Looks like a dying breed. But with today's excellent high-speed daylight negative material, this is less catastrophic than it might have been.pideja said:Is there no negative tungsten color film anymore?
Is there no negative tungsten color film anymore?
Slide film isn't an option? Kodak and Fuji both have 64T E-6 film in 4x5.
If you can keep the subject brightness range within the capability of reversal film, then it is a good option.
If you can keep the subject brightness range within the capability of reversal film, and if you don't want to print, then it is a good option.
Oh now, particularly with 4x5 (or larger film size) scanning and printing color can be quite nice, although I wouldn't suggest printing digitally if the image were b/w.
Have you ever printed RA-4 optically, in a darkroom? Surely you'd see advantages to optical printing in terms of color, resolution, low-cost over inkjet media or lab prices, and the extreme flexibility of print sizes that can be had with an enlarger at one's disposal and large-enough darkroom.
I've been shooting stage sets (theater) for fifteen years now, almost exclusively on Fuji NPL 4x5 film. This involves long exposure, variable lighting and very long dynamic range. The Fuji product is great at this and I have found no other film quite like it. But alas, I can't find it anymore. I have tried, horror of horrors, to shoot a few plays with a digital camera and although the results at times seemed promising, it is not the same. By far.
So, what am I to do?
Without film in the 4x5 format, I can always shoot in medium format but for how long?
And buying a medium format or 4x5 digital back is not really an option.
Is there no negative tungsten color film anymore?
But I guess we should move the constructive hybrid part to hybridphoto.com and leave the tail end of the thread to flame warriors...
I'm not afraid to discuss it here. Maybe you are. I am not trying to start a film vs. digital battle. God knows we've had enough. I just find it funny that all of the "master B&W printers" here, the craftsmen, the artists, think that digital printing is good for color. That strikes my as hypocritical.
I'm not afraid to discuss it here. Maybe you are. I am not trying to start a film vs. digital battle. God knows we've had enough. I just find it funny that all of the "master B&W printers" here, the craftsmen, the artists, think that digital printing is good for color. That strikes my as hypocritical.
I have a Fujifilm brochure that I got last year at the View Camera conference. Here is a quote from the section on the Pro 160S film: "A wide exposure latitude also makes Pro 160S exceedingly easy to use and capable of producing expected results under a variety of light sources, whether natural, tungsten, fluorescent or flash lighting."
I've used this film in the studio for years, its balance for photopearl lamps ( a colour temperature of 3200K ) the 160S is a daylight film that is tolerent to artificial light to some degree in my experience, but not for critical work that involves reproducing accurate skin tonesDidn't they discontinue NPL with the introduction of Pro S? I think the line was that Pro S can do it all. Can't find a link to the official release, but this one makes reference to it:
http://www.notifbutwhen.com/2/2006/09/going-going-gone.html
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?