Should Kodak Vision 500T film be used with ISO 400 or 800?Where can I buy film for a Kodak Instamatic 500?What caused excessively high grain in Delta ISO 400 film developed by a shop?If I shot Tri-X 400 at ASA 800, should I develop at 800, and can I go all the way to 1200?What low-cost ISO 400 film is good for learning photography?Can I use chemicals for developing ISO 400 film to develop ISO 100 or 200 film as well?Why are my Portra 400 pictures darker than Portra 160? Shouldn't higher ISO result in brighter pictures?Can I use a higher ASA / ISO with a point and shoot film camera which says it only goes to 400?What is the correct developer for BW Kodak Tmax 400?How far to push ISO with Tmax 400 film?Ilford Delta 400 film should I develop with Rodinal or D76?

Does the sun cross other spiral arms in its movement around the galaxy's center?

Does a small cup of coffee result in a 45% reduced blood flow to the brain?

LuaTeX or pdftex for new project?

Monoids of endomorphisms of nonisomorphic groups

How can a person Insulate copper wire in a medieval world?

Caesar cipher implementation in c++

What are the benefits of the classic f-number scheme?

Did someone help Quentin pass the exam?

What can be found in towers of Tower Bridge?

How to Insert a console.log for word under cursor in new line

Why is hydro-electric power still scarce in some places?

Can I land my aircraft on the grass next to the runway at a public airport?

Is there a mechanic for a PC to learn the relative strength of an opponent, stat-wise?

Why is the Australian ETA application fee cheaper on a 3rd party website?

Why don't we shield existing CPUs from radiation instead of designing new ones?

Area of diagonal-folded regular polygon

How similar (or not) are recorder, fife, and flute fingerings?

Hanging string lights from stone

Efficient stable sum of ordered numbers

What's the difference between "can't move" and "speed becomes 0"?

Why were some early PC 3D cards unsuitable for 2D graphics?

C: Can't pass '#' as command-line argument

What is the maximum distance you can cause damage from?

A robot surviving on top of a 3x3 platform



Should Kodak Vision 500T film be used with ISO 400 or 800?


Where can I buy film for a Kodak Instamatic 500?What caused excessively high grain in Delta ISO 400 film developed by a shop?If I shot Tri-X 400 at ASA 800, should I develop at 800, and can I go all the way to 1200?What low-cost ISO 400 film is good for learning photography?Can I use chemicals for developing ISO 400 film to develop ISO 100 or 200 film as well?Why are my Portra 400 pictures darker than Portra 160? Shouldn't higher ISO result in brighter pictures?Can I use a higher ASA / ISO with a point and shoot film camera which says it only goes to 400?What is the correct developer for BW Kodak Tmax 400?How far to push ISO with Tmax 400 film?Ilford Delta 400 film should I develop with Rodinal or D76?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









2

















Hand rolled Vision3 500T film, but I would like to know what is the best ISO to use, 400 or 800, and why?










share|improve this question


































    2

















    Hand rolled Vision3 500T film, but I would like to know what is the best ISO to use, 400 or 800, and why?










    share|improve this question






























      2












      2








      2








      Hand rolled Vision3 500T film, but I would like to know what is the best ISO to use, 400 or 800, and why?










      share|improve this question

















      Hand rolled Vision3 500T film, but I would like to know what is the best ISO to use, 400 or 800, and why?







      film 35mm kodak






      share|improve this question
















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Aug 12 at 18:09









      xiota

      18.3k4 gold badges23 silver badges85 bronze badges




      18.3k4 gold badges23 silver badges85 bronze badges










      asked Aug 11 at 18:44









      Andy AndyAndy Andy

      2991 silver badge11 bronze badges




      2991 silver badge11 bronze badges























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8


















          There are a couple of considerations here...



          When Kodak Vision3 500T is used for stills photography, very often it has been pre-treated to remove the RemJet anti-halation layer, to make it compatible with the standard C-41 process. This process effectively increases the sensitivity of the film to ISO 800. CineStill 800T is Vision3 500T with the RemJet layer removed. (If the RemJet layer hasn't been removed, the film shouldn't go through a regular C-41 process.)



          Since this is a tungsten-balanced film, it's possible you will use a 85 filter with it. If that's the case, obviously then the filter factor comes into consideration too.



          If "none of the above", why not just shoot it at ISO 500? If your camera can't set ISO 500, just set the camera to ISO 400 and "underexpose" by 1/3 of a stop. You can use an exposure compensation setting if available, or else just manually set the aperture narrower or shutter speed faster than recommended – the film will get the right exposure.






          share|improve this answer




























          • One possibility for having to choose between ISO 400 and 800 is if the asker uses a camera without manual ISO override and/or exposure compensation (like lots of point-and-shoots) and uses recycled cartridges with DX coding for 400 or 800. In that case you're stuck having to choose for slight overexposure or more severe underexposure and pulling/pushing the development.

            – G_H
            yesterday


















          1


















          The Rem-Jet (removable jet black backing) coat is a dispersion of lamp black (soot) in a binder of cellulous acetate phthalate. This binder is an “acid plastic”. It can be softened and washed away using an alkaline solution. Machine processing uses a pre-bath to temporarilly harden the film so it better withstands transport in a fast moving film processor. The pre-bath softens the Rem-Jet and spinning rollers, much like paint rollers scrub off the Rem-Jet.



          You can make an alkaline solution and hand buff with a well washed “T” shirt. This can be performed the film has been processed but before drying. Water 27 to 38°C (80 to 100°F) 800 mL 800 mL Borax solution 15 g/L use 20g Sodium Sulfate (Anhydrous) 100 g Sodium Hydroxide 1.0 g Water to make 1 L



          The Rem-Jet serves to protect the film from exposure from the rear. Many motion picture cameras with thru-the-lens viewfinders leaked light if the photographer looked away. It serves as an anti-halation backing. It protects the film when large rolls are loaded and unloaded in subdued light.



          Does anyone know if removal prayer to exposure has an effect on film speed? If so, why is this?






          share|improve this answer


























          • The company Cinestill makes a business of removing the RemJet backing from Kodak motion picture film, and selling it as stills stock, ready for C-41 processing.

