO 400 and 800 respectively, ⅔ EV over Kodak's box speeds. Vision3 films are known to have good exposure latitude, nevertheless, I think rating them slower is likely to yield a marginally better image quality, especially in the shadows. On the other hand, it could also make the halation more pronounced. Depending on one's feelings about halation, this could be a double win or a quid pro quo.

The description of the 200D film on the HAS65 website also clearly states that this film is more sensitive to heat than usual. I had a chat with the company owner and he said he put the warning in the product description because film degradation due to prolonged or improper storage was a common thing among his clients. At the same time, the 400T film displayed no such behaviour.

First Impressions

One thing that stood out was how the film leader was shaped in all HAS65 films. It's very short and cut as a straight edge. I tried loading it in several cameras and found that Pentax Magic Needles were unable to grab the leader. I suspect older Konica Autoreflex cameras could have a similar issue, but I haven't confirmed it.

The ordering process is straightforward, and delivery is free for orders of at least three rolls of modified film, at least for domestic shipments. Not too shabby!

The film cassettes come packaged quite well, wrapped in several layers of shock-absorbing and light-tight materials. They're individually packaged into labelled black ziplock bags, with an elegant sticker indicating what's inside. The cassettes themselves are reused and have a HAS65 branded glossy sticker around them, applied so well that, at first glance, they look like they came out of a factory. There's even a DX code so point-and-shoots can use the films too.

Disclaimer

I may be biased against the look of these films. I am not a fan of halation. Also, my direct comparison for these films will be consumer films I'm familiar with: Kodak Gold and Kodak Ultramax (rated 200 and 400, respectively). If HAS65 beats them in any respect, I will be happy.

Roll 1: HAS65 200D

I first loaded my Nikon F100 with a roll of HAS65 200D. I wanted to start with a daylight-balanced film because I'm familiar with it. I took the film for a spin in various environments. I started with a morning walk around the centre of Gdańsk. There was some November snow lying around, the sky was gloomy, and a cold wind was blowing. I didn't take too many photographs that day because I wanted to have some hot coffee and go home, which I eventually did.

As a rule, I don't post photos of my family online so you'll have to believe me when I say I took some and they came out OK. I did take an underexposed studio shot of the HAS65 films though.

Finally, I went to the Dolina Ewy nature reserve to see how the film performed in the brown and green forest environment. I wanted the Powder Mill to become the highlight of the photowalk but alas, the building and the surrounding area were completely fenced and shut tight, unavailable for visitors. I climbed a nearby hill and managed to take a photo from there but it wasn't what I had envisioned.

I have mixed feelings about this roll. On the one hand, the colours were pretty accurate and warm, with no discernible colour cast. The skin tones were a bit tricky to get right, often resulting in a sickly look, but that's likely not the film's fault. The halation was mostly absent and where it appeared, it was usually non-obtrusive. Still, on contrasting edges, like tree trunks against the sky, it was visibly spread in a wide radius. In such cases, I desaturated the reds in the affected areas. The grain is comparable to Kodak Gold in size and harshness; it's not bad but nothing to write home about. Sharpness is average, again, similar to Gold. I also noticed a non-negligible amount of defects in the form of white or purple specks across the entire image. They're not a deal breaker but I'd rather they weren't there.

Several photos displayed a more or less pronounced red-yellow light leak. My camera has never produced a single light leak before so I must assume that the film is overly sensitive to light, possibly coming from the film confirmation window on the camera's back.

Roll 2: HAS65 400T

While at the Dolina Ewy nature reserve, I finished the roll of 200D and replaced it with 400T. Hence my first photos are from a woodland.

After that, I visited the Christmas Fair in Gdańsk. I don't feel confident photographing strangers so I avoided that as much as I could. The photos were all taken from a tripod since the exposure times were fairly long, from 1/15" to 2".

