Pushing ISO

File: IMG_20161010_225427.jpg (1MB, 1872x3328px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1872x3328px

This is my 200 ISO roll and I want to push it to 1600

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	KAZAM
Camera Model	Tornado 348
Camera Software	KAZAM Camera Application
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:10 22:54:27
Exposure Time	19999/500000 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	265
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.50 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1872
Image Height	3328
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2944265
google

>>2944270
I've been doing this for half an hour. I can't figure this out for myself for shit

the silver on black is the grid (grid of 6x2 like in the picture on the top left), looks like asa 200 (which it says on the roll) and 24 exposures since the D block is black. Forget about the rest just shoot at 1600 and then develop for a longer time.

>>2944275

oh, and the bottom right is +3,-1 so might be the recommended push and pull amount so from speed 100 to 1600

>>2944265
>There's actually nothing like my roll's code on the chart.

u wot m8?
Metal squares on the roll correspond to white squares in the chart.
First row: XXXoXo = ASA 200; this is what you change to push.
Second row: XXXoXX = 24 frames, +3/-1; don't touch this.

If your camera can't set film speed manually or apply exposure compensation, you'll have to cut and paste metal squares from another roll since nothing above ISO 200 can be achieved just by taping over existing metal squares.

>>2944279
>you'll have to cut and paste metal squares from another roll since nothing above ISO 200 can be achieved just by taping over existing metal squares.
Isn't taping equal to scratching?
How to cut and paste?

>>2944279
Wait... My camera can set EV/ISO manually.

Would it still work if I set it to 1600 on the screen and then told the lab to develop at +3 EV?

>>2944287

Basically, yes.

> to develop at +3 EV

3 stops it's a lot senpai. I don't think it's a good idea.

>>2944289
I have this Afga Colour Vista Plus 200 roll I've bought this summer during my trip to England for £1.

Would be 800 (-2EV) be any better?

>>2944287
>Isn't taping equal to scratching?
Unless you're in a desert and can't find any electrical, scotch or gaffer tape, it's easier and better.
The code is read by measuring conductivity between the leftmost square (note that it's always metallic) and the others. If you scratch, you risk fucking up all squares to the right of the one scratched.

>How to cut and paste?
Carefully cut and peel the code off the old roll of an appropriate speed, use crazy glue to paste onto the new one. Do note that you have to cut the entire first row, not individual squares.

>Would it still work if I set it to 1600 on the screen and then told the lab to develop at +3 EV?
Obviously yes. But if you do this, tape over the DX code completely, as many cameras prioritize it over the manual ISO setting.

>>2944266
Don't do it senpai, I wouldn't do a three stop push on C-41 even if I was self developing.

Just buy some 800/1600 superia/natura.

>>2944291
>would 800 be any better?
If it was pushed in development by the lab or yourself, maybe.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2165089@N24/discuss/72157644624224801/

>>2944314
Shh, let him discover the "wonders" of high ISO color film by himself.

>>2944324
Oh gosh, is it so bad?

if you don't mind black&white tri-x 400 almost has no limits to pushing. kodak tri-x is god's gift to the world.

File: 1470057251001.jpg (25KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x480px

If I cheat a developer machine into thinking a 100 asa film is a 25 asa one, will it push the 100 asa film to 400 asa?

>>2944807
It does not work like that. The DX coding on the film canister is meant to be read by the camera. The developer machine does not read it because all C-41 films use the same development time at their nominal speed. If you want your film push processed, you have to tell the lab operator and he has to adjust the development time manually.

File: w827A0a.jpg (420KB, 2266x1534px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 2266x1534px

>>2944720
This is what Natura 1600 looks like on average, a film specifically designed to be shot at that sensitivity.

Consumer negative film pushed to the same speed is basically more grainy mess than image.

>>2944720
>>2944816
Basically, if you want color images at ISO 800 and up and don't dig the "muh film grain" aesthetic, just shoot digital, it's leaps and bounds ahead. And if you do like grain, then shoot B&W, as color negative grain is kinda ugly.

>>2944814
I did it already but they're clueless.

They say they just can't do it, they just throw the roll in and that's it.

I've also asked if they would do it if I pay more (some labs actually ask you for more money to push the development... But you have to send the rolls in, pay postage etc. for 2 rolls and who knows when they get back/where they really develop it. They guarantee nothing anyway), they still said they can't do anything.
I just need it for few color negatives so buying all the tanks and chemistry is out of the question and I only have access to Kektar 100, everything else, if availabe, a big if, it's the equivalent of $25 a roll.

How can I manage to do it?

>>2944825
Really some can't?
If mine doesn't know if they can scan in .tif won't they probably know how to develop +2 EV a roll?

>>2944825
What kind of final result do you expect to get?

If you're scanning the negatives, you can push them digitally after scanning. It will look different than pushing during development, but we're talking different flavors of shit here?

>>2944830
No, that's the last physical shop around that offers the developing service, but the dudes in the shop are just cashiers apparently, when you talk with them you realize they're clueless (the first person I talked with didn't even know what was I talking about, had to call the colleague).

It's a shop in the city that sells D810s at $300 more than what you can buy online from bigger shops, mind you. I guess they can do it if they're still alive by so many years, there are too many people with big pockets here...

>>2944836
>If you're scanning the negatives, you can push them digitally after scanning
That's not the same thing, even with a softened 1/1 flash you'll not bring back data that isn't there, I've tried already.

>>2944825
Remove the sanctions from your country and buy the C-41 film you require off of ebay. Better yet, use a flash/monopod. If you're the same anon as the last quoted, by using dollars there's no excuse for not buying an 800/1600 speed film. The majority of film purchasing moved online for a reason.

The first thing you need to understand is that C-41 development is standardized and years of processing led to 1 hour photo places because technology advanced. 99% of film users shooting C-41 don't need to push or desire pushing.
>>2944850
>but the dudes in the shop are just cashiers apparently, when you talk with them you realize they're clueless (the first person I talked with didn't even know what was I talking about, had to call the colleague).
Yeah senpai, You can't really expect more of them, they retrieve the film leader, place a sticker on it and feed it into a machine. Then they put it in a drying rack and automate scans using a pakon/frontier. There's like 2% skill involved.

Believe it or not, people aren't advising against C-41 pushing just to be pricks. They're doing it because unless you're processing yourself or have a proper lab it's not going to happen.