Help! Cinestill 800t shot at iso 100 (accidentally) what to do now?

[Bennywez]

Hey,
I decided to try out some Cinestill 800 in my Yashica T3. Ive made it halfway though the roll when I realised the film is not DX coded. Any film without DX coding is set at a default of iso100 on the T3...
What do I do now?
Should I continue shooting it like an 800 (most shots so far are in low light situations)? What should I say to the lab when I have this developed? say to process it at 800?
Or should I cut my losses on the shots taken so far, shoot it like a 100 from now on and have the film pulled to 100?
I'd ideally like to make the most of the photos I already have.
Any help appreciated!!

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's colour negative, so unless it's grossly (6 stops or more) overexposed you're generally not going to see issues from having it run normally. Overexposure of colour neg reduces the appearance of 'grain' & increases saturation somewhat. Would finish the roll at whatever exposure index you want & have it processed normally.

 

[tedr1]

Of the two choices I favor continuing the exposures at 100 to finish the roll, this is a three stop over-exposure. Some of the highlights may be devoid of detail due to overexposure. I don't recommend "pulling" color film three stops, process normally.

 

[skysh4rk]

If it were me, I would just shoot the rest of the roll as originally intended and then develop normally. I don't expect the overexposed frames will pose much of an issue.

 

[Fixcinater]

Another vote for process normally. You may even prefer the results, lots of wedding photographers overexpose Portra films, especially the 400 variant to change the color palette.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to APUG.
Cinestill 800T is a colour film manufactured for motion picture use. It originally had remjet on it, which served various purposes. It was also designed to be processed in motion picture (ECN) chemicals.
The "manufacturers" took the remjet off and then packaged it for sale to you, with the expectation you would have it developed in still film chemistry (C41).
The "ISO" of the film is stated to be 800 because with the remjet off the light can bounce around inside the film a bit, thus increasing how much exposure happens with a given amount of light.
As the film has been significantly re-purposed, and as you are going to get it developed in chemicals that are different than it is intended for, I would suggest that the 800 "ISO" number (for tungsten light) isn't exactly definitive.
If it were me, I would expose the rest of the film at an EI of 640. That is assuming you are shooting it in daylight. If you are shooting it under tungsten light, I would use an EI of 800.
Have it developed (in C41) normally. Then compare the results - you may prefer the EI 100 exposures.
One caution: most likely the results supplied to you will be in the form of scans or prints from scans. We prefer not to talk about scanning here on APUG, but the caution is that scanning itself can vary greatly in quality. It is very possible that problems with your results could come down to how well they are scanned.

 

[Bennywez]

Thanks for advice! Unfortunately the T3 doesn't allow you to manually set the EI, so it will have to stay at 100. So I will spend the rest of the roll testing out different light conditions and have it developed normally in c41

MattKing - Can you explain what you mean about the scans a little further? Are you talking about scanning in general or are you suggesting that because its over exposed, then that this will affect the scans?
If I'm using a decent lab this shouldn't be too much of an issue right? - Should I say anything to them?

 

[MattKing]

MattKing - Can you explain what you mean about the scans a little further? Are you talking about scanning in general or are you suggesting that because its over exposed, then that this will affect the scans?
If I'm using a decent lab this shouldn't be too much of an issue right? - Should I say anything to them?

Trying hard to get me to break the APUG "no scanning discussions" rule eh?
It can't hurt to warn the lab. Dense negatives are more of a challenge for scanners - or so I hear. They will already have to do things a bit differently to deal with the fact that your film isn't designed for the process you are using.

 

[Bennywez]

Trying hard to get me to break the APUG "no scanning discussions" rule eh?
It can't hurt to warn the lab. Dense negatives are more of a challenge for scanners - or so I hear. They will already have to do things a bit differently to deal with the fact that your film isn't designed for the process you are using.

trying my best
Thanks for that mate. Gotta cut us newbies a little slack some times...