Kodak Films: Tungsten or Daylight?

[Jud23]

Hi
for a project I am going to shoot with Kodak films:
Kodak Ultramax 400, Kodak Gold 200, Kodak T-Max 3200, Kodak Ektar 100, Kodak Portra 160, Kodak Portra 800, Kodak Portra 400

Can someone tell me how to find out which of those films are for tungsten and which of them are for daylight?
I can not tell from the datasheets, since filters are required for every light source.

Best regards ans thanks in advance

 

[Donald Qualls]

All of those films are daylight balanced (except T-Max 3200, which is black and white, so has no color balance). Being negative films, however, all can be color corrected after exposure and processing with simple filtration. Color balance is more important for cinema applications (hence why Visions3 films come in D and T varieties), and is critical for reversal (slide) films intended to be directly viewed or projected.

In my experience, you really don't need filters for "every light source" -- you can, if you choose, use correction filters when shooting under tungsten light, and you're likely to like your results a lot better under fluorescent light if you use a suitable correction filter (it'll look sort of purple, and reduce the green cast fluorescents often give). Otherwise, the recommended filters are likely just skylight (very optional for negative films) or UV-block (recommended for certain outdoor conditions, but pretty much optional as well).

 

[film_man]

Black and white film doesn't really matter. Generally if a film does not say it is Tungsten it is for daylight. As far as I know the only tungsten film you can buy nowadays is Cinestill 800T.

In my experience Portra 800 is very nice in mixed lighting though Portra 400 is much more versatile and is less grainy at 1600.

 

[Paul Howell]

As already mentioned the only tungsten film on the market are made for movie film and repackaged or larger rolls are cut and respooled for still film 35mm and I think 120. In terms of filters for day light film you need filters for tungsten and florescent lighting, I know there are LED that have the same Kelvin as Sunlight for color film which I think is 5500. What kind of lights are going to shooting under?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Tungsten film was made for photographing under incandescent light. Now that there are numerous other lights of different °K temperature, the colors will not come out as the eye sees them. So tungsten film only makes sense when one can control all the light sources, such as in a movie studio. I used tungsten slide film in the past to take photographs of flood lit buildings and monuments.

 

[pentaxuser]

In my experience Portra 800 is very nice in mixed lighting though Portra 400 is much more versatile and is less grainy at 1600.

So Portra 400 pushed 2 stops is less grainy that Portra 800 pushed one? So presumably Portra 400 pushed only one stop to the Portra 800 speed is at least as good if not better?

From what I have seen Portra 400 has the appreciable edge on price as well( about £12 less expensive for a pack of 5) so it would seem surprising that anybody would bother with 800 or is there another benefit to Portra 800?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

Kodak still makes tungsten balanced cine camera films. Not sure how that would work in still photography. I remember using blue filters with photo floods with daylight film.

 

[Paul Howell]

Cinestill 800T is rebranded Kodak, the jet backing has been removed for standard C41 development. I've shoot the non T ISO 50 version with good results. I guess if someone found a set of very old tungsten photoflood they could use the T version. I know that some directors still shoot full feature films in 35mm, not sure if they still use the big tungsten lights or have moved on to LEDS.

 

[DREW WILEY]

One needs conversion filters at a minimum. Don't trust 5500 K "daylight" ratings on the kind LED lighting choices found in camera outlets. Any decent color temp meter will tell you that's a myth, bascially marketing BS. Most of them don't even factor the warming effect of integral diffusers. Hollywood folk have a much higher different orbit of lighting budgets.

 

[film_man]

So Portra 400 pushed 2 stops is less grainy that Portra 800 pushed one? So presumably Portra 400 pushed only one stop to the Portra 800 speed is at least as good if not better?

From what I have seen Portra 400 has the appreciable edge on price as well( about £12 less expensive for a pack of 5) so it would seem surprising that anybody would bother with 800 or is there another benefit to Portra 800?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Porta 400 shot at 800 without push is just fine. Portra 400 shot at 1600 with a one or two stops push will still look good, obviously you will get increased contrast but grain will be same/less than Portra 800.

