Fluorescent Lighting compensation

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
177,192
Messages
2,430,753
Members
94,146
Latest member
shawnmcc
Recent bookmarks
0

Nicole

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
2,562
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Shooter
Multi Format
Help! Having used a digital camera it has been easy to compensate for fluorescent lighting and now (since converting to film) I am stumped as to how to compensate for different lighting conditions. I will be shooting (at a childrens day care centre) with mixed natural and fluoro lighting without flash and with both a MF Hasselblad 501c/m and 35mm Nikon F90X with both colour and b&w film.
How best do I compensate with film for these conditions?
Thank you for your help! :smile:
Kind regards,
Nicole

PS - Just goes to show how slack a digital photographer can become! Forgets all the basics! :sad:
 

Dave Parker

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
4,031
Shooter
Multi Format
I normally used a FLD filter when shooting under florescent lights, it also depends on how your going to be using your flash as sometimes the flash can overcome the florescent lights, you need to do some testing in the conditions you will be shooting in.

Dave Parker
Ground Glass Specialties
Satin Snow(TM) Ground Glass
 
OP
OP
Nicole

Nicole

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
2,562
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Shooter
Multi Format
Thanks everyone. I won't be using flash at all on the littlies.
I'll check out the FLD filter.
Can this filter be used for only fluoro lighting or mixed fluoro & natural?
Cheers
Nicole
 

davet

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
33
Shooter
Multi Format
As Dave P and Art note, do some testing. There is no standard fluorescent light, so they all have a different spectrum, which typically have particularly strong "lines" (colors). Tungsten lamps and sunlight behave like "blackbodies" -- heat a blackbody and it will glow with a characteristic smooth spectrum that is easy to correct for by filtration. Fluorescent lights are not so easy, partly because different lights have different lines, so you'd need a filter for each type, and partly because the spectrum may shift somewhat with age. So 1) yes get a FLD, but test, and 2) if you have a fair amount of natural light in your mix you might be better off living without the filter -- again, test. If you're curious, you could try looking at different colors under different lights: if some colors look different under different lights, the FLD won't work the same with the different lights (the phenomenon is called metamerism)
 

SuzanneR

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
5,979
Location
Massachusetts
Shooter
Multi Format
I try to avoid flourescent lighting at all times... even when I'm not shooting!

Anyway, I may be wrong here, but can't you compensate for the flourescent light in the darkroom with color neg film. I used to assign photographers when I worked at a magazine, and whenever we had a school or a hospital situation to shoot, where light was always questionable, we would often shoot color neg, and get the color corrections done in the darkroom. (It's been awhile since I worked there, I'm sure they do it on computer now... the bums.) I don't shoot a lot of color, and never print it myself, so maybe others could address how to go about it in the darkroom.
 

Dave Parker

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
4,031
Shooter
Multi Format
Normally if it can be corrected with a filter taking the picture, it can also be corrected in the darkroom with a filter.

Dave Parker
Satin Snow(TM) Ground Glass
 

Dave Parker

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
4,031
Shooter
Multi Format
Art,

I agree 100%, it always easier to start with a correct image capture, than to try and fix it later.

Dave Parker
Satin Snow(TM) Ground Glass
 

SuzanneR

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
5,979
Location
Massachusetts
Shooter
Multi Format
I'd agree, it's always better to get a good and color corrected negative, but if the source of the light is, say, a mix of flourescent, tungsten, natural light then will the FLD filter work? Or some other combination?

As mentioned before, probably a few tests would be in order!
 

Ed Sukach

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,517
Location
Ipswich, Mas
Shooter
Medium Format
Fluorescent lighting can be corrected - to a point ... not completely.

The spectra of ALL fluorescent lighting is "bumpy"; not really a smooth curve as would be the result of "black body radiation", and the dichroic correction in the enlarger will be smooth. Add to that the vagaries of the film emulsion in response to the bumpiness and the problem is even greater.

The images can be improved. I've found that it takes a lot of effort - something that would place the printing well into the "custom" area. A FLD filter - I've used them - will HELP, but IMHO will not be a panacea. If I have no other choice but to photograph under fluorescent lighting, I would most certainly use the FLD.
 

inthedark

Member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
336
I would say that flourescent lighting may be partially accounted for by the film you are using. If you are shooting under flourescent, use Kodak which naturally has a golden overtone and cuts the stark cyan of flourescents. Do not use Konica or Fuji as they are blue and green dominate respectively.
 

Tom Duffy

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
969
Location
New Jersey
FLD or 30m compensating filter, but you'll loose film speed because of the filter factor.

You might try using Fuji NPS (160) or NPH (400) with no filter. the Fuji film does an excellent job of compensating for fluorescent light with no filters.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford Photo ADOX Freestyle Photographic Photo Warehouse Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom