Indoors, Tungsten light, 80a filter, Fuji 400h vs Portra 400 vs Portra 800

[reakeener1970]

Just curious if anyone has any comments about this.
Shooting an event indoors under incandescent light and using 80a filter to correct. Mainly using my D7100 but want to hybridize a bit with film, which I shoot in my personal life.
With film, I have done plenty of B&W and chrome but not a ton of color negative -- and then only with Ektar thus far.
Has anyone compared Fuji 400h to Portra 400 (or, for that matter, Portra 800 to compensate for the 2-stop light decrease d/t 80a filter) under indoor lights with a filter. I see many beautiful shots from both when used in daylight (and think I prefer the cool pastel look of 400h for wedding shots at least) but not sure how that look would translate indoors -- with a naturally darker indoor ambiance that I want from the shot.
Anyway, just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or advice.
Will probably end up getting Portra 800 for this event, but with winter and holidays coming up was thinking of getting more.
...and if i get a roll of each I will let you know my thoughts, too...
Thanks!
p.s. I would like to eventually try the Kodak movie film with tungsten balance but at least initially would like to keep it simple (C-41).
p.p.s. Seriously! Why can't anybody just make a stupid C-41 Tungsten-balanced film anymore!? Sheesh! I actually have a bulk expired roll of T-balanced transparency film (Provia? Ektachrome? It's in freezer and don't want to dig it out now) but it is 64 speed. Of course that is only one more stop than what the dang 80a filter costs me... but every stop is precious indoors, I guess...

 

[reakeener1970]

p.p.p.s. I know Fuji also makes a 1600 speed (Natura). Feel free to include this and any others in the discussion, too!

 

[ME Super]

Here's why you don't see much tungsten balanced color negative film:

This is Kodak Ultramax 400 shot at 1600 under 2700K tungsten, pushed 2 stops by the lab.

Here's another shot from the same roll, but shot under 2700K compact fluorescent bulbs:

Neither of these were shot with a filter of any sort. I'm living dangerously now. I've got a roll of Portrait 400 in the camera that I'm exposing at EI 3200 as I want to do some handheld available light photography around Christmas time. I've switched some of the tungsten balanced light bulbs out for 5000K LED bulbs. Unfortunately I won't have results back until after the new year at the earliest.

 

[Rudeofus]

ME Super, sorry to contradict you, but these shots lack sorely in the blue department, and it shows in the somewhat odd colours. This is something which Cinestill 800T does much better IMHO.

@reakeener1970: I have shot Portra 400, Superia 800 and Provia 400X in tungsten light, and they all suffer badly IMHO. Yes, with my 85 F/1.2 or 70-200 F/2.8 IS wide open I could get barely acceptable shutter speeds for shooting hand held, but the blue channel was so weak that the whole image was somewhere between orange, yellow and brown, uncorrectable even in digital post processing. Skin colours were way off due to this. Of all the things that analog film is good for, high ISO and tungsten light is not one of them, but Cinestill 800T will get you at least into the ball park, as long as you keep light sources out of your image frame.

 

[ME Super]

Actually the first photo above looks better to my eye than one I shot on Provia 100F under 2700K tungsten light with an 80A filter about a year ago:



An 80A corrects 3200K light to 5500K. This was shot under 2700K tungsten. No color correction, since it's E6 and WYSIWYG. Unlike color negative, which can be tweaked (not completely fixed, but tweaked). To my eye it looks quite a bit more orange than the first photo in post #3 above.

The Cinestill 800T would do much better, I agree. But for this, it isn't too bad. Keep in mind that the original photos were pushed 2 stops, AND shot under tungsten light, so technically the blue layer was exposed at -4 stops as opposed to -2 for the rest of the photo.

 

[reakeener1970]

Sooo... High speed black and white it is then for indoors in poor light! To heck with all this silly white balancing stuff!

 

[sagai]

Actually the first photo above looks better to my eye than one I shot on Provia 100F under 2700K tungsten light with an 80A filter about a year ago:

View attachment 121573

An 80A corrects 3200K light to 5500K. This was shot under 2700K tungsten. No color correction, since it's E6 and WYSIWYG. Unlike color negative, which can be tweaked (not completely fixed, but tweaked). To my eye it looks quite a bit more orange than the first photo in post #3 above.

