80A filter ?

I would like to use a 80A color-balancing filter on my Summilux M

50mm 1.4 (not asph). It seems to be a problem to get for example a

Tiffen filter of the appropriate size (screw-in). Does any of you use

such a filter (or do you 'photoshop' the color balance; does not seem

the right way to do it... ;-) )

Thanxs!!

I never use a filter for film shooting although for color film shooting indoor under fluorescent lights a filter is a good idea. I got some horrid results photographing hockey a few times. I used to use 81B when I shot Canon D30 which produced blue cast. 81B seemed to correct it nicely. Now shooting RAW I use no filters at all and if necessary I process in PS. For film I'm mostly shooting Black and White.

Well, if you are shooting any kind of daylight-balanced color film in tungsten lights, you'll want to use an 80A blue filter. That is not the sort of gross color correction I'd want to make in Photoshop.

 

 

If you are going to scan images anyway, shoot a tungsten-balanced E-6-type slide film. That way, you won't be encumbered by an 80A filter with a two-stop exposure correction.

 

 

Obviously, if you are shooting digital, you can simply select tungsten color balance on the camera. Or, you can shoot in RAW and re-color balance in the computer.

An 80A proved to be too much when I was doing that. I used an 80B, and then did a little

work in printing / scanning. I got better results, and less of a filter factor. You'd be suprised

by how much collor correction neg can handle especially when it's well exposed.

Yeah, but is there any 80A filter that will fit the M Summilux 50? That's up to the standard of the lens...

B+W multicoated or Heliopan. Check B&H`s website in appropiate size. B+W will make what you need.

 

Kodak for sure and I think Fuji make tungsten balance color neg in 35mm size. No filter required then.

Do Kodak of Fuji make tungsten balanced negative? I must delve into their website for this. I will visit B&W website! Thanks!

I am used to shoot 100 / 400 ASA color negative and scan to NEF RAW. My experience is that daylight balanced film can not be corrected sufficiently after scanning. Colors will always be off. I already realized the 2 stop correction, so I am not really sure what to do. The color slide option is worth investigating as well.

Joseph-

 

 

If you want to shoot color negs, here is the ISO 100 Kodak tungsten neg film Ron referred to:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=214678&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

 

 

If you want to shoot a faster, more pushable slide film:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=G1nG200LjD!-1063885234?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=27398&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

I believe that both Kodak and Fuji color negative motion picture stock is balanced for 3200K tungsten.

Also, if you were going to use an 80A filter frequently, it might be worth your while to buy an expensive Leica/Heliopan/B+W coated filter. I've used an 80A filter for exactly one shot in the last half dozen years; so my 80A is a cheap, but decent Promaster 77mm that fits my pro zooms and can be stepped-down if necessary to other lenses.

Hi Joseph,

 

It depends what the filter size is. My 50 'lux from 1973 requires a 43mm filter. Check what your's requires and then check out the manufacturers' websites for size availability.

 

M

With colour neg film that has plenty of overexposure latitude you can just overexpose a stop or two and correct later. Make sure that the blue-sensitive layer isn't underexposed and grainy, and don't worry about the red--sensitive layer being overexposed. Films like Portra 800 can cope with about 13 stops of brightness range.

 

Whether or not it is worth using a fully correcting filter, or a partially correcting filter, or no filter depends on the degree of colour accuracy you require, the contrast range of the scene and personal taste.

 

You can use motion picture film, as Al mentioned. I use 5229 (Vision2 Expression 500T) in my Fuji Natura and get it developed at Dale in Hollywood, Fla.

 

Best, Helen

Dale Labs got their start selling motion picture film ends (what's left on the big magazine) reloaded into 36 exp. cartridges, and offering both slides and prints from the negatives. Now they're a full service lab and also a Leica dealer

The best solution for use daylight film under tungsten lights it's the B+W KB20 (unique filter, don't exhist in the Wratten range). It's better than 80A/80B filters. The KB20 filter it's just calibrated for compensate the light emitted by normal tungsten house lamps. In the case of fluorescent lights, i use the B+W 499 (same FL-D type).

Ciao.

 

Vincenzo Maielli Bari

1. With all due respect, no color negative film can hold a tonal range of 13 f/stops. Even if there were a 13-stop color negative film, gross overexposure would dramatically shorten the film's tonal range.