For me, Portra 800 is great shot at 400 or even 200 in daylight for portraits, it looks great and the overexposure gets rid of the grain. The only issue is that it can burn the highlights if you are in direct sun. Portra 800 in mixed lighting looks, in my opinion, better than Portra 400 when it comes to colours, however you will get grain showing depending on your exposure and Portra 800 at 1600 with a push is something I don't like.

So, Portra 800 does have its use primarily as a daylight film for me (which is counter-intuitive...) or for mixed lighting where ISO 500-800 is ok, think late afternoon, early evening just after sunset in city lights or bright indoors. However, as you say, the price of Portra 800 is just extortionate so I shoot very little of it.

 

[film_man]

Cinestill 800T is rebranded Kodak, the jet backing has been removed for standard C41 development. I've shoot the non T ISO 50 version with good results. I guess if someone found a set of very old tungsten photoflood they could use the T version. I know that some directors still shoot full feature films in 35mm, not sure if they still use the big tungsten lights or have moved on to LEDS.

To add to this, Cinestill 800T is rebradned motion film that has been modified to be processed normally like other films. Last time I shot Cinestill properly was a couple of dozen rolls in NY a few years back, with a weak orange filter in daylight you get a slightly pink look, slightly soft (due to the film being what it is) and combined with the halos around high contrast areas it produces you get a very nice look...if I may call it cinematic. Night shooting is great with it.

My only issue with Cinestill is that it is a difficult film to shoot, the halos can get crazy if you're not careful and obviously the colour doesn't suit everything.

Cinestill 50D is a great film if you control the contrast, it is super sharp and very well defined, again you need to control contrast. Overall if they were cheaper I'd shoot more but nowadays I simplify my life and just shoot Portra 160 if I can get the light, 400 when it drops.

 

[Paul Howell]

From the source of all knowledge Wikipida and found the same info on Freestyle site.

For their color negative films, Cinestill Film modifies Kodak motion picture cinema film, allowing it to be developed with the C-41 process rather than the Eastman Color Negative process. Cinestill Film converts the Kodak motion picture cinema film by removing the Remjet backing, a separate Anti-halation backing used to protect the film in motion picture cameras. Due to the removal of this anti-halation backing, Cinestill Film exhibits a glowing effect on the image in areas with strong highlights.[1][2]

 

[Donald Qualls]

Technically, the emulsion for Cinestill converted films is still ECN-2 compatible -- the main difference being that ECN-2 uses CD-3 as developing agent, where C-41 uses CD-4. You could probably substitute E-6 color developer, if you keep that around, but it's apparently not at all out of reach to make your own ECN-2 color developer. Bleach and fixer can be the same as C-41.

There's a very subtle color shift that results from developing ECN-2 emulsion in C-41 chemistry, but it's small enough that only those with vision like a colorimeter are likely to notice.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've shot the ISO 50 and 400, as noted in the Wikipedia there is some spectral issues when shooting a shinny object like a chrome car bumper. Also as noted by Filmman grain is fine and tight, the 50 if used in the right low contrast environment can be very striking.

 

[Toasty]

Technically, the emulsion for Cinestill converted films is still ECN-2 compatible -- the main difference being that ECN-2 uses CD-3 as developing agent, where C-41 uses CD-4. You could probably substitute E-6 color developer, if you keep that around, but it's apparently not at all out of reach to make your own ECN-2 color developer. Bleach and fixer can be the same as C-41.

There's a very subtle color shift that results from developing ECN-2 emulsion in C-41 chemistry, but it's small enough that only those with vision like a colorimeter are likely to notice.

True, although I've found the color shift to be fairly significant. Also c41 will give a much higher contrast compared to ECN2 since its designed to be printed on paper vs an internegative.