At this point, I scanned the photographs from the previous roll and noticed the light leaks. To be safe, I covered the film confirmation window with insulation tape. It's a good thing I did it. Some shots up to this point had the same ugly light leak from the film confirmation window. After I covered it, no light leaks were present in any of the photos.

The results were mixed but not unexpected. The daylight photos had a cold white balance, easily corrected in post-production if needed. After the corrections, the colours were very nice and natural. At night, in artificial lighting conditions, the colours were correct without any fixes after scanning. I must say that I liked the uncorrected woodland photos a lot; the cold white balance produces a very fitting look for November.

Halation was quite obviously very prominent. However, I was disappointed that it formed red rings around point light sources instead of a nice bloom. In my opinion, it looks bad.

The grain was fine for a 500-speed film. This is, in my view, the film's superpower. I found the grain finer than both Fujifilm 400 and Kodak Ultramax, on par with Kodak Gold. There was no discernible difference in grain structure between this and HAS65 200D.

All in all, the 400T variant left me with a positive impression. I am not a fan of halation but there's the unmodified Kodak Vision3 500T to try. Also, I would like to give this modified film a spin again with a Black Mist filter.

Roll 3: HAS65 200D Again

One lovely December morning, I took the film for a spin but couldn't load it into my Pentax Super Program. The magic needles struggled to grab the almost nonexistent leader of the HAS65 film. After a few retries, I quit and used a different film.

The 200D had to wait until February to make its way into a camera. A Minolta X-500 to be exact. I photographed the surroundings of Lake Linowskie near Olsztyn in a snowy and chilly environment. After around 20 shots, I went home and took some indoor family photographs.

This roll performed the same as the previous one: it produced unattractive and sickly skin tones, but the colours were good in landscapes. I also noticed fewer imperfections. On the other hand, the first two shots had prominent light leaks, so out of the 31 frames I got from the roll, only 29 were usable.

Colour Comparison

Here's an interesting comparison between HAS65 200D and HAS65 400T. I took roughly the same frame using both films and edited them to achieve similar colours. Yes, it's a self-portrait.

This shows that with a little editing, it's possible to achieve the same result from both films.

Conclusion

YouTube is chock full of videos about modified Kodak Vision3 films from CineStill and their competitors (Flic Film, Reflx Lab and others). I was under the impression that they were worth their elevated price, that photographers worldwide revered them as the holy grail of analogue photography.

Well, the reality is a bit more complicated. If I were to summarise the films in a single sentence, it would be: both are competent in daylight and do well in landscape/woodland scenes, but overall, there's no "wow" factor to speak of.

Here's a breakdown of the pros and cons of each film. The price comparisons include the development fee at my local lab and are accurate as of November 2024.

• HAS65 200D vs Kodak Gold 200
  • Comparable per-image price
  • Comparable grain structure
  • Comparable colour reproduction
  • Prominent halation; Gold has none
  • Small defects, inconsistently distributed between rolls
  • Very prone to light leaks
  • Allegedly, very sensitive to heat and improper storage
• HAS65 400T vs Kodak Ultramax
  • Marginally better per-image price
  • Finer grain structure
  • Colder colours; daylight photos require additional colour correction
  • Prominent halation; Ultramax has none
  • Few defects
  • Very prone to light leaks
• HAS65 200D vs HAS65 400T
  • Comparable grain
  • Same price
  • Half as slow
  • Daylight-balanced vs. tungsten-balanced
  • More defects
  • More sensitive to storage conditions

All in all, the 200D is not what I'm looking for. I will not be using it again. On the other hand, the 400T is worth consideration. It beats Ultramax in the price and grain departments. The halation and cold white balance make it useful only in certain scenarios. I will use it again but it will not become my go-to film.

Things I consider doing after these initial tests:

• Use a diffusion filter to tame the halation,
• Try the unmodified Vision3 films,
• Try the redscaled films.

I've already got the unmodified and the redscaled versions in my fridge, so expect a follow-up to this post.