            – osullic
            Aug 12 at 20:22











          • While this is a useful answer in its own right, it is not an answer to the question which is about which ISO to expose at. Also light coming in through the viewfinder could affect metering but won't affect exposure during a shot with an SLR because the mirror moving up blocks light from that path to the film. So maybe an issue for a motion picture camera but normally not for a still camera.

            – G_H
            yesterday











          • As for removal of the remjet prior to exposure, it effectively means there's no anti-halation layer left. Areas with strong highlights could thus develop halos due to light reflecting off the back plate. CineStill rates their pre-processed Kodak Vision3 500T as ISO 800. I'm not sure if the lack of anti-halation layer affects the sensitivity to that degree, so perhaps this is under-exposure to mitigate the halation issues with the suggested development times (in C-41 which is actually cross-processing) being a form of push-processing.

            – G_H
            yesterday


















          1


















          The answer by osullic touches on some excellent points. This depends on whether the anti-halation layer is still present at the time of shooting or not and the chemistry the film will be developed in. I'll add some thoughts under the assumption that there is no other choice than to shoot at ISO 400 or 800 and DX hacking, manual ISO setting and exposure compensation are out of the question.



          If the anti-halation layer is removed prior to using the film, which I consider somewhat doubtful if this is a DIY project where you handroll 500T from a bulk roll, you are probably better off shooting at ISO 800 if you intend to develop in C-41. The lack of anti-halation layer could result in halos around strong highlights. This is a look that can be appealing in its own right but might become too pronounced when overexposing at ISO 400. A reason to believe this is that CineStill rates their 800T film at ISO 800, while it's simply Kodak Vision3 500T with the remjet removed. To be honest I'd be surprised if they did much more than removing the remjet to make the film suitable for C-41 processing as you can't simply change a film's chemistry, but I could be sorely mistaken. CineStill probably did a good amount of experimenting at various ISO ratings and with different development times to find what seems to work best, so it's a nice starting point. But Vision3 500T was never intended to be used without remjet backing or developed in C-41 so it remains a matter of compromise. You'd develop the film as if it were ISO 800, so no push/pull development relative to how you shot it.



          If the remjet is still on and you must choose between ISO 400 or 800, then shooting at 400 would be an overexposure of 1/3rd stop while 800 would be an underexposure of 2/3rd stops. If you want to know the math to get at this I'll be glad to explain further on request. Film tends to do better with some overexposure rather than underexposure. Unlike digital sensors where highlights can clip into pure white, blown highlights on film tend to roll off more gracefully. Film usually has more latitude on the overexposure side than on the underexposure side relative to the rated box speed. This coupled with the fact that an overexposure of 1/3rd stop is a less dramatic departure from the "ideal" exposure than underexposing 2/3rd stops makes it the more sensible option. From the Kodak brochure of Vision3 500T:




          A white card is 2 1⁄3 stops higher than normal exposure, and there are at least 3 1⁄2 stops above that for capturing specular highlight detail. A 3-percent black card is 2 2⁄3 stops below normal exposure. There are at least 2 1⁄2 stops of latitude below that for capturing shadow detail.




          (source: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Camera_Films/5219/Resources/VISION-500T-Sellsheet_US_4PG-180829-SP.pdf)



          So about 5.83 stops latitude overexposure and 4.83 stops latitude underexposure. You're better off erring on the side of overexposing. Given how forgiving the latitude is the 1/3 stop from ISO 500 to 400 isn't a huge deal.



          Development time and/or temperature could be altered to compensate for this if necessary. For example, the CineStill color simplified two-bath kit prescribes a development time of 3.5 minutes at 39°C/102°F and a development time of 2.75 minutes for pulling one full stop at the same temperature. So a good guess for pulling by 1/3 stop to compensate for the slight overexposure would be to take the difference between 3.5 and 2.75 minutes (= 0.75 minutes or 45 seconds), divide by 3 (= 0.25 minutes or 15 seconds) and subtract that from the standard development time. This gives you 3.25 minutes.



          If you're developing using RA-4 paper chemicals which some people claim provide better results than C-41 then you're already on experimental ground. In that case go by testimonies online (Flickr can be a good resource for such discussion) to get some idea of how long and at which temperatures to develop when shooting at various ISO ratings.



          In case you can develop using ECN-2 chemistry for which Vision3 film is intended your best bet is to consult the official Kodak resources. Currently you can find info at this link: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles/motion/h2407.pdf. It doesn't mention anything about compensating for under- or overexposure. Since ECN-2 chemistry in quantities suitable for hobbyist use is a rarity (but available through some channels at the time of this writing) once again you'd be at the mercy of the experience of other photographers for getting reference data and would have to experiment yourself. At that point it is much easier to just find cartridges with DX coding for ISO 500 or hack it together yourself than trying to figure out how to make it work at different exposures.



          Other than the exposure and development the final result will also depend on whether you make prints from the negatives or use digital scanning. One method might be able to get better results than the other for either overexposing or underexposing.



          Finally remember that if you don't remove the remjet you shouldn't have the roll developed by any lab that isn't specialized in handling motion picture film or doesn't have provisions for removing the remjet. Doing so would at best ruin their C-41 chemistry and at worst damage their development machinery, which could be a costly mistake. Either find a service that offers ECN-2 processing at film quantities for a photographer or do the development yourself.



          The bottom lines are:



          1. Film usually deals better with overexposure than underexposure.

          2. ISO 400 is only 1/3 stop overexposed from ISO 500 so a better choice than 800.

          3. Since Vision3 film was made for machine processing in specialized ECN-2 chemistry in large quantities at tight tolerances, any deviation from this is an experiment. As it goes with experiments you're best off trying things and seeing what works until you're satisfied with the results, or find something unique along the way that you love.





          share|improve this answer



























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "61"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );














            draft saved

            draft discarded
















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f110266%2fshould-kodak-vision-500t-film-be-used-with-iso-400-or-800%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown


























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            8


















            There are a couple of considerations here...



            When Kodak Vision3 500T is used for stills photography, very often it has been pre-treated to remove the RemJet anti-halation layer, to make it compatible with the standard C-41 process. This process effectively increases the sensitivity of the film to ISO 800. CineStill 800T is Vision3 500T with the RemJet layer removed. (If the RemJet layer hasn't been removed, the film shouldn't go through a regular C-41 process.)



