Is tungsten better than daylight film?

My profession is in the television industry, and before we went to videotape in television, we obviously

shot 16mm film (70's & 80's). We always shot tungsten balanced films, whether we were shooting negative

or reversal. There was no broblem doing this, we just screwed an 85B filter on the lens whenever we went

outdoors. In those days there was only one daylight 16mm stock around, it was double the cost and

considered not to be as good as quality as tungsten. Also there was absolutely no need to use a daylight

stock. With Kodak 7240 it was 80ASA with an 85B, fine for all outdoor use. Outdoors at night we shot

7250 (400ASA) tungsten balance.

 

I am now shooting LF using E100VS. The quality is superb but sometimes I am a little dismayed because

the blacks go really black. So I am considering shooting Kodak 100T. I have this passed perception that

tugsten is better then daylight - but this may not be entirely true. Obviously 100T has less grain than

Porta but then 100T is a lower rating. I did read that 100T does have a wider exposure latitude than

Porta, but I can't confirm this. Does anyone know if tungsten film is better quality than daylight stock,

and maybe I would be better shooting 100T than say Porta?

 

Also everyone says that negative is grainier than transparency and it does appear to be true. But would

this not be (at least partially) as the result that we are seeing more into the blacks? Would shooting a

tungsten/negative stock solve this? Would 100T give me the latitude, without the grain? For those that

have experience with tungsten film, can you give me your opinions? Is tungsten better than daylight?

maybe the tungsten film on the market at the time was significantly newer technology than the daylight balanced film? That would possibly make it better. Or maybe it had properties that made it more suitable to be broadcast on a TV screen.

Anthony,

 

It would help if we knew the type of photography you are doing, and the type of lighting you use (or have available). Since you are shooting large format, I am presuming you are shooting stills, product shots, etc. How big will the images be reproduced (trying to understand the enlargement/grain trade-off).

 

It sounds like you want a lower contrast film, especially to catch more shadow detail. If you still want transparency film, then try Kodak E100G or E100GX, which will definitely give more gradations in the shadows towards black.

 

I wouldn't say that tungsten film is better than daylight. It is designed for a different balance of light, as you said. If you are going to be switching to negative, I would suggest Portra 160VC before Portra 100T. But that assumes that you are shooting with daylight balanced lighting, strobes, etc. If you are shooting under tungsten balanced studio lighting, then maybe it makes sense for you to try a tungsten balanced film like 100T, or even Ektachrome 64T in LF. A lot depends on how much you want to filter on the lens, or what control of the lighting you have.

 

Granularity concerns should not be too bad with any of these films, because you are shooting LF.

E100VS is a very high contrast film... hence the really black blacks that you're seeing. Definitely try one of the newer E Series films like Dan mentioned. E100GX is particularly beautiful... one of the finest films Kodak has ever made, in my opinion. It's less contrasty than VS, so you'll get better shadow detail.

The advantage of tungsten film is that it's a lot faster when shot under tungsten lights. The blue filter required to use daylight film in tungsten light has a rather high filter factor.

 

Considering how hot the "hot lights" are for tungsten, anything that would give you film speed indoors was a big plus.

 

Most of Kodak's Eastman Color Negative films are still tungsten balanced.

 

In tungsten film, they basically goose the sensitivity of the blue-sensitive layer, which is really easy since it's the top of the stack in all color films.

During the time frame when you were shooting the 7240 and 7250 Video News Films, there were two daylight balance films in the same family. 7239 was 160 speed while 7251 was 400 speed. This latter product was requested by NFL Films. All of the NFL stadiums (except Lambeau Field) used daylight balanced lighting.

Thanks for all your comments so far. I am mainly shooting landscapes, but due to my past

experience I am not afraid to shoot tungsten outdoors if it gives better results than

anything

else. What I was saying is that it was perfectly normal for a cinematographer to shoot

tungsten stocks outdoors even in preference to a daylight stock - but today the daylight

stocks are better so that may not be entirely true now.

 

I am going to do a test of all the stocks, but what I am basically asking does anyone know

how 100T stacks up as a landscape stock? Does it give a better result than Porta for

instance? Does it produce less grain in the blacks and does it actually have more latitude

as is claimed by some? It certainly has vastly better reciprocity failure than -I think - any

other film which suggests to me it might be better in night situations. I was thinking of

going to negative to get the better latitude, but then we get more apparent grain. But does

shooting 100T solve this?

 

But as Dan suggested, in the end, the E100GX maybe the stock for me.

This is what Kodak has to say about it:

 

A 100-speed color negative film designed for use in tungsten lighting (3200K), KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA 100T Film is the ideal choice for many applications, including interiors and other architectural photography, advertising, and reproducing illustrations and artwork.

 

Employing the Single Channel Printing technology developed for the Portra family, PORTRA 100T Film produces colors that are clean and accurate. Long exposure times have minimal effect on the color balance and contrast. You can use PORTRA 100T Film over a wide range of exposure times without worrying about needing color compensating filters.

 

Like the rest of the PORTRA family, this film will yield consistently rich and detailed negatives, with a neutrally balanced tone scale from shadows to highlights.

 

---

 

Portra 100T has a PGI rating of 33, compared to 36 for Portra 160NC and 40 for 160VC. So it's marginally less grainy than 160NC, and noticably less grainy than 160VC... but marginally *more* grainy than High Definition 200 and Ultra Color 100 (PGI 32 and 31, respectively) -- both of which are noticably more grainy than E100G or E100GX (and not available in LF).

 

Of all of those films, the one that will give you the best shadow detail is 160NC -- but it also has the least saturation of the bunch, making it perhaps not an ideal landscape film. 160VC bumps up the contrast and [apparent] saturation a notch, but it's the grainiest of the bunch.

 

Go ahead and try them all. I think you'll end up loving E100G and GX, though.

Anthony, there's no question about tungsten film's general superiority to daylight film in the 60s-80s...it offered more saturation...motion picture photographers used it with 85B/C filters (orange) in daylight, *mostly because* they lit their daylight shots heavily with tungsten...you see that in movies from the era, where the foreground (actors etc) looks correct colorwise and the background looks blue.

 

When the 80s rolled around the Ektachrome E6 did surpass E4 and rivaled Kodachrome when processed in good labs..and there were infinitely more good labs in the 80s than there are today, for obvious reasons. In E4 days, however, there were almost no decent chrome labs...several at most in Los Angeles, one or two in San Francisco (Media Generalists and sometimes one other). When E6 came along it was more demanding and more labs started to take chrome seriously, started treating chrome with respect. However, the C41 color negative stock was feeble-looking and very transient (like today's will be) and many "artists" started using motion picture color negative stock (Seattle Lab for example). That stuff was OK for the time, but current better C41 films (eg Fuji NPZ) and E6 films look infinitely better today than color films ever did in the past.

...I said that awkwardly...you can see how cinematographers typically used tungsten film in daylight, with tungsten lighting and no 85 on the actors, letting the background fall into the tungsten film's blue. When they then used the same tungsten film on long shots (scenics etc), they installed that 85 filter.