tugsten or daylight? portra t or 160 nc

[jesus_blazquez]

I?m going to make about 60 photographs at the same time 6a.m in may and june in a mix of night and

day , i would like advice because i would like to do a same sytyle . i remember Joel Meyerowitz uses only

tugsten films and then correct in lab.

the exposures will be more than 10 minutes and i think in this cases the tugsten are better response

anyway , advices and experiences are welcome.

regards

jesus

[ronald_moravec1]

Hoya and Calumet 80A filters seems to work in my studio. B+W does not, it is too blue.

 

I can correct with photoshop too, but find it a pain.

 

A cheap digcam set to either tungsten or daylight will give you the answer perfectly.

 

You can also convert t to d with a conversion filter and there are are some that convert partially either way.

 

T100 film is no longer available in 35mm.

[michael_briggs2]

It may be that Joel Meyeerowitz preferring tungsten films was based upon a different

selection of films than are available today, so his reasons might no longer be applicable.

Some of the current daylight films have much improved reciprocity characteristics over the

former offerings.

 

For LF photography, you simply can't use Portra 100T any more, unless you scrounge

some up -- it has been discontinued. As far as I know, there are no LF tungsten-

balanced negative films anymore. There are tungsten slide films, but they probably aren't

a good choice for your project because of their more limited dynamic range than negative

films. For you night photos, why not try Portra 400NC? For the day photos, either

160NC or 400NC? Or try Fuji 160S.

[anthony_lewis1]

If you do select daylight film then you will be correcting from an high colour temp to a low

colour temp and an 80A may be appropriate to use before sunrise.

 

If you are shooting tungsten film then the last filter you would want in this situation is an

80A - it is a blue filter. What you need is either a 85 or 85B. They are similar, the 85

converts from 3400k (tungsten) to 5600k (daylight) and the 85b from 3200k to 5600k.

The 85B is a little stronger and I would recommend it, but there is basicaly little difference.

As daylight is a lot bluer then tungsten or night, then you need a orange filter - not a blue

filter.

 

The problem with working at this time in the morning is the colour temperature changes

very quickly. In practice colour temperature meters are not very acurate outdoors as you

have no real idea of what they are actually reading. Then with the fast changing light, by

the time you take a reading and then attach the appropriate orange/blue filter, to when

you click the shutter, the colour temperature will have changed.

 

No cheap digicam in the world gives you colour temp readings, so I have no idea how this

will help you in selecting a filter - only pro cameras give colour temp readouts and while it

is very accurate for that camera the actually reading given would be unreliable to convert

for use with a other cameras. Pro Digi cameraman always end up referring to a monitor

and then tweaking there camera setting from what they see.

 

'B+W does not, it is too blue'. I have no idea what this statement means - B+W make a

huge range of colour correction filters.

 

I shot only tungsten cine film for twenty years on location. It was always hard to no when

to use a filter or not to at dawn. However audiences always seem to prefer the 'warm'

sunrise, so I would suggest to err on the side of using it. But the effect you want is up to

you. After that use photoshop.

[bill_taylor2]

Whichever you choose, if it is possible, be sure to include a white target object in the scene you are photographing. Including a grey card too would be even better. The object should be receiving the same lighting as the real subject you care about. Photoshop (and I suppose others) has a color correction white balance feature. So to the extent the original object is pure white, Photoshop will render it a neutral grey tone, and bring the rest of the scene into correction with it. Then play with it from there.

[rory_burns]

1) Don't bother shooting the Kodak Tungsten Negative 100 ISO, even if you can find it. The film was not updated with the new line of Portra films, which in my experience have much less grain, and scan much better, than the older Portra stocks, (including the Tungsten film).

 

2) In your opening comment you indicated Tungsten films may have less reciprocity failure and/or color shift over long exposures. I have never heard this or observed it in practice.

 

The comment regarding the gray card, (or a verified white reference) and color chart if available, is a good tip. It is the only way to get objective color.

 

If you are shooting negative, shoot the new Kodak 160NC. Make sure it is the new one, ask your store and make sure the rolls have a big "New" written on the wrapper. The fact it is color balanced wrong compared to the Kodak 100 ISO Portra Tungsten is no sacrafice compared to how much better the film scans. The new Fuji 160S Pro works well, too. My early use indicates it is very low grain like the Kodak, but not as sharp.

 

What also matters is what type of artificial light you will actually be shooting under. Almost no city-lights these days are actually Tungsten.

 

If the lights are sodium vapour, (deep orange) it may be to your advantage to shoot slide tungsten unfiltered, and bring the over-blue sky back to normal in Photoshop.

 

If the lights are mercury vapour, (white-blueish-green) the daylight films may render the color balance better.

 

If the lights are flourescent, it is a crapshoot without a color temperature meter. Try to find out what kind of lamp they are and adjust accordingly.

 

I face this issue all the time as I shoot a lot of long exposures at night. Regarding the suggestion of shooting at higher ISO's, I find if you can secure your tripod very well and don't mind really long exposures, you should go with the slow speed films for the highest image fidelity. This may be an issue at dawn, however, when the light moves very fast.

 

The big issue is the Fuji 64T vs. Daylight slides does not have much resolution or sharpness, (check the datasheets on the Fuji website).

 

So the question becomes, is it worth a sacrafice of some sharpness and resolution in order to have a better initial color balance in the slide, or is it best to shoot with a daylight-balanced, but sharper slide film and correct in Photoshop?

 

The black sheep is Astia 100F, which has an RMS of 7, (alone with Fuji 64T in this respect) with higher resolution but lower sharpness than 64T. I still don't know if you would get better digital prints from scanning Astia and doing a little more sharpening in Photoshop, or starting with a slightly grainier but much sharper film, (like Provia 100F) and doing less sharpening in Photoshop.

 

Regarding negative vs. slides for this type of shooting generally, I shot negative for ages as I was afraid of using slides in situations where the conventional wisdom states the contrast is too high.

 

However, since I researched the fact that slides scan much better in terms of grain, acutance, and color fidelity, (and thus deliver better digital inkjet/lambda/lightjet prints) I started shooting slides, and they work great. But it necessitates very careful metering during nocturnes/dusk.

 

Trust me that the Portra 100 iso Tungsten is not worth your time, however. It simply does not employ the latest technology available in the new Portra films.