            Since this is a tungsten-balanced film, it's possible you will use a 85 filter with it. If that's the case, obviously then the filter factor comes into consideration too.



            If "none of the above", why not just shoot it at ISO 500? If your camera can't set ISO 500, just set the camera to ISO 400 and "underexpose" by 1/3 of a stop. You can use an exposure compensation setting if available, or else just manually set the aperture narrower or shutter speed faster than recommended – the film will get the right exposure.






            share|improve this answer




























            • One possibility for having to choose between ISO 400 and 800 is if the asker uses a camera without manual ISO override and/or exposure compensation (like lots of point-and-shoots) and uses recycled cartridges with DX coding for 400 or 800. In that case you're stuck having to choose for slight overexposure or more severe underexposure and pulling/pushing the development.

              – G_H
              yesterday















            8


















            There are a couple of considerations here...



            When Kodak Vision3 500T is used for stills photography, very often it has been pre-treated to remove the RemJet anti-halation layer, to make it compatible with the standard C-41 process. This process effectively increases the sensitivity of the film to ISO 800. CineStill 800T is Vision3 500T with the RemJet layer removed. (If the RemJet layer hasn't been removed, the film shouldn't go through a regular C-41 process.)



            Since this is a tungsten-balanced film, it's possible you will use a 85 filter with it. If that's the case, obviously then the filter factor comes into consideration too.



            If "none of the above", why not just shoot it at ISO 500? If your camera can't set ISO 500, just set the camera to ISO 400 and "underexpose" by 1/3 of a stop. You can use an exposure compensation setting if available, or else just manually set the aperture narrower or shutter speed faster than recommended – the film will get the right exposure.






            share|improve this answer




























            • One possibility for having to choose between ISO 400 and 800 is if the asker uses a camera without manual ISO override and/or exposure compensation (like lots of point-and-shoots) and uses recycled cartridges with DX coding for 400 or 800. In that case you're stuck having to choose for slight overexposure or more severe underexposure and pulling/pushing the development.

              – G_H
              yesterday













            8














            8










            8









            There are a couple of considerations here...



            When Kodak Vision3 500T is used for stills photography, very often it has been pre-treated to remove the RemJet anti-halation layer, to make it compatible with the standard C-41 process. This process effectively increases the sensitivity of the film to ISO 800. CineStill 800T is Vision3 500T with the RemJet layer removed. (If the RemJet layer hasn't been removed, the film shouldn't go through a regular C-41 process.)



            Since this is a tungsten-balanced film, it's possible you will use a 85 filter with it. If that's the case, obviously then the filter factor comes into consideration too.



            If "none of the above", why not just shoot it at ISO 500? If your camera can't set ISO 500, just set the camera to ISO 400 and "underexpose" by 1/3 of a stop. You can use an exposure compensation setting if available, or else just manually set the aperture narrower or shutter speed faster than recommended – the film will get the right exposure.






            share|improve this answer
















            There are a couple of considerations here...



            When Kodak Vision3 500T is used for stills photography, very often it has been pre-treated to remove the RemJet anti-halation layer, to make it compatible with the standard C-41 process. This process effectively increases the sensitivity of the film to ISO 800. CineStill 800T is Vision3 500T with the RemJet layer removed. (If the RemJet layer hasn't been removed, the film shouldn't go through a regular C-41 process.)



            Since this is a tungsten-balanced film, it's possible you will use a 85 filter with it. If that's the case, obviously then the filter factor comes into consideration too.



            If "none of the above", why not just shoot it at ISO 500? If your camera can't set ISO 500, just set the camera to ISO 400 and "underexpose" by 1/3 of a stop. You can use an exposure compensation setting if available, or else just manually set the aperture narrower or shutter speed faster than recommended – the film will get the right exposure.







            share|improve this answer















            share|improve this answer




            share|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered Aug 11 at 20:18









            osullicosullic

            6,5491 gold badge14 silver badges28 bronze badges




            6,5491 gold badge14 silver badges28 bronze badges















            • One possibility for having to choose between ISO 400 and 800 is if the asker uses a camera without manual ISO override and/or exposure compensation (like lots of point-and-shoots) and uses recycled cartridges with DX coding for 400 or 800. In that case you're stuck having to choose for slight overexposure or more severe underexposure and pulling/pushing the development.

              – G_H
              yesterday

















            • One possibility for having to choose between ISO 400 and 800 is if the asker uses a camera without manual ISO override and/or exposure compensation (like lots of point-and-shoots) and uses recycled cartridges with DX coding for 400 or 800. In that case you're stuck having to choose for slight overexposure or more severe underexposure and pulling/pushing the development.

              – G_H
              yesterday
















            One possibility for having to choose between ISO 400 and 800 is if the asker uses a camera without manual ISO override and/or exposure compensation (like lots of point-and-shoots) and uses recycled cartridges with DX coding for 400 or 800. In that case you're stuck having to choose for slight overexposure or more severe underexposure and pulling/pushing the development.

            – G_H
            yesterday





            One possibility for having to choose between ISO 400 and 800 is if the asker uses a camera without manual ISO override and/or exposure compensation (like lots of point-and-shoots) and uses recycled cartridges with DX coding for 400 or 800. In that case you're stuck having to choose for slight overexposure or more severe underexposure and pulling/pushing the development.

            – G_H
            yesterday













            1


















            The Rem-Jet (removable jet black backing) coat is a dispersion of lamp black (soot) in a binder of cellulous acetate phthalate. This binder is an “acid plastic”. It can be softened and washed away using an alkaline solution. Machine processing uses a pre-bath to temporarilly harden the film so it better withstands transport in a fast moving film processor. The pre-bath softens the Rem-Jet and spinning rollers, much like paint rollers scrub off the Rem-Jet.



