Using daylight film under artificial light?

<p>Hello !<br>

Can this be done , with some filters ?<br>

with a halogen lamp in a living room I got this result</p>

<div></div>

<p>There are filters made for this situation. Here is a link to the B+W Handbook section that describes these filters:<br>

<a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/handbook/pdf/B+WHandbook16_23.pdf">http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/handbook/pdf/B+WHandbook16_23.pdf</a></p>

<p>You want either KB20 to correct to neutral color or KB12 (Kodak 80B) or KB15 (Kodak 80A) depending upon the mood you wish to create. </p>

<p>You can use filters to fully correct for the light, but you lose a lot of speed. This is the best option for quality. You could use a half way filter, like an 80D/KB6 (I think) to kind of get part of the way there without throwing out too much sensitivity, and correct in Photoshop. I've not tried it but I've been meaning to.</p>

<p>Lastly, you can just shoot away with no filters and correct in Photoshop. Technically, it's not supposed to work, but in practice with good film, I've found it works surprisingly well.</p>

<p>Portra 400NC-3 with no filter lit by halogen overhead lights.</p>

<p><a title=". by ezwal, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2442/3531890163_0667740e13.jpg" alt="." width="500" height="333" /></a></p>

<p>Halogen lamps produces light that is around 3400 degrees on the "Kelvin" scale. Daylight is around 5500`K. So a blue filter ,80A is normally added. The trouble is that you lose a lot of light to the filter. It has a filter factor of 4, which equals 2 stops.</p>

<p>One possible solution would be to buy tungsten balanced film, instead of daylight film. This will prevent the need for the 2 stops lost light caused by the filter. Kodak and Fuji both make slide films balanced for tungsten light.</p>

<p>The loss of light is really a problem , I like to shoot available light , preferably with no flash.<br>

The Lightroom corection didn't gave to me very good results on all the situations, maybe I must work a little more about it.<br>

Tim, good balance, after me .<br>

In your experience , this problem applies to the night cityscapes also?<br>

This next one seems that I corected better, maybe because the mixed light</p>

<div></div>

<p>I shoot a lot of interiors and don't worry about filters much anymore since I shoot neg film. Tungsten balanced film (can you still get it?) is always pretty slow film anyway. When I scan the film, I can generally balance pretty closely and then refine in PS.</p>

<p>If you can use a tripod there may be some advantage to shooting with a general correction filter, as you will more correctly balance each of the color channels, however, if you do it while scanning, or in a raw scan, you will pretty much achieve what you are looking for. One thing to remember is that there will be some scenes that cannot be fully corrected, some lights just don't have the full spectrum.</p>

<p>Sometimes PS correction, or even in scanning, can be achieved easily if there is a neutral are in the scene by just using the neutral levels eye dropper. In the cafe shot above, you could use masking and layers to better correct the "interiors" and let the atrium light remain as it is or correct it on another layer as well. Sometimes, many adjustment layers are called for, for different areas, depending on the effect you want. In a case like this shot above, you have probably at least 4 different light temperatures you are dealing with. Not all need to be corrected or corrected all the way, the final is always a personal choice.</p>

<p>What film are you using? I've found that fluorescents are the ones that are harder to correct. Many people will say that Fuji films are better here than Kodak, which I think is true. They will also say that they are better in Tungsten lighting, which I don't necessarily think is true. </p>

<p>Night city scapes are a different matter. A lot of sodium vapor lighting is used in urban areas, and that will come out yellow no matter color balance film you use because the light they emit is basically one wavelength. You also have a lot more light coming from all kinds of different sources, not all of them even remotely white. Neon, sodium vapor, tungsten, halogen, fluorescents, etc. So what would you even balance on? On the other hand, the mixed lighting can add more variety in the picture, so I usually don't mind it. Others might.</p>

<p>If mixed lighting really bothers you, you can attack it in LAB and make some headway that you wouldn't be able to otherwise.</p>

<p>I recently came back to film .<br>

I shoot print film .Never shot fuji , but now I have the first roll of 200 in one of my bodies.</p>

 

<p>Once a film is scanned, it doesn't make a difference what you shot. Fuji, originally with Reala, introduced an extra layer that was supposed to help deal with alternative light sources. Several years later, it was said that this layer was added to other Fuji films. I have shot both, Fuji and Kodak, and I now I shoot all Kodak because I found it just seemed to work better for me. </p>

<p>As to fluorescents, I really think that it is the specific bulb used more than the class itself.</p>

<p>True about the fluorescents. Some have a high CRI and act for the most part like tungsten or daylight, depending on the color balance. Some have a low CRI and are spiky as heck, and can look very green.</p>

<p>There aren't any tungsten print films available, unless of course you shoot B&W. And the Tungsten (T) slide films only come in one speed, ISO 64. Which of course is not so "hand holdable", for moving subjects indoors. Use a tripod with static subjects, and ISO 64 is golden indoors or for street light night scenes.</p>

<p>If I absolutely needed to shoot color print film under tungsten. I would shoot one of the 800 pro negative films from either Fuji or Kodak, and use an 80A filter. Two stops will knock you down to effective ISO 200. Depending on how fast your glass is, 200 should be enough speed for some indoor applications.</p>

<p>Florescent light is often a mess of non-linear spectrum's, and can almost never be filtered correctly.<br /> ( Break out the B&W film.)</p>

<p>Are you talking about shooting under existing lights in a home or building, or shooting under photographic hot lights? If you're shooting with hot lights, just put a CTB gel over each unit and you're done. It does reduce light output, but easier to see through the lens than putting the 80A (which does the same thing) over the lens.</p>

<p>a little tweaked in Gimp ( I agree, not totally satisfied).<br>

At least , the white parts on the cup in the foreground are white®</p>

<div></div>

<p>Craig I was talking about just shooting some snaps in the home lighting</p>

<p>I don't know Gimp, but one thing that you can do to help the color balance, other than the normal suspects, is to put a color layer of the opposite color that is dominating the scene over the image layer. Say a blue/cyan in the case of the image above. (note: I don't know what color the couch and chair are supposed to be, but assume the tungsten is still too much) Then, change the layer blending mode to "color" and move the opacity slider down until things are closer to what you are after (you can change the blue color as well if needed).</p>

<p>Here is a quick pass at the above image doing this.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Very interesting, thank you ,John, I am not very good at working in Gimp but it basically can do what you suggested. I definitely must try to do this.<br>

Thank you all , it is a very interesting and useful discution.</p>

<p>Now, there is another question : if we are looking to obtain the exact colour , don't we risk to lose the atmosphere and mood?</p>

<p>Much closer to what I see ( the 82a color copied and added as a layer in Gimp):</p><div></div>

<p>and</p>

<p>and finally, after lowering saturation and vibration sliders :</p><div></div>