Does Kodak Vision 3 500T (5219) push well? I would like to be able to shoot hand-held, indoors, and an EI of 1000 to 2000 should work well.
I found another thread that seemed to indicate the older Vision 2 version didn't push that well.
Thanks!
In order to make this film the "most advanced film", Kodak had to make the toe region of the characteristic curve as small as possible. Films with large round toes (such as HP5+) will push well, whereas you really shouldn't expect pushing miracles from modern color film. You will have a good chance with EI1000, but EI2000 really needs a low contrast scene.
You can probably gain more with a fast lens and image stabilization.
All these EI settings claimed by anyone here are more or less meaningless without the metering method. If you meter the shadow area, you can easily underexpose by 3 stops from metered and get pitch perfect results.
The one relevant fact is always: if you meter one region, you will some image detail in areas 4 stops darker, and close to nothing in yet darker areas. If you pushed a long toed film really hard (think: HP5+ in Rodinal stand), you could get away with 5 or 6 stops, but with modern short toed films you are stuck with that 4 stop limit.
If you are unsure, meter some uniform area, then search for areas which are darker. Down to 1/16 of that brightness will work, and below that will not show details pretty much regardless of how you develop. Preflashing can help, but it's a lot of hassle, more than many here are willing to accept.
Thanks, for the exposure information.I've shot Cinestill 800T and Vision3 500T (same film basically w/remjet differences) and developed myself in ECN-2 chemistry. With a 1.8 lens wide open at 1/60, indoor scenes were very bright with excellent shadow detail.
Depending on how dark indoors it will be, you may not need to push at all.
I managed to recover some scans from the last rolls I shot or Cinestill 800T pushed to 120 and developed in C41 chemistry for 3 minutes and 45 seconds. Pentax 67II with average metering, no filters. I did an optical RA4 print in Fuji CA DPII of the dancing couple getting a very similar result than scanning.
And one very irrelevant picture from the first test roll shot at home pushed to 1600 the same way than before. I was testing also a Bronica SQ-Ai with AE-III prism in average metering mode, no filters.
There is good contrast but also color shifts in all of them. In general I was pleased with the results in this type of situtations where color neutrality is not so critical.
n my experience, C-41 undoubtedly gives higher contrast, as for the shadow detail, which would be indicative of higher speed, I not so sure.
Your pumpkin example seems quite fine, but it's also a fairly muted scene (and we're looking at color-corrected scans, of course). The crossover issue does start to pop up if you look at how the highlights on the pumpkin render in the ECN2 vs. the C41 shot. They go a little cool already, which matches what I got when I C41 processed ECN2 film.
Scans I did on Noritsu LS-600 scanner should be more indicative of differences
I should also add that the film is Vision 3 5203 (with CineStill on the lookout I'm almost afraid to type "50D") and not 5219.
Crossover is terrible when wet printing RA-4, but it's really a non issue in digital post. Yes, we'd all like to have perfect negatives, since we may one day start wet printing, but for most here this day will never come, and we can still enjoy scanned&corrected images.My main qualm with C41 development of ECN2 film has always been the different color balance and especially the crossover that pops up in very high contrast scenes.
Crossover is terrible when wet printing RA-4, but it's really a non issue in digital post.
So maybe whether OP plan to develop it in C-41, or in ECN-2, also makes a difference.
The one relevant fact is always: if you meter one region, you will some image detail in areas 4 stops darker, and close to nothing in yet darker areas. If you pushed a long toed film really hard (think: HP5+ in Rodinal stand), you could get away with 5 or 6 stops, but with modern short toed films you are stuck with that 4 stop limit.
Try scanning strips of the same film, processes in different ways, on a flatbed side by side in a single pass. This will give a good feeling of the relative differences.
Wow that's a lot. It takes HP5+ to 6,400 or even 12,800.
But I did find two more examples that I uploaded a while ago
More like 3200/6400, since I think that Rudeofus started from the somewhat standard "shadows -2" metering for box speed. So -5/6 is 3 or 4 stops push which would probably be the limit for HP5+.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?