The Cinestill 800T would do much better, I agree. But for this, it isn't too bad. Keep in mind that the original photos were pushed 2 stops, AND shot under tungsten light, so technically the blue layer was exposed at -4 stops as opposed to -2 for the rest of the photo.

This 80a filter is a neat idea!
Especially in these days for indoor, thanks!

 

[Rudeofus]

This 80a filter is a neat idea!
Especially in these days for indoor, thanks!

An 80a filter costs you two full stops of light, so your Provia 100 turns into something you can expose at EI 25, which is waaaaay too slow for hand held shooting indoors. Even 800T has to be shot with wide open aperture and resulting narrow DOF. And yes, there is a considerable difference between 2700K and 3200K, especially in the blue/violet department.

One way to solve this would be a small studio flash, aimed at white ceiling or walls behind or above the camera. Through careful positioning and balance you can achieve Christmas mood and somewhat location independent illumination, which helps great if there is not only a tree in the picture, but also a flock of kids chasing around that tree.

 

[ME Super]

In the above photo that I'd said I'd used an 80A filter on, I also had it on a tripod. Rudeofus is absolutely right that Provia 100 with an 80A turns into an EI 25, and that's too slow for hand held shooting indoors with no flash.

The correct solution is to change the light source. This is precisely what I did in the two rooms I'm going to be shooting Christmas pictures in by replacing 2700K bulbs (in one room incandescent, the other compact fluorescent) with 5000K daylight balance LED bulbs and using color negative film instead of E-6 because color balance can be tweaked in the printing/scanning step, where I primarily shoot E-6 for projection, so there's no chance of correcting color balance there.

Flash is absolutely an option, although I'd specifically ruled it out this time because the past few Christmases (since 2011, in fact) have all been shot with flash and I wanted to do available light this time around. If you're using flash, you're changing the light source.

 

[Rudeofus]

If you're using flash, you're changing the light source.

Yes, you do, and for good reason. Had Rembrandt used a camera for his scenes instead of a paint brush bundled with strong and deliberate modification of brightness levels, his pictures would have ended in the trash can before he would have completed them. Scene brightness ratio of any scene with light source within the frame is obscenely high due to the 1/r2 law.

When I said "use flash", I did not suggest that you turn this into a "fully lit room with Christmas tree" type of scene, but to find a proper balance between candle light and flash to make the scene look better and more realistic than a straight ambient light exposure. It takes some experimentation but the results are well worth it!

 

[ME Super]

Yes, you do, and for good reason. Had Rembrandt used a camera for his scenes instead of a paint brush bundled with strong and deliberate modification of brightness levels, his pictures would have ended in the trash can before he would have completed them. Scene brightness ratio of any scene with light source within the frame is obscenely high due to the 1/r2 law.

When I said "use flash", I did not suggest that you turn this into a "fully lit room with Christmas tree" type of scene, but to find a proper balance between candle light and flash to make the scene look better and more realistic than a straight ambient light exposure. It takes some experimentation but the results are well worth it!

Perhaps I should've been more clear. Most people who change the light source by using flash tend to overwhelm the ambient light with the flash - me included. I wanted to have these particular pictures look more natural, with less of an "on-camera flash" look to them. Since I am using daylight balanced film (Portra 400), didn't want to use flash, and wanted to shoot handheld, the logical thing to do was to relight the scene with bulbs whose output more closely matches the spectral sensitivity of the film. Photographers and cinematographers relight scenes all the time to get the look they want.

On the plus side, there's already a dimmer switch in this room, and the bulbs I chose are dimmable, so I can adjust the light level in the room with the tree lit and get just the ratio of room light to tree light that I'm looking for without shifting the color temperature. I can even experiment with the light levels using a digital camera and chimp the results before committing the final image to film (heresy, I know!).

 

[Rudeofus]

Since I am using daylight balanced film (Portra 400), didn't want to use flash, and wanted to shoot handheld, the logical thing to do was to relight the scene with bulbs whose output more closely matches the spectral sensitivity of the film. Photographers and cinematographers relight scenes all the time to get the look they want.

