Use a filter indoors to un-yellow, or better off with tungsten balanced film?

[anthony_cicero]

Indoor light + normal film (say, Kodak HD 400) = yellow. Is it a good idea to buy one, maybe 2, filters and

use them commonly among whatever film (fast neg) is on hand? Or should one be buying film balanced

for common indoor lighting?

 

The first seems easier and more freeing, but also seems like there could be more pitfalls depending on the

type of film used. At the same time, I don't want to be stuck to one kind of tungsten balance film.

 

What's the *smart* thing to do?

 

please don't say "use flash" :)

[jbq]

You'll have more flexibility with a color-correction filter. Don't forget that those filters eat a lot of light, so you'll need some fast film.

 

I'll say it anyway: "use flash". Expose for ambient light, and use a bounced color-corrected flash with some negative flash compensation (between 1 and 2 stops).

[ben_hutcherson]

If you're using negative film, the easiest thing to do is overexpose a stop and correct it in printing. Overexposing a stop gives the lab more density to work with, plus it costs a stop less than using the proper filter.

 

If I were using slide film, I would definitely go with tungsten film. Most common tungsten films are rated at either 64 or 160, while 100 speed slide film becomes 25 speed when it's filtered. When working inside with a fast lens, for me at least, 160 is usually doable handheld, but 25 is out of the question.

[discpad]

If you're shooting chromes, use tungsten balanced film and you'll get it to within a couple decamireds.

 

If you're shooting color negative film, use an 82B filter to get you into the ballpark with only 2/3 stop loss, and finish off any color cast removal in the optical printing or scanning stage.

[anthony_cicero]

So I can either--

 

--Lose a stop or two by using a filter (unacceptable in low indoor light, even with f1.4).

 

--Use a flash to change lighting and change what makes me want to take the photo in the

first place.

 

--Do it digitally in post processing. What programs allow me to do this?

 

Buying tungsten balanced film is looking the most attractive...of course I'll need 400, at

least, for low light.

[helenbach]

Bear in mind that the fastest tungsten-balanced still film is Kodak EPJ - which is ISO 320 reversal film. It can be pushed a few stops, but it gets contrasty.

 

You can get 500 speed tungsten-balanced negative film by buying 'short ends' of movie film, but it needs special processing.

 

You can also push ISO 800 neg film - Portra 800 pushes very well. With a two-stop push you can set your meter to between 1250 and 2500 depending on how much shadow detail you want, and how well colour corrected you want the shadows to be. As already mentioned, overexposure of up to two stops helps when correcting later - it gives better exposure of the blue-sensitive layer. It can be corrected in printing by filtration if it is printed optically, or by Photoshop or similar software.

 

Best, Helen

[wigwam jones]

If you scan - and your follow up seems to indicate that you might...

 

If you shoot a single frame that includes a whi-bal card in the light you'll be otherwise using, you can post-process that (using ps or other editing program that allows you to set white balance) by clicking on 'set white balance' and putting the little eye-dropper thingy right on the whi-bal card in your photo. Save that white point and apply it to every frame taken in that light. Should balance things out.

 

However, I just shoot B&W in such situations, or let it go yellow and enjoy the 'glow'. Sometimes it does not look too bad to me.

[craig_shearman1]

Are you using photographic lights or just the available room lighting? If you're using photographic hot lights, you can use a Rosco CTB gel over the lights to make them 5500 daylight balance (cheap) or use a glass dichroic filter over them for the same result (expensive). In the movie world, it's standard to use tungsten balanced film all the time and to use an 85A or 85B filter on the camera when shooting in daylight. The 85 filters, which are orangeish, eat up a lot less light than the bluish filters used in order to shoot daylight film under tungsten. I'm not sure if daylight balanced professional movie film is even made any more (although I think Kodak still makes daylight balance Kodachrome in 16mm)

[edgar_njari]

First of all, what do you mean by indoors. Are you just planing to shoot with available light, or use tungsten lighting.

 

If you are using your own light, the best option of all I think is to gel the lights.

That way you can use a wide wariety of daylight films and don't have to shoot through anything other than your lens.

Anything you put in front of your glass is just another layer of stuff that light has to penetrate loosing accutance.

 

Like Dan said, if are shooting slides, you can also use tungsten film.

Both Ektachrome 64T and Fujichrome 64T are great films. Kodak is a little older now, but still a lot younger than daylight Ektachrome 64.

I think Ektachrome 64T looks creamy, smooth and colorful under tungsten light (love its reds). But a lot of people prefer Fuji because its a more high-tech film, specially the latest version.

 

For negs, if you overexpose it a bit (to fill the shadows with some more blue and cyan) to keep them neutral) you can even get away with no filters of any kind as long as you correct it to neutral.

With digital printing, you always have to correct the color balance anyway.

Though if you are fishing for extreme latitude and high-end results. You might have a compromise in neutrality of shadows.

