The only idea I contemplated was pushing Gold to 800 (+2). I don't know if the side effects from pushing will be worth the cost savings, or how much of the cost savings will be negated by the lab's upcharge to push.
If I were to shoot ISO 400 film but underexpose by 1 stop in order to push development (so calculate my exposure as if I have ISO 800 but it's in fact 400), how much extra time would CineStill CS41 need? I normally use the default 3 minutes 30 seconds at 102°F.
For a +1 stop push, should I just multiply the development time by 1.3? So instead of 3:30, I would do about 4 minutes 33 seconds?
And for a +2 stop push (for example, shooting Gold 200 at 800), I would underexpose by 2 stops in-camera and push 2 stops in development, correct? Would I then multiply the dev time by 1.75, so instead of 3:30, I would develop for roughly 6 minutes 8 seconds?
I've never tried pushing this at home before, so I'd really appreciate your advice.
Oscarsmadness wrote:
The only idea I contemplated was pushing Gold to 800 (+2). I don't know if the side effects from pushing will be worth the cost savings, or how much of the cost savings will be negated by the lab's upcharge to push.
Desmolicious wrote:
I see Portra 400 for $19, and 800 for $20.
Norhtcoastphoto charges $3 extra to push film.
So then it would be $22 vs $20.
Too expensive for me, even though it's been my go to lately (Portra 800). I'm going to try shooting ISO 400 and pushing it (As suggested on this thread, thank you!), then develop it myself at home. I'll start with some cheap Fuji 400 I already have. Hey, I might even end up liking the look.
It's really too bad about Flic Film Aurora....it actually pushed really well to 1600 and I shot a few rolls that way. Here in Canada it was way more affordable than Portra 800 or Lomo 800 but that is no longer the case now that the stores are selling out the last of their inventory. Apparently it was a Kodak film manufactured for use in disposable cameras; Flic Film wasn't allowed to reveal the manufacturer's name and the film itself had no markings to indicate the source.
Your best bet is to see about getting a bulk roll of Kodak Vision3 500T, which can easily be pushed to ISO 1000. Since you're in southern CA you could even pick up the 400' spool in person from their Santa Monica studio!*
* for cinema use only, can only be purchased by film studios for motion picture production
Fred Miranda wrote:
Are there any budget-friendly options for ISO 800 film that still look great? I've shot Portra 800 and love the look, but it's over $20 a roll these days (35mm, 36-exposures). Is there a more affordable alternative, like how Kodak and Fuji offer lower-speed films (ISO 100 or 200)? If so, which one is the most popular choice?
That Reflx Lab 800T looks the same as the Cinestill 800T which is also derived from the Kodak Vision3 500T. Both have that signature red halation balls from the remjet (which reduces halation) removal. CS800T is about $17 a roll from BH, so if you order a lot the Reflx is worth the savings vs the shipping time.
ftllens wrote:
That Reflx Lab 800T looks the same as the Cinestill 800T which is also derived from the Kodak Vision3 500T. Both have that signature red halation balls from the remjet (which reduces halation) removal. CS800T is about $17 a roll from BH, so if you order a lot the Reflx is worth the savings vs the shipping time.
The second link says "Made from fresh 5219 motion picture film Rem-Jet free, safe for C-41 processing"
James Markus wrote:
The second link says "Made from fresh 5219 motion picture film Rem-Jet free, safe for C-41 processing"
This may indicate they have switched over to the new AHU version without Remjet. Without the Remjet layer, ECN-2 films like 500T can be cross-processed in C-41. It's not exactly the same but it's close. Some people recommend underexposing the film by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop which is why you see Reflx Lab marketing their respooled 250D as 320D, and 500T as 800T. The C-41 process causes it to slightly overdevelop as it's a higher temperature and slightly longer development time so you can partly compensate by underexposing slightly.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the T in 500T refers to the film being tungsten (indoor) light balanced, so if you shoot outdoors it will run on the blue/cool side. If you're scanning you can easily adjust this in post, or you can stick an 85B filter on your lens to warm it up.
icarus_ wrote:
This may indicate they have switched over to the new AHU version without Remjet. Without the Remjet layer, ECN-2 films like 500T can be cross-processed in C-41. It's not exactly the same but it's close. Some people recommend underexposing the film by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop which is why you see Reflx Lab marketing their respooled 250D as 320D, and 500T as 800T. The C-41 process causes it to slightly overdevelop as it's a higher temperature and slightly longer development time so you can partly compensate by underexposing slightly.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the T in 500T refers to the film being tungsten (indoor) light balanced, so if you shoot outdoors it will run on the blue/cool side. If you're scanning you can easily adjust this in post, or you can stick an 85B filter on your lens to warm it up....Show more →
Was planing on about iso 500-640 with the 85b route for daylight, and the full 800 iso for indoor or night shots.
