Any ideas why this roll looks hideous?

[removed account4]

Will do! We're probably going to reshoot, I'll definitely see how it behaves in the other direction. It's probably worth tracking down some lower iso tungsten film with less past lives as well, if that exists somewhere on planet earth

fuji superia200 ..
not tungsten but plentiful and cheap.
tungsten light, use a 80a? filter
it comes in 200, 400 and 800.
you probably won't have problems like you did with this film
you posted here ... it is pretty straight forward.. put in camera, set iso expose

 

[klownshed]

You should still be able to get a much better scan though. Turn off all auto correction in the scanner software and re-scan. Adjust each RGB channel levels separately in post to get the colours looking more like you want them manually. Don't let the software auto correct for colour as the negs are too underexposed.

I'd also convert to B&W and then set your Black and White points for a high contrast look. It will still be very grainy but B&W can take grain more sympathetically and you can also claim you were going for that look ;-)

 

[Craig75]

Sorry josiah but you are wrong. These look awesome. Very cool look.

 

[spacecadet]

Probably better to shoot for maximum latitude and adjust in post.

This is exactly how I shoot film. Working in a digital darkroom environment I scan to DNG and edit in Camera Raw. I find film usually has more latitude than digital, even more so in the highlights as others have pointed out.

 

[sportster44]

Sorry but I've had great success with Cinestil 800in both 35 & 120. Images look underexposed as others have mentioned. The film is fine but it does take some learning to get it right