            You can make an alkaline solution and hand buff with a well washed “T” shirt. This can be performed the film has been processed but before drying. Water 27 to 38°C (80 to 100°F) 800 mL 800 mL Borax solution 15 g/L use 20g Sodium Sulfate (Anhydrous) 100 g Sodium Hydroxide 1.0 g Water to make 1 L



            The Rem-Jet serves to protect the film from exposure from the rear. Many motion picture cameras with thru-the-lens viewfinders leaked light if the photographer looked away. It serves as an anti-halation backing. It protects the film when large rolls are loaded and unloaded in subdued light.



            Does anyone know if removal prayer to exposure has an effect on film speed? If so, why is this?






            share|improve this answer


























            • The company Cinestill makes a business of removing the RemJet backing from Kodak motion picture film, and selling it as stills stock, ready for C-41 processing.

              – osullic
              Aug 12 at 20:22











            • While this is a useful answer in its own right, it is not an answer to the question which is about which ISO to expose at. Also light coming in through the viewfinder could affect metering but won't affect exposure during a shot with an SLR because the mirror moving up blocks light from that path to the film. So maybe an issue for a motion picture camera but normally not for a still camera.

              – G_H
              yesterday











            • As for removal of the remjet prior to exposure, it effectively means there's no anti-halation layer left. Areas with strong highlights could thus develop halos due to light reflecting off the back plate. CineStill rates their pre-processed Kodak Vision3 500T as ISO 800. I'm not sure if the lack of anti-halation layer affects the sensitivity to that degree, so perhaps this is under-exposure to mitigate the halation issues with the suggested development times (in C-41 which is actually cross-processing) being a form of push-processing.

              – G_H
              yesterday















            1


















            The Rem-Jet (removable jet black backing) coat is a dispersion of lamp black (soot) in a binder of cellulous acetate phthalate. This binder is an “acid plastic”. It can be softened and washed away using an alkaline solution. Machine processing uses a pre-bath to temporarilly harden the film so it better withstands transport in a fast moving film processor. The pre-bath softens the Rem-Jet and spinning rollers, much like paint rollers scrub off the Rem-Jet.



            You can make an alkaline solution and hand buff with a well washed “T” shirt. This can be performed the film has been processed but before drying. Water 27 to 38°C (80 to 100°F) 800 mL 800 mL Borax solution 15 g/L use 20g Sodium Sulfate (Anhydrous) 100 g Sodium Hydroxide 1.0 g Water to make 1 L



            The Rem-Jet serves to protect the film from exposure from the rear. Many motion picture cameras with thru-the-lens viewfinders leaked light if the photographer looked away. It serves as an anti-halation backing. It protects the film when large rolls are loaded and unloaded in subdued light.



            Does anyone know if removal prayer to exposure has an effect on film speed? If so, why is this?






            share|improve this answer


























            • The company Cinestill makes a business of removing the RemJet backing from Kodak motion picture film, and selling it as stills stock, ready for C-41 processing.

              – osullic
              Aug 12 at 20:22











            • While this is a useful answer in its own right, it is not an answer to the question which is about which ISO to expose at. Also light coming in through the viewfinder could affect metering but won't affect exposure during a shot with an SLR because the mirror moving up blocks light from that path to the film. So maybe an issue for a motion picture camera but normally not for a still camera.

              – G_H
              yesterday











            • As for removal of the remjet prior to exposure, it effectively means there's no anti-halation layer left. Areas with strong highlights could thus develop halos due to light reflecting off the back plate. CineStill rates their pre-processed Kodak Vision3 500T as ISO 800. I'm not sure if the lack of anti-halation layer affects the sensitivity to that degree, so perhaps this is under-exposure to mitigate the halation issues with the suggested development times (in C-41 which is actually cross-processing) being a form of push-processing.

              – G_H
              yesterday













            1














            1










            1









            The Rem-Jet (removable jet black backing) coat is a dispersion of lamp black (soot) in a binder of cellulous acetate phthalate. This binder is an “acid plastic”. It can be softened and washed away using an alkaline solution. Machine processing uses a pre-bath to temporarilly harden the film so it better withstands transport in a fast moving film processor. The pre-bath softens the Rem-Jet and spinning rollers, much like paint rollers scrub off the Rem-Jet.



            You can make an alkaline solution and hand buff with a well washed “T” shirt. This can be performed the film has been processed but before drying. Water 27 to 38°C (80 to 100°F) 800 mL 800 mL Borax solution 15 g/L use 20g Sodium Sulfate (Anhydrous) 100 g Sodium Hydroxide 1.0 g Water to make 1 L



            The Rem-Jet serves to protect the film from exposure from the rear. Many motion picture cameras with thru-the-lens viewfinders leaked light if the photographer looked away. It serves as an anti-halation backing. It protects the film when large rolls are loaded and unloaded in subdued light.



            Does anyone know if removal prayer to exposure has an effect on film speed? If so, why is this?






            share|improve this answer














            The Rem-Jet (removable jet black backing) coat is a dispersion of lamp black (soot) in a binder of cellulous acetate phthalate. This binder is an “acid plastic”. It can be softened and washed away using an alkaline solution. Machine processing uses a pre-bath to temporarilly harden the film so it better withstands transport in a fast moving film processor. The pre-bath softens the Rem-Jet and spinning rollers, much like paint rollers scrub off the Rem-Jet.



            You can make an alkaline solution and hand buff with a well washed “T” shirt. This can be performed the film has been processed but before drying. Water 27 to 38°C (80 to 100°F) 800 mL 800 mL Borax solution 15 g/L use 20g Sodium Sulfate (Anhydrous) 100 g Sodium Hydroxide 1.0 g Water to make 1 L



            The Rem-Jet serves to protect the film from exposure from the rear. Many motion picture cameras with thru-the-lens viewfinders leaked light if the photographer looked away. It serves as an anti-halation backing. It protects the film when large rolls are loaded and unloaded in subdued light.



            Does anyone know if removal prayer to exposure has an effect on film speed? If so, why is this?







            share|improve this answer













            share|improve this answer




            share|improve this answer










            answered Aug 12 at 19:14









            Alan MarcusAlan Marcus

            29.2k3 gold badges32 silver badges67 bronze badges




            29.2k3 gold badges32 silver badges67 bronze badges















            • The company Cinestill makes a business of removing the RemJet backing from Kodak motion picture film, and selling it as stills stock, ready for C-41 processing.