Cinestill is now selling ECN-2 chemistry as a standalone, I haven't tried it personally yet but I've seen reviews and it does give a lower contrast negative. You wouldn't be able to print RA4 with them anymore but it would be great for scanning.
https://cinestillfilm.com/products/...ach-bypass-powder-concentrate-ecn-2-chemistry

 

[Donald Qualls]

There are folks also buying the Visions3 with remjet intact (Kodak sells 400 foot rolls, which can be respooled to go into a common bulk loader). The claim is that it's not too hard to get the remjet off, just an extra bath before color developer and a little rubbing after fixer and first wash. This is 35mm only, of course; Cinestill has a special deal going for a custom cut to produce the 120.

 

[Jud23]

Thanks you all so much for your help and your answers!
Best regards

 

[benjiboy]

Relax, Kodak hasn't made tungsten balanced films for many years., I think about twenty.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ektar is quite fussy about precise color balance or color temperature correction in a way most color neg films are not. But you still need to be in the ballpark with any of them; so it's important to have a light blue conversion filter when working with tungsten light. Heaven help you if it's florescent, CFL, or LED lighting instead. And it's wise to use an actual color temperature meter. But preliminary testing first with any unfamiliar film under analogous conditions is always a good idea if you expect quality results.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Relax, Kodak hasn't made tungsten balanced films for many years., I think about twenty.

Well, unless you count the Vision3 cine stocks that routinely get bulk loaded for 35mm still photographers (and not always the with remjet already removed as Cinestill does). As I recall, two of those are tungsten balanced.

 

[benjiboy]

I thought we were talking about 135 and 120 packaged off the shelf films Donald both of which Kodak haven't manufactured for at least 15 years and probably considerably longer. The only option these days for shooting in tungsten lighting for off the shelf generally available colour films is to use 80 series blue colour correction filters.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I thought we were talking about 135 and 120 packaged off the shelf films Donald both of which Kodak haven't manufactured for at least 15 years and probably considerably longer. The only option these days for shooting in tungsten lighting for off the shelf generally available colour films is to use 80 series blue colour correction filters.

That's why I was clear about the distinction of the cine stocks -- which are fully usable in a 35mm still camera once they're loaded into a standard 135 cassette -- even with the remjet still on the film (it just has to be dealt with in processing). Cinestill does sell these Kodak-made stocks in both 35mm and 120 with the remjet already gone, including the 800T (which is Vision3 500T emulsion; speed is uprated due to the higher contrast of C-41 vs. ECN-2) and 200T (which doesn't show on their web site at the moment -- might be out of stock in the Cinestill branded form).

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Talking about tungsten balanced films... Are there still Wratten filters or equivalent being made. They are still mentioned in data sheets of films.

I know Adox has the snap on filters for using tungsten film (Cinestill 800T) in daylight but I think there aren't gelatine filters around for using daylight film under tungsten. Am I right?

 

[benjiboy]

That's why I was clear about the distinction of the cine stocks -- which are fully usable in a 35mm still camera once they're loaded into a standard 135 cassette -- even with the remjet still on the film (it just has to be dealt with in processing). Cinestill does sell these Kodak-made stocks in both 35mm and 120 with the remjet already gone, including the 800T (which is Vision3 500T emulsion; speed is uprated due to the higher contrast of C-41 vs. ECN-2) and 200T (which doesn't show on their web site at the moment -- might be out of stock in the Cinestill branded form).

I was talking about boxed film in cassettes you can buy from a shop.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's getting harder to find an adequate selection of glass CC and LB filters for minor light source tuning per color temp meter readings. But basic 80A and 80B etc light blue conversion filters for shooting under specified standard tungsten light sources are still readily available. There is also the option of resin filters, gels like Wratten, and polyester filters. Polyester is not an optically ideal filter material for use over a lens, but can be used in larger sheet form over the lighting itself, with proper spacing to prevent fire, of course. True Wratten gel filters are still available, but tend to be expensive, fragile, and if older, possibly faded. I prefer to work with high quality coated glass filters whenever possible.