Portra 100T vs. Fuji NPL for long exposures?

[sue_deva]

I have been using Fuji NPL (4x5) to shoot long exposures at night

(people sometimes, flourescent and/or incandescent sometimes,

moonlight other times). I have found that it performs quite well,

even under hideously mixed lighting. However, most of the other work

I am doing right now is with Portra 160VC (4x5) and Portra 400UC

(220). I am quite happy with these films for daylight and night

exposures under 1/2 second. I have never tried using 100T, so I was

wondering whether it was worth checking out out for the applications

I am currently covering with NPL. Have any among you used NPL and

100T in similar situations? If so, what has your experience been?

[imaginator]

Flourescent, incandescent and moonlight all have different colors (moonlight being the closest to daylight) so what works for one might not be best for the others. It depends on what color casts you find acceptable. My best advice is to find a fluorescent light, an incandescent (and any others like sodium or mercury) and shoot some test shots. Try to include the light itself, and also something close that covers varying distances from the light. What I mean is the color depends on the exposure, and the light is less bright as it gets further from the light source. Example: sodium light can vary from yellow (bright exposure... close to light source) to orange to red (dim exposure... far from light source) For the incandescent, you might try tungsten balanced film (I haven't tried this yet) It is slow, but has good resistance to reciprocity failure. Will the film be scanned or printed analog? Some films scan better. I have been suprised by how well some of my "underexposed" night shots scan (print film) For fluorescents, you might try the 4th layer Fuji films, maybe 400 speed. Bracket exposures! This makes for better comparison of different films. I haven't used the films you mentioned, so why not go shoot a few test shots (bracket) and see for yourself? I basically need to do the same thing because I didn't always bracket enough to get similar exposures to compare the different films. Occasionally, I like the strong color casts, so personal taste comes into play. I haven't mentioned filters because you really can't afford the light loss, and also they tend to create reflections with light sources.

[sue_deva]

Yeah, I am going to do some bracket tests. My experience with underexposed negs scanning much better than expected has also been serendipitous, and scanning is what they are destined for. Thanks!