[ace_fury]

LOL. I read the answers twice and no where is mentioned, "what kind of indoor light are you

talking about". Someone must know there are more then one type of lighting used in doors

and as such each will require a different approach on how to correct for it. Tungsten,

halogen, mercury vapor and fluorescent to mention the common types, plus each type has

slight variations that one has to deal with. I have been photographing indoors for over thirty

years and I would never think about using any of the above suggestions, most are making a

mountain out of a molehill. Just find out the color temperature of the light source and filter

for it. Beware that even if the indoor lighting is tungsten all tungsten bulbs are not the same

temperature so you still might to need to add some filtration to tungsten film.

[helenbach]

"I'm not sure if daylight balanced professional movie film is even made any more..."

 

Yes, there are a few different daylight negative films available - such as EK 5201 50D and 5205 250D, both of which are recent Vision2 films.

 

Best,

Helen

[helenbach]

"I have been photographing indoors for over thirty years and I would never think about using any of the above suggestions, most are making a mountain out of a molehill. Just find out the color temperature of the light source and filter for it. Beware that even if the indoor lighting is tungsten all tungsten bulbs are not the same temperature so you still might to need to add some filtration to tungsten film."

 

Ace, I think that you need to try some of the methods that you are dismissing - they work, and work well, especially overexposing neg film.

 

Best, Helen

[edgar_njari]

the methods mentioned above are:

 

-shoot T slide film

-shoot any kind of D film with geled lights

-shoot any kind of D film with a filter on the lens

-shoot D negative and correct in post

 

and you say you don't use any of these techniques, well I don't think anything is left (for film photography that is), so what DO you do?

[anthony_cicero]

AVAILABLE. Available lighting (indoors, people's homes, most often lit by incandescent

bulbs). Which is why I don't want to use flash.

 

I like the idea of a WB card in one frame that Mr./Ms./Mrs. Jones mentioned, it seems

simple enough for many situations, even if I do lose a frame--even then, not everything

gets scanned for my purposes before it gets printed, I do have to let the lab do what they

do before seeing my prints (not to mention slides), and I don't know if I can trust them to

do this everytime, especially on the road when lab choice is limited to what's closest and

time is almost nonexistent.

 

[by the way-ACE, what is your suggestion?]

 

Ideally I want to do it in camera (I just now answered this want in my head: "go digital"). I

can't deal with losing stops to filters, and T film won't cut if it's that slow...

 

compromises, compromises....

[edgar_njari]

Ok, so 64 is too slow, 160T and 320T is probably too grainy for you, you are using available light..

 

the options that are left are, use a filter on the lens with any film, use a digital camera or shoot neg and correct later

[garethspics]

Are you using a tripod? If your subject is not moving too much you can go down to an eighth or a quarter of a second which should allow you to use almost any film you wish. I can't really improve on any of the other suggestions.

[r.t. dowling]

If you're determined to use film, and want the sharpest and least grainy images, the best bet would probably be one of the ISO 64 tungsten-balanced slide films -- along with a tripod and a remote shutter release.

 

If you don't want to use slide film, the next best option would be either Fuji 800Z or Portra 800, with an appropriate filter on the lens. You may still need the tripod and cable release, depending on what kind of filter you use. The resulting image would be quite a bit grainier, but probably acceptable for prints 8"x10" or smaller.

 

A MUCH better solution -- and please don't take this as "anti-film" -- would be to use any of the digital SLRs currently on the market. Most of them, at ISO 800, produce results comparable to ISO 400 color negative film. And best of all, there'd be no need for filters or extensive post processing. Just set the white balance and you're ready to roll.

[thomas_hardy1]

This is just to recap whats been said before.

 

Daylight balanced film, indoors, tungsten light, want to avoid yellow photos? Use a blue filter- lose 1-2 stops of light, or blue photofloods, or tungsten balanced film.

[discpad]

Ace, to do exactly what you suggest, you need a color temperature meter, which are at least $300 used on eBay, as well as a CC filter set.

 

Helen, one of the things that Ace was trying to (awkwardly) point out is that, more and more, fluroescent lighting is being used in the home, for reasons of energy efficiency.

 

All that being said, I like the idea of overexposing neg film 1-2 stops to maintain balance down in the shadows -- Thanks for the tip!

[roger_smith4]

Fluorescent is easy to deal with using a Fuji film like NPZ (Reala, 400H are also nice). Rate it at 640, correct any residual cast when printing or scanning and you'll be fine.

[mike_king3]

I've seen basically three answers:

1. Use Flash

2. Use tungsten film

3. Digitally post process with Photoshop or Elements

 

My answer? Use all three!

 

Shoot tungsten film, use electronic flash (with a light blancing gel--I use the samples in the Rosco books) for fill and then color correct in Photoshop (or the darkroom) to get the balance right on.