              – osullic
              Aug 12 at 20:22











            • While this is a useful answer in its own right, it is not an answer to the question which is about which ISO to expose at. Also light coming in through the viewfinder could affect metering but won't affect exposure during a shot with an SLR because the mirror moving up blocks light from that path to the film. So maybe an issue for a motion picture camera but normally not for a still camera.

              – G_H
              yesterday











            • As for removal of the remjet prior to exposure, it effectively means there's no anti-halation layer left. Areas with strong highlights could thus develop halos due to light reflecting off the back plate. CineStill rates their pre-processed Kodak Vision3 500T as ISO 800. I'm not sure if the lack of anti-halation layer affects the sensitivity to that degree, so perhaps this is under-exposure to mitigate the halation issues with the suggested development times (in C-41 which is actually cross-processing) being a form of push-processing.

              – G_H
              yesterday

















            • The company Cinestill makes a business of removing the RemJet backing from Kodak motion picture film, and selling it as stills stock, ready for C-41 processing.

              – osullic
              Aug 12 at 20:22











            • While this is a useful answer in its own right, it is not an answer to the question which is about which ISO to expose at. Also light coming in through the viewfinder could affect metering but won't affect exposure during a shot with an SLR because the mirror moving up blocks light from that path to the film. So maybe an issue for a motion picture camera but normally not for a still camera.

              – G_H
              yesterday











            • As for removal of the remjet prior to exposure, it effectively means there's no anti-halation layer left. Areas with strong highlights could thus develop halos due to light reflecting off the back plate. CineStill rates their pre-processed Kodak Vision3 500T as ISO 800. I'm not sure if the lack of anti-halation layer affects the sensitivity to that degree, so perhaps this is under-exposure to mitigate the halation issues with the suggested development times (in C-41 which is actually cross-processing) being a form of push-processing.

              – G_H
              yesterday
















            The company Cinestill makes a business of removing the RemJet backing from Kodak motion picture film, and selling it as stills stock, ready for C-41 processing.

            – osullic
            Aug 12 at 20:22





            The company Cinestill makes a business of removing the RemJet backing from Kodak motion picture film, and selling it as stills stock, ready for C-41 processing.

            – osullic
            Aug 12 at 20:22













            While this is a useful answer in its own right, it is not an answer to the question which is about which ISO to expose at. Also light coming in through the viewfinder could affect metering but won't affect exposure during a shot with an SLR because the mirror moving up blocks light from that path to the film. So maybe an issue for a motion picture camera but normally not for a still camera.

            – G_H
            yesterday





            While this is a useful answer in its own right, it is not an answer to the question which is about which ISO to expose at. Also light coming in through the viewfinder could affect metering but won't affect exposure during a shot with an SLR because the mirror moving up blocks light from that path to the film. So maybe an issue for a motion picture camera but normally not for a still camera.

            – G_H
            yesterday













            As for removal of the remjet prior to exposure, it effectively means there's no anti-halation layer left. Areas with strong highlights could thus develop halos due to light reflecting off the back plate. CineStill rates their pre-processed Kodak Vision3 500T as ISO 800. I'm not sure if the lack of anti-halation layer affects the sensitivity to that degree, so perhaps this is under-exposure to mitigate the halation issues with the suggested development times (in C-41 which is actually cross-processing) being a form of push-processing.

            – G_H
            yesterday





            As for removal of the remjet prior to exposure, it effectively means there's no anti-halation layer left. Areas with strong highlights could thus develop halos due to light reflecting off the back plate. CineStill rates their pre-processed Kodak Vision3 500T as ISO 800. I'm not sure if the lack of anti-halation layer affects the sensitivity to that degree, so perhaps this is under-exposure to mitigate the halation issues with the suggested development times (in C-41 which is actually cross-processing) being a form of push-processing.

            – G_H
            yesterday











            1


















            The answer by osullic touches on some excellent points. This depends on whether the anti-halation layer is still present at the time of shooting or not and the chemistry the film will be developed in. I'll add some thoughts under the assumption that there is no other choice than to shoot at ISO 400 or 800 and DX hacking, manual ISO setting and exposure compensation are out of the question.



            If the anti-halation layer is removed prior to using the film, which I consider somewhat doubtful if this is a DIY project where you handroll 500T from a bulk roll, you are probably better off shooting at ISO 800 if you intend to develop in C-41. The lack of anti-halation layer could result in halos around strong highlights. This is a look that can be appealing in its own right but might become too pronounced when overexposing at ISO 400. A reason to believe this is that CineStill rates their 800T film at ISO 800, while it's simply Kodak Vision3 500T with the remjet removed. To be honest I'd be surprised if they did much more than removing the remjet to make the film suitable for C-41 processing as you can't simply change a film's chemistry, but I could be sorely mistaken. CineStill probably did a good amount of experimenting at various ISO ratings and with different development times to find what seems to work best, so it's a nice starting point. But Vision3 500T was never intended to be used without remjet backing or developed in C-41 so it remains a matter of compromise. You'd develop the film as if it were ISO 800, so no push/pull development relative to how you shot it.



            If the remjet is still on and you must choose between ISO 400 or 800, then shooting at 400 would be an overexposure of 1/3rd stop while 800 would be an underexposure of 2/3rd stops. If you want to know the math to get at this I'll be glad to explain further on request. Film tends to do better with some overexposure rather than underexposure. Unlike digital sensors where highlights can clip into pure white, blown highlights on film tend to roll off more gracefully. Film usually has more latitude on the overexposure side than on the underexposure side relative to the rated box speed. This coupled with the fact that an overexposure of 1/3rd stop is a less dramatic departure from the "ideal" exposure than underexposing 2/3rd stops makes it the more sensible option. From the Kodak brochure of Vision3 500T:




            A white card is 2 1⁄3 stops higher than normal exposure, and there are at least 3 1⁄2 stops above that for capturing specular highlight detail. A 3-percent black card is 2 2⁄3 stops below normal exposure. There are at least 2 1⁄2 stops of latitude below that for capturing shadow detail.