My avatar shot was taken with Fuji 64T and lit with two 500W halogen lights through white umbrellas at pretty close range. I barely got 1/15s exposure time at F/4, and most films you get will barely reach more than ISO64 for the blue part of the light spectrum of tungsten light. The shots can barely be enlarged due to motion blur (camera was on a tripod, but my baby girl moved). BTW, cinematographers relighting scenes use lights which make my 500W halogen lights look like small fireflies. Fortunately, though, we still photographers can use flashes to our advantage. There are small diffusers with just the right colour to match tungsten and fluorescent light, which solve the colour balance issue nicely. Alternatively, a sample booklet of filter gels can do the job.

On the plus side, there's already a dimmer switch in this room, and the bulbs I chose are dimmable, so I can adjust the light level in the room with the tree lit and get just the ratio of room light to tree light that I'm looking for without shifting the color temperature. I can even experiment with the light levels using a digital camera and chimp the results before committing the final image to film (heresy, I know!).

First of all, dimmers will change the light colour of tungsten light quite a bit, as their colour temperature depends on, drum roll, their actual temperature on the outside of their filaments. That temperature will be lower as you dim down the lights.

Second, as you already mentioned digital cameras and chimping, take a look at this strobist article. This is a fictional interview with Rembrandt, the photographer, about how he lit his images to obtain their very realistic look. Very interesting article (of a small series of similar articles/fake interviews), and it shows clearly that in order to obtain "realistic lighting" you need most "unrealistic light".

 

[ME Super]

First of all, dimmers will change the light colour of tungsten light quite a bit, as their colour temperature depends on, drum roll, their actual temperature on the outside of their filaments. That temperature will be lower as you dim down the lights.

I'll check out your links, I haven't done that yet. And you have a cute kid. Not as cute as my two were at that age, but then I'll freely admit that I'm biased, as are all parents.

What you say is true for incandescent bulbs (tungsten and halogen), but absolutely incorrect for dimmable fluorescent and dimmable LED bulbs. I can't say they have a constant color temperature as the LED bulbs are known to shift a bit as they age, but they most assuredly do not shift in color temperature when they're dimmed. At least not to my eye, anyway. A color shift is readily apparent when dimming incandescent bulbs, but not with these.

These are the bulbs I purchased at the local Menards store (a north-central US store like Lowe's or Home Depot): http://www.feit.com/led-lamps/perfo.../performance_led/chandelier/cfc-dm-500-5k-led. In the living room where I have 3 of these bulbs installed, I'm getting light readings between 1/30" and 1/90" at f/2.0 at night with Portra 400 rated at 3200, depending on where I point my camera. Of course during the day if I have the lights on, I get faster readings since some light comes in through the windows.

 

[Rudeofus]

In the living room where I have 3 of these bulbs installed, I'm getting light readings between 1/30" and 1/90" at f/2.0 at night with Portra 400 rated at 3200, depending on where I point my camera. Of course during the day if I have the lights on, I get faster readings since some light comes in through the windows.

If we assume, that Portra 400 is real ISO 400 film for daylight balanced situations, then we are looking at an effective ISO 100 in tungsten light for blue light. With EI 3200 there will be a five stop underexposure for blue light, which means even mid tones will be gone. I have seen this in my own experience: yes, you can make pictures that way, but they will look a bit lomographic. The attached samples show scans of Portra 400 @EI3200 in tungsten light, shot in 6x7 format. These scans look worse than RA 4 prints, but even RA4 looked grainy with an 6x7 ----> 13x18 enlargement.

PS: I liked your comments about oen's own and someone else's kids, and they match my experience 100.0000 %

 

[ME Super]

Everything you said in the above post is true, Rudeofus. That's why I decided for Christmas photos that I would relight the scene with daylight balanced bulbs instead of keeping the tungsten bulbs that I took the photos posted earlier in this thread. Now my blue will only be 3 stops underexposed, but so will my red and green when shooting at EI 3200 instead of ISO 400 (assuming my LED bulbs don't have a big green spike like fluorescent bulbs do). The later photos will actually have some blue in them thanks to the daylight balanced LED bulbs, and I won't pay a 2 stop penalty for using an 80A to correct the lighting.