Vision 3 500T pushed one or two stops

[MultiFormat Shooter]

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!

 

[Helge]

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!

It depends entirely on the light. Contrasty light where the shadows measure into what would take EI 6400 to expose at the shutter speed, will not go well.
More even, ambient light could work.
Vision3 is the most advanced negative colour film ever, but even that has its limits. You need to be able to store it.
Consider indirect flash.

 

[Rudeofus]

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.

 

[Helge]

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.

That is exactly what preflashing will help with.

 

[halfaman]

I used Cinestill 800T (Vision3 500T without rem-jet) in 120 from their kickstarter and I always pushed it to 1600 in C41 with additional 30 seconds in the development for night or interior photography. It worked well for me in those situations.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Thanks, all! I will be using a 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II lens, so hopefully, an EI of 1000 will be doable.

 

[Rudeofus]

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.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

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.

Based on the 3-4 stop limit that you have mentioned, I think I should be okay. I'm not planning on shooting in "super contrasty" lighting. I appreciate your explanation!

 

[Brad Deputy]

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.

 

[halfaman]

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.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

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.

Thanks, for the exposure information.

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.

Thanks, I appreciate the information and examples.

 

[M-88]

IIRC Developing ECN-2 film in C-41 gives a slight speed increase, hence it's Cinestill 800, not 500. So maybe whether OP plan to develop it in C-41, or in ECN-2, also makes a difference.

 

[brbo]

In my experience, C-41 undoubtedly gives higher contrast, as for the shadow detail, which would be indicative of higher speed, I not so sure. Maybe someone has done a better test (I can't find the negatives anymore, but if I do, I will provide unedited scans that can give more clear answers):

 

[koraks]

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.

I don't know either, but I don't think it gives a real speed boost. I routinely overdevelop my Vision3 in ECN2 to get usable contrast for RA4 prints; this does not seem to increase speed. I use 250D as a true 250 iso film and this works fine, but I wouldn't want to underexpose it. Of course, it's perfectly feasible to just under-expose and over-develop, and accept a loss of some shadow detail. It'll give 'punchy' images with deep shadows. Nothing wrong with that!

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. 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.

 

[brbo]

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.

Yes, I did this side-by-side to see how much "trouble" developing in C-41 would bring to the hybrid process (I didn't go all the way at correcting the differences).

Scans I did on Noritsu LS-600 scanner should be more indicative of differences one would normally see if one relied on labs to do the scanning:



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.

 

[koraks]

Scans I did on Noritsu LS-600 scanner should be more indicative of differences

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.

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.

I've done cross-processing tests with 50D and 250D; my findings were essentially the same in both instances. Same dye couplers, same response to different developing agent, I suppose.

 

[Rudeofus]

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. 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.

What really worries me about cross processing (which development of ECN-2 materials in C-41 dev is) is the uncharted territory we move into in terms of archival stability. This topic has been researched a lot for standard processing, and well processed materials from today should be stable for decades, but obviously no such research was done for cross processed materials. We may well be in for a surprise ....

 

[koraks]

Crossover is terrible when wet printing RA-4, but it's really a non issue in digital post.

It's a lot easier to deal with in digital post, but in my experience it's even easier to color correct negatives that suffer as little as possible from it. I think this is partly because the crossover is generally non-linear; especially the shoulder and toe of a crossed-over curve can be very difficult to correct digitally. YMMV, perhaps I just suck at digital post!

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

So maybe whether OP plan to develop it in C-41, or in ECN-2, also makes a difference.

I was planning to have it developed in ECN-2 chemistry.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

Wow that's a lot. It takes HP5+ to 6,400 or even 12,800. The few pictures I have seen with I think HP5+ at these speeds have been pretty bad i.e not really acceptable but I cannot recall the developer or processing regime.. This suggests that Rodinal stand may be the way to go if you need super high shutter speeds Have you attempted this or if not, do you know of anyone who has and has then produced the resulting pictures.. If so is there a link to those pictures

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[brbo]

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.

As I said I can't find the negatives anymore. But I did find two more examples that I uploaded a while ago that are pretty much what you proposed. Scanned at the same settings and inverted based on the shot that was processed in ECN-2 developer.





Second pair might seem like it's not labeled correctly since in the first pair the C-41 processing seems to produce warmer tones, but the second is the opposite. I think I did label them correctly and that now the cooler tone in C-41 is the result of a cross in highlights from C-41 processing (probably amplified by overexposure). All correctable in post for most applications.

 

[brbo]

Wow that's a lot. It takes HP5+ to 6,400 or even 12,800.

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+.

But I'll immediately admit that I have no experience with pushing that far and I might've misunderstood what Rudeofus actually said in the first place.

 

[koraks]

But I did find two more examples that I uploaded a while ago

Yeah, that's a nice one. Puzzling that they seem to go in opposite ways; I would suspect one of them is incorrectly labeled, as you suggested might have happened. Either way, your example confirms the different color balance. And yes, it's mostly easily correctable in digital post, so not necessarily much of a problem for hybrid workers. To a large extent it can also be filtered out in RA4 printing, and especially low-contrast scenes tend to print just fine. Things get tricky with e.g. a landscape with some billowy clouds, where sunlit edges of clouds may take on funky colors before they break into pure white. This may need a post exposure with a different color during printing to fix.

 

[Rudeofus]

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+.

What I was actually trying to express: you get some type of detail in measured - 4 stops, and with HP5+ you get some detail in measured - 6 stops.

If you measure some area, and based on that light measurement expose Vision 3 500T at EI 500, then you still get some detail in areas, which are only 1/16th as bright as the measured area. Anything darker will be blank on your negatives. If you expose this same film at EI 2000, then measured - 2 stops will see detail, anything less than that will not record anything on your film.

If you are used to measuring in the shadow regions of your subject matter, then EI 2000 exposure will look good. If you measure in the brightest parts of your scene, then even EI 500 may be an underexposure.