            (source: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Camera_Films/5219/Resources/VISION-500T-Sellsheet_US_4PG-180829-SP.pdf)



            So about 5.83 stops latitude overexposure and 4.83 stops latitude underexposure. You're better off erring on the side of overexposing. Given how forgiving the latitude is the 1/3 stop from ISO 500 to 400 isn't a huge deal.



            Development time and/or temperature could be altered to compensate for this if necessary. For example, the CineStill color simplified two-bath kit prescribes a development time of 3.5 minutes at 39°C/102°F and a development time of 2.75 minutes for pulling one full stop at the same temperature. So a good guess for pulling by 1/3 stop to compensate for the slight overexposure would be to take the difference between 3.5 and 2.75 minutes (= 0.75 minutes or 45 seconds), divide by 3 (= 0.25 minutes or 15 seconds) and subtract that from the standard development time. This gives you 3.25 minutes.



            If you're developing using RA-4 paper chemicals which some people claim provide better results than C-41 then you're already on experimental ground. In that case go by testimonies online (Flickr can be a good resource for such discussion) to get some idea of how long and at which temperatures to develop when shooting at various ISO ratings.



            In case you can develop using ECN-2 chemistry for which Vision3 film is intended your best bet is to consult the official Kodak resources. Currently you can find info at this link: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles/motion/h2407.pdf. It doesn't mention anything about compensating for under- or overexposure. Since ECN-2 chemistry in quantities suitable for hobbyist use is a rarity (but available through some channels at the time of this writing) once again you'd be at the mercy of the experience of other photographers for getting reference data and would have to experiment yourself. At that point it is much easier to just find cartridges with DX coding for ISO 500 or hack it together yourself than trying to figure out how to make it work at different exposures.



            Other than the exposure and development the final result will also depend on whether you make prints from the negatives or use digital scanning. One method might be able to get better results than the other for either overexposing or underexposing.



            Finally remember that if you don't remove the remjet you shouldn't have the roll developed by any lab that isn't specialized in handling motion picture film or doesn't have provisions for removing the remjet. Doing so would at best ruin their C-41 chemistry and at worst damage their development machinery, which could be a costly mistake. Either find a service that offers ECN-2 processing at film quantities for a photographer or do the development yourself.



            The bottom lines are:



            1. Film usually deals better with overexposure than underexposure.

            2. ISO 400 is only 1/3 stop overexposed from ISO 500 so a better choice than 800.

            3. Since Vision3 film was made for machine processing in specialized ECN-2 chemistry in large quantities at tight tolerances, any deviation from this is an experiment. As it goes with experiments you're best off trying things and seeing what works until you're satisfied with the results, or find something unique along the way that you love.





            share|improve this answer






























              1


















              The answer by osullic touches on some excellent points. This depends on whether the anti-halation layer is still present at the time of shooting or not and the chemistry the film will be developed in. I'll add some thoughts under the assumption that there is no other choice than to shoot at ISO 400 or 800 and DX hacking, manual ISO setting and exposure compensation are out of the question.



              If the anti-halation layer is removed prior to using the film, which I consider somewhat doubtful if this is a DIY project where you handroll 500T from a bulk roll, you are probably better off shooting at ISO 800 if you intend to develop in C-41. The lack of anti-halation layer could result in halos around strong highlights. This is a look that can be appealing in its own right but might become too pronounced when overexposing at ISO 400. A reason to believe this is that CineStill rates their 800T film at ISO 800, while it's simply Kodak Vision3 500T with the remjet removed. To be honest I'd be surprised if they did much more than removing the remjet to make the film suitable for C-41 processing as you can't simply change a film's chemistry, but I could be sorely mistaken. CineStill probably did a good amount of experimenting at various ISO ratings and with different development times to find what seems to work best, so it's a nice starting point. But Vision3 500T was never intended to be used without remjet backing or developed in C-41 so it remains a matter of compromise. You'd develop the film as if it were ISO 800, so no push/pull development relative to how you shot it.



              If the remjet is still on and you must choose between ISO 400 or 800, then shooting at 400 would be an overexposure of 1/3rd stop while 800 would be an underexposure of 2/3rd stops. If you want to know the math to get at this I'll be glad to explain further on request. Film tends to do better with some overexposure rather than underexposure. Unlike digital sensors where highlights can clip into pure white, blown highlights on film tend to roll off more gracefully. Film usually has more latitude on the overexposure side than on the underexposure side relative to the rated box speed. This coupled with the fact that an overexposure of 1/3rd stop is a less dramatic departure from the "ideal" exposure than underexposing 2/3rd stops makes it the more sensible option. From the Kodak brochure of Vision3 500T:




              A white card is 2 1⁄3 stops higher than normal exposure, and there are at least 3 1⁄2 stops above that for capturing specular highlight detail. A 3-percent black card is 2 2⁄3 stops below normal exposure. There are at least 2 1⁄2 stops of latitude below that for capturing shadow detail.




              (source: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Camera_Films/5219/Resources/VISION-500T-Sellsheet_US_4PG-180829-SP.pdf)



              So about 5.83 stops latitude overexposure and 4.83 stops latitude underexposure. You're better off erring on the side of overexposing. Given how forgiving the latitude is the 1/3 stop from ISO 500 to 400 isn't a huge deal.



              Development time and/or temperature could be altered to compensate for this if necessary. For example, the CineStill color simplified two-bath kit prescribes a development time of 3.5 minutes at 39°C/102°F and a development time of 2.75 minutes for pulling one full stop at the same temperature. So a good guess for pulling by 1/3 stop to compensate for the slight overexposure would be to take the difference between 3.5 and 2.75 minutes (= 0.75 minutes or 45 seconds), divide by 3 (= 0.25 minutes or 15 seconds) and subtract that from the standard development time. This gives you 3.25 minutes.



              If you're developing using RA-4 paper chemicals which some people claim provide better results than C-41 then you're already on experimental ground. In that case go by testimonies online (Flickr can be a good resource for such discussion) to get some idea of how long and at which temperatures to develop when shooting at various ISO ratings.



              In case you can develop using ECN-2 chemistry for which Vision3 film is intended your best bet is to consult the official Kodak resources. Currently you can find info at this link: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles/motion/h2407.pdf. It doesn't mention anything about compensating for under- or overexposure. Since ECN-2 chemistry in quantities suitable for hobbyist use is a rarity (but available through some channels at the time of this writing) once again you'd be at the mercy of the experience of other photographers for getting reference data and would have to experiment yourself. At that point it is much easier to just find cartridges with DX coding for ISO 500 or hack it together yourself than trying to figure out how to make it work at different exposures.



              Other than the exposure and development the final result will also depend on whether you make prints from the negatives or use digital scanning. One method might be able to get better results than the other for either overexposing or underexposing.



              Finally remember that if you don't remove the remjet you shouldn't have the roll developed by any lab that isn't specialized in handling motion picture film or doesn't have provisions for removing the remjet. Doing so would at best ruin their C-41 chemistry and at worst damage their development machinery, which could be a costly mistake. Either find a service that offers ECN-2 processing at film quantities for a photographer or do the development yourself.



              The bottom lines are:



              1. Film usually deals better with overexposure than underexposure.

              2. ISO 400 is only 1/3 stop overexposed from ISO 500 so a better choice than 800.

              3. Since Vision3 film was made for machine processing in specialized ECN-2 chemistry in large quantities at tight tolerances, any deviation from this is an experiment. As it goes with experiments you're best off trying things and seeing what works until you're satisfied with the results, or find something unique along the way that you love.





              share|improve this answer




























                1














                1










                1









                The answer by osullic touches on some excellent points. This depends on whether the anti-halation layer is still present at the time of shooting or not and the chemistry the film will be developed in. I'll add some thoughts under the assumption that there is no other choice than to shoot at ISO 400 or 800 and DX hacking, manual ISO setting and exposure compensation are out of the question.



                If the anti-halation layer is removed prior to using the film, which I consider somewhat doubtful if this is a DIY project where you handroll 500T from a bulk roll, you are probably better off shooting at ISO 800 if you intend to develop in C-41. The lack of anti-halation layer could result in halos around strong highlights. This is a look that can be appealing in its own right but might become too pronounced when overexposing at ISO 400. A reason to believe this is that CineStill rates their 800T film at ISO 800, while it's simply Kodak Vision3 500T with the remjet removed. To be honest I'd be surprised if they did much more than removing the remjet to make the film suitable for C-41 processing as you can't simply change a film's chemistry, but I could be sorely mistaken. CineStill probably did a good amount of experimenting at various ISO ratings and with different development times to find what seems to work best, so it's a nice starting point. But Vision3 500T was never intended to be used without remjet backing or developed in C-41 so it remains a matter of compromise. You'd develop the film as if it were ISO 800, so no push/pull development relative to how you shot it.



                If the remjet is still on and you must choose between ISO 400 or 800, then shooting at 400 would be an overexposure of 1/3rd stop while 800 would be an underexposure of 2/3rd stops. If you want to know the math to get at this I'll be glad to explain further on request. Film tends to do better with some overexposure rather than underexposure. Unlike digital sensors where highlights can clip into pure white, blown highlights on film tend to roll off more gracefully. Film usually has more latitude on the overexposure side than on the underexposure side relative to the rated box speed. This coupled with the fact that an overexposure of 1/3rd stop is a less dramatic departure from the "ideal" exposure than underexposing 2/3rd stops makes it the more sensible option. From the Kodak brochure of Vision3 500T:




                A white card is 2 1⁄3 stops higher than normal exposure, and there are at least 3 1⁄2 stops above that for capturing specular highlight detail. A 3-percent black card is 2 2⁄3 stops below normal exposure. There are at least 2 1⁄2 stops of latitude below that for capturing shadow detail.




                (source: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Camera_Films/5219/Resources/VISION-500T-Sellsheet_US_4PG-180829-SP.pdf)



                So about 5.83 stops latitude overexposure and 4.83 stops latitude underexposure. You're better off erring on the side of overexposing. Given how forgiving the latitude is the 1/3 stop from ISO 500 to 400 isn't a huge deal.



                Development time and/or temperature could be altered to compensate for this if necessary. For example, the CineStill color simplified two-bath kit prescribes a development time of 3.5 minutes at 39°C/102°F and a development time of 2.75 minutes for pulling one full stop at the same temperature. So a good guess for pulling by 1/3 stop to compensate for the slight overexposure would be to take the difference between 3.5 and 2.75 minutes (= 0.75 minutes or 45 seconds), divide by 3 (= 0.25 minutes or 15 seconds) and subtract that from the standard development time. This gives you 3.25 minutes.



                If you're developing using RA-4 paper chemicals which some people claim provide better results than C-41 then you're already on experimental ground. In that case go by testimonies online (Flickr can be a good resource for such discussion) to get some idea of how long and at which temperatures to develop when shooting at various ISO ratings.



                In case you can develop using ECN-2 chemistry for which Vision3 film is intended your best bet is to consult the official Kodak resources. Currently you can find info at this link: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles/motion/h2407.pdf. It doesn't mention anything about compensating for under- or overexposure. Since ECN-2 chemistry in quantities suitable for hobbyist use is a rarity (but available through some channels at the time of this writing) once again you'd be at the mercy of the experience of other photographers for getting reference data and would have to experiment yourself. At that point it is much easier to just find cartridges with DX coding for ISO 500 or hack it together yourself than trying to figure out how to make it work at different exposures.



                Other than the exposure and development the final result will also depend on whether you make prints from the negatives or use digital scanning. One method might be able to get better results than the other for either overexposing or underexposing.



                Finally remember that if you don't remove the remjet you shouldn't have the roll developed by any lab that isn't specialized in handling motion picture film or doesn't have provisions for removing the remjet. Doing so would at best ruin their C-41 chemistry and at worst damage their development machinery, which could be a costly mistake. Either find a service that offers ECN-2 processing at film quantities for a photographer or do the development yourself.



                The bottom lines are:



                1. Film usually deals better with overexposure than underexposure.

                2. ISO 400 is only 1/3 stop overexposed from ISO 500 so a better choice than 800.

                3. Since Vision3 film was made for machine processing in specialized ECN-2 chemistry in large quantities at tight tolerances, any deviation from this is an experiment. As it goes with experiments you're best off trying things and seeing what works until you're satisfied with the results, or find something unique along the way that you love.





                share|improve this answer














                The answer by osullic touches on some excellent points. This depends on whether the anti-halation layer is still present at the time of shooting or not and the chemistry the film will be developed in. I'll add some thoughts under the assumption that there is no other choice than to shoot at ISO 400 or 800 and DX hacking, manual ISO setting and exposure compensation are out of the question.