 

 

Correctly exposing color negative film is essential. This is particularly true if you plan on scanning the film to print it, as scanning will likely further shorten a color negative film's tonal range.

 

 

2. I would be fascinated to see an example of any daylight-balanced color negative film shot under tungsten lights that has been "correct(ed) later" in Photoshop so as to be indistinguishable from a tungsten film shot in tungsten lights. IMHO, this sort of color correction is too great a reach.

 

 

Again, I would avoid gross overexposure and trying to do back flips in Photoshop. Just shoot a tungsten-balanced film and save yourself the headaches.

These really aren't designed to give a consistant exact color temperature, but are usually considered to be about 2,850 degrees Kelvin. Type B, lighting, so called standard studio lighting, is a cooler 3,200 degrees and amateur photo floods that used to be used for shooting home movies are 3,400 degrees. The actual color of the lights will vary with line voltage, and the higher the wattage of the bulb the cooler the light. 40 watt bulbs are warmer than 100 watt bulbs, for instance.

Eric,

 

Your post appears to be directed at my previous post. I think that you have misread or misunderstood my post.

 

As I said "Whether or not it is worth using a fully correcting filter, or a partially correcting filter, or no filter depends on the degree of colour accuracy you require, the contrast range of the scene and personal taste."

 

If using film, I use different methods, depending on what I want out of the situation. The choice is based on experience and circumstance:

 

Tungsten light and tungsten film, possibly with blue colour balancing filters to fine tune (I use a Minolta CM IIIF), no correction necessary (method for reversal film);

 

Tungsten light and tungsten film, no filter, make final corrections later;

 

Tungsten light, daylight film and closest single colour conversion filter, erring on the side of under-correction, make final corrections later (thank goodness for rangefinders if you have a KB20 on);

 

Tungsten light, daylight film, partial conversion filter, maybe slight overexposure, make final corrections later (This, the other way round, is similar to the way that I used to shoot MP in dim daylight when there was no fast daylight-balanced movie stock. Tiffen even make a filter for it: the LL-D, Low Light Daylight.);

 

Tungsten light, daylight film, no correction filter, overexpose, make final corrections later;

 

Tungsten light, daylight film, no correction filter, no overexposure, make corrections later accepting that the blue channel is going to be underexposed and grainy but digital processing can go a long way to improve that. In dim light this may be the only way of getting a colour image with a reasonable tonal scale - a trade between pushed tungsten reversal film with very low dynamic range and high graininess (eg EPJ pushed three stops and rated at EI 2000) and poor colour rendering of pushed daylight neg film (eg Portra 800 pushed two, also at EI 2000).

 

My point was that there are a range of options, the choice of which depends on a number of factors. There is a loss of tonal range if you use overexposure instead of a filter, but often it isn't important. Scanning increases the usable 'tonal range' of colour negative film (ie the scene brightness range that it can record) - in fact it permits everything that the film recorded to be used. Straight optical printing does not do this because if it could it would create very flat prints from scenes of normal contrast. Digital post-processing adds tremendous flexibility to film as an origination medium.

 

Some colour neg films do have thirteen stops of usable range if you scan the full density range. Do some tests for yourself if you don't believe me. Try Portra 800, Ultra 100, 5229 or 5299, for example. Look at the manufacturer's curves - they don't normally continue to the shoulder, because the RGB relationship deviates from parallel. That is a problem for optical printing, but it isn't a problem if there is any digital processing. EK 5299 HD film is an excellent example of that potential. Anyway, if you test, you will find that the curves extend further to the shoulder.

 

Let's hope that EK continue to make EPJ, otherwise there will be no such thing as a high speed tungsten-balanced film intended for still cameras. EI 800 neg film with a KB15 or, worse, a KB20 is no longer a high speed combination. But, the ease and quality of high-EI digital origination in tungsten light...

 

Best,

Helen

Helen, though I prefer Fuji's professional 800 speed color negative offerings, I've certainly shot Portra 800. It is simply not my experience that these films can reproduce a 13-stop tonal range under any lighting conditions.

 

 

But let's say you're correct. I have a Nikon LS 8000, which is recognized as a decent prosumer scanner. Had I a negative with a 13 stop range, I can tell you the only way I could get a final scanned image with a tonal range approaching 13 stops would be to make multiple scans at different exposures and blend a final exposure- not a realistic procedure to perform timewise with significant numbers of images:

 

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml

Eric, you scan it as a positive, and invert.