My buddy Shawn had posted a bunch of photos a while back and I couldn't clock the stock for the life of me but I enjoyed the color shifts in the darker ones. I asked him about it and he said it was Ektar with a +2 push.
Now that I've had a bit more experience with my own development and scanning (though honestly the scanning part is still so far from a standard lab process it's pretty much untranslatable) I think maybe the lab wasn't pushing his film at all, or barely, and they would just bass boost the scans of the thin under-exposed negatives.
Because labs will lie to you, and everyone working at one thinks they know better than you do and that you're an idiot.
And maybe they're not wrong, but what gives them the right!!
Shot about half this roll metered at 250 and half at 400. Once you account for the actual scanning/processing exposure they're pretty much indistinguishable except for a bit more color noise introduced by the scanning in the latter if you're peeping.
While I used some C-41 "freshly" mixed from concentrate, the concentrate itself was about 6 months old and had been sitting with a bunch of oxygen that whole time so it's probably not exactly where it wants to be potency-wise. Little hotter than standard temp at 104F, and significantly more than standard dev time at around 4m:45s. While I can't account for the chemistry's potential decay, that's essentially a +1.33 push.
Negatives were still a bit thin, as expected, but had enough density that the awful water stains running down the bottom of nearly the entire roll is really only visible in one of the pictures, unlike the roll of 400D I put through dead chems last year.
I probably will not repeat this process, especially since Ektar ain't cheap, but it was a fun experiment.
Rollei Colorchem C-41 (4m:45s @ 104F)
Konica Minolta DiMAGE SE5400II => VueScan => RawTherapee 5.9