                If the anti-halation layer is removed prior to using the film, which I consider somewhat doubtful if this is a DIY project where you handroll 500T from a bulk roll, you are probably better off shooting at ISO 800 if you intend to develop in C-41. The lack of anti-halation layer could result in halos around strong highlights. This is a look that can be appealing in its own right but might become too pronounced when overexposing at ISO 400. A reason to believe this is that CineStill rates their 800T film at ISO 800, while it's simply Kodak Vision3 500T with the remjet removed. To be honest I'd be surprised if they did much more than removing the remjet to make the film suitable for C-41 processing as you can't simply change a film's chemistry, but I could be sorely mistaken. CineStill probably did a good amount of experimenting at various ISO ratings and with different development times to find what seems to work best, so it's a nice starting point. But Vision3 500T was never intended to be used without remjet backing or developed in C-41 so it remains a matter of compromise. You'd develop the film as if it were ISO 800, so no push/pull development relative to how you shot it.



                If the remjet is still on and you must choose between ISO 400 or 800, then shooting at 400 would be an overexposure of 1/3rd stop while 800 would be an underexposure of 2/3rd stops. If you want to know the math to get at this I'll be glad to explain further on request. Film tends to do better with some overexposure rather than underexposure. Unlike digital sensors where highlights can clip into pure white, blown highlights on film tend to roll off more gracefully. Film usually has more latitude on the overexposure side than on the underexposure side relative to the rated box speed. This coupled with the fact that an overexposure of 1/3rd stop is a less dramatic departure from the "ideal" exposure than underexposing 2/3rd stops makes it the more sensible option. From the Kodak brochure of Vision3 500T:




                A white card is 2 1⁄3 stops higher than normal exposure, and there are at least 3 1⁄2 stops above that for capturing specular highlight detail. A 3-percent black card is 2 2⁄3 stops below normal exposure. There are at least 2 1⁄2 stops of latitude below that for capturing shadow detail.




                (source: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Camera_Films/5219/Resources/VISION-500T-Sellsheet_US_4PG-180829-SP.pdf)



                So about 5.83 stops latitude overexposure and 4.83 stops latitude underexposure. You're better off erring on the side of overexposing. Given how forgiving the latitude is the 1/3 stop from ISO 500 to 400 isn't a huge deal.



                Development time and/or temperature could be altered to compensate for this if necessary. For example, the CineStill color simplified two-bath kit prescribes a development time of 3.5 minutes at 39°C/102°F and a development time of 2.75 minutes for pulling one full stop at the same temperature. So a good guess for pulling by 1/3 stop to compensate for the slight overexposure would be to take the difference between 3.5 and 2.75 minutes (= 0.75 minutes or 45 seconds), divide by 3 (= 0.25 minutes or 15 seconds) and subtract that from the standard development time. This gives you 3.25 minutes.



                If you're developing using RA-4 paper chemicals which some people claim provide better results than C-41 then you're already on experimental ground. In that case go by testimonies online (Flickr can be a good resource for such discussion) to get some idea of how long and at which temperatures to develop when shooting at various ISO ratings.



                In case you can develop using ECN-2 chemistry for which Vision3 film is intended your best bet is to consult the official Kodak resources. Currently you can find info at this link: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles/motion/h2407.pdf. It doesn't mention anything about compensating for under- or overexposure. Since ECN-2 chemistry in quantities suitable for hobbyist use is a rarity (but available through some channels at the time of this writing) once again you'd be at the mercy of the experience of other photographers for getting reference data and would have to experiment yourself. At that point it is much easier to just find cartridges with DX coding for ISO 500 or hack it together yourself than trying to figure out how to make it work at different exposures.



                Other than the exposure and development the final result will also depend on whether you make prints from the negatives or use digital scanning. One method might be able to get better results than the other for either overexposing or underexposing.



                Finally remember that if you don't remove the remjet you shouldn't have the roll developed by any lab that isn't specialized in handling motion picture film or doesn't have provisions for removing the remjet. Doing so would at best ruin their C-41 chemistry and at worst damage their development machinery, which could be a costly mistake. Either find a service that offers ECN-2 processing at film quantities for a photographer or do the development yourself.



                The bottom lines are:



                1. Film usually deals better with overexposure than underexposure.

                2. ISO 400 is only 1/3 stop overexposed from ISO 500 so a better choice than 800.

                3. Since Vision3 film was made for machine processing in specialized ECN-2 chemistry in large quantities at tight tolerances, any deviation from this is an experiment. As it goes with experiments you're best off trying things and seeing what works until you're satisfied with the results, or find something unique along the way that you love.






                share|improve this answer













                share|improve this answer




                share|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                G_HG_H

                8393 silver badges14 bronze badges




                8393 silver badges14 bronze badges































                    draft saved

                    draft discarded















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f110266%2fshould-kodak-vision-500t-film-be-used-with-iso-400-or-800%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown









                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Distance measures on a map of a game The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are Inmin distance in a graphShortest distance path on contour plotHow to plot a tilted map?Finding points outside of a diskDelaunay link distanceAnnulus from GeoDisks: drawing a ring on a mapNegative Correlation DistanceFind distance along a path (GPS coordinates)Finding position at given distance in a GeoPathMathematics behind distance estimation using camera

                    How to get a smooth, uniform ParametricPlot of a 2D Region?How to plot a complicated Region?How to exclude a region from ParametricPlotHow discretize a region placing vertices on a specific non-uniform gridHow to transform a Plot or a ParametricPlot into a RegionHow can I get a smooth plot of a bounded region?Smooth ParametricPlot3D with RegionFunction?Smooth border of a region ParametricPlotSmooth region boundarySmooth region plot from list of pointsGet minimum y of a certain x in a region

                    Genealogie vun de Merowenger Vum Merowech bis zum Chilperich I. | Navigatiounsmenü