Good color negative film for long exposures?

[mongole]

Hi there,

I do a lot of long exposures. Using Delta 100 and T-Max in black and white, testing Acros 100 now, for it easier time compensation.

Now I started to wonder, which color negative film has unproblematic (weak) Scharzschild behavior and does not have to bad color shifts on long exposures?

Before diving in analysis paralysis... There must be somebody out there, experienced with this topic.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Unfortunately Kodak doesn't have reciprocity charts for long exposures with their films anymore as far as I can tell. With negative film it's harder to know whether you're seeing a shift or some kind of ambient color anyway. I think your better bet is to start from a characteristic curve perspective. Kodak says that Ektar is their landscape film, and you know Portra is going to be more muted. Personally I would start with Ektar. You can use "Reciprocity Timer" on smart phones to help with calculating exposures. Unfortunately the colors are going to go where they go.

 

[mongole]

So I will give Ektar a try.

For timing I use "Exposure Assistant", which supports Ektar as well.

Thanks for the tipp!

 

[pbromaghin]

Reviving a semi-old thread. Does anybody have anything to say about what direction different color negative films shift their color? I am planning to try shooting the Denver courthouse Christmas lights and would like to get accurate color. As best as I can figure, using Ektar, it'll be 40+ sec exposures.

Here's the place:
https://www.google.com/search?q=den...p5nYAhUB5GMKHRcvAZwQ_AUICigB&biw=1440&bih=834

 

[Rudeofus]

As soon as color balance deviates from the specified color balance of your film (which is typically daylight color balance), the last thing you want is accurate colors. Our eyes continuously adapt to ambient light color, so we don't see accurate colors either. All digital cameras including those which are part of smart phones do automatic color correction, but trust me: incandescent light lit subject shot with a daylight balance expecting recording medium looks awful with "accurate colors". Since Christmas lights typically aren't color balanced either, I recommend you overexpose one or two stops and let filtration during enlargement or after scan do the rest.

I have optically enlarged Portra 400 exposed for dozens of seconds, and colors came out nicely IMHO. If required exposures become that long, I'd rather shoot an ISO 400 medium than ISO 100 stuff, unless the latter's reciprocity characteristics are outright exceptional.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Regular Portra 160 does great with long tungsten exposure (appropriately filtered) in terms of hue accuracy in my genuinely fussy lab tests, at least up to half a minute or so. But these are highly standardized conditions. With mixed lighting in the real world, I'd run some analogous shots in small format before expending serious time or money. Just too many variables to make generic advice reliable. Ektar seems to be reliable in this respect too, but has higher contrast and certain idiosyncrasies you want to be familiar with in advance.

 

[pbromaghin]

This will be a whole side of a building lit up with Christmas lights, with colors constantly changing to vary all across the spectrum, red to violet.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't know how you're going to describe every flavor of ice cream if you have to taste them all together, but that's what you're going to get doing a time exposure of constantly changing lights.

 

[RattyMouse]

I always used Fujifilm 400H for long exposures in color. Here's a 15 second shot using 400H shot with my Fuji GF670W.

 

[RattyMouse]

Another 15 second shot on 400H.

 

[trendland]

As soon as color balance deviates from the specified color balance of your film (which is typically daylight color balance), the last thing you want is accurate colors. Our eyes continuously adapt to ambient light color, so we don't see accurate colors either. All digital cameras including those which are part of smart phones do automatic color correction, but trust me: incandescent light lit subject shot with a daylight balance expecting recording medium looks awful with "accurate colors". Since Christmas lights typically aren't color balanced either, I recommend you overexpose one or two stops and let filtration during enlargement or after scan do the rest.

I have optically enlarged Portra 400 exposed for dozens of seconds, and colors came out nicely IMHO. If required exposures become that long, I'd rather shoot an ISO 400 medium than ISO 100 stuff, unless the latter's reciprocity characteristics are outright exceptional.

Long time exposure is a very relative issue. I can't say for sure - because I just have to state from mind.
But as an example Kodak stated by improvements to last E6 films (the change from E100S/E100SW to E100G)
that schwarzschild was optimized.
As I sayd just from mind (and I can't find the source again) : Before improvements E6 was safe to 20 - 40 sec. AND new films are now able to reach 1 - 2 min. without schwarzschild effects.
Don't beat me for this because it is very unpricise (from mind) but schwarzschild isn't in regard to some seconds with new films - it must be important if you shot in minutes. I did it and I never meet Mr.Schwarzschild then.

with regards

 

[pbromaghin]

I don't know how you're going to describe every flavor of ice cream if you have to taste them all together, but that's what you're going to get doing a time exposure of constantly changing lights.

Which leads me to believe I should use Portra 400 to allow shorter time. There shouldn't be all that much change in the lights, nor much color shift if I can keep it down to 15 seconds like RattyMouse's examples.

 

[pbromaghin]

Ratty, yes, that is not so far from what I want to get.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Another 15 second shot on 400H.

Nice

 

[RattyMouse]

Ratty, yes, that is not so far from what I want to get.

Well as you can see from the above shots, I had no color issues using Fujifilm 400H. I went out to 20 or 25 seconds at one time, but can't find those images to link here. I'll do so if I ever find them.

 

[RattyMouse]

Nice

Thank you. I had fun taking those shots in Kyoto Japan.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

Portra 400 is i think a pretty good choice, very forgiving on exposure overall, i've seen a long exposure of some kind of rocket launch? several minutes anyway and it looked great.
I suggest you go on flickr and search "long exposure" and "film".

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

As reciprocity failure adds contrast and gets worse as exposures get longer, this to me counter-indicates a high contrast, slow film like Ektar.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just gotta test. My instincts would suggest Portra 400; but all these newer Kodak films seem predictable at modestly long exposure. Fuji color neg is pretty much dried up here except in 35mm, so I haven't tried that for quite awhile.

 

[RattyMouse]

Just gotta test. My instincts would suggest Portra 400; but all these newer Kodak films seem predictable at modestly long exposure. Fuji color neg is pretty much dried up here except in 35mm, so I haven't tried that for quite awhile.

Where is "here"? 400H is easily available in 120 size in the US. I'm going to shoot my 6th straight Christmas morning on Fuji 400H tomorrow morning. I have 3 rolls of 120 400H all ready to go.