Kodak Portra 400 in tungsten and fluorescent WITHOUT filters

nikonF80 · Oct 21, 2011

Hello,

I use kodak portra 400 as my go-to film when a higher speed is needed. With winter approaching I will be taking more of my pictures indoors. I know portra is a very versatile film so I am looking for tips on exposure compensation without using filters in tungsten and fluorescent lighting.

I have found that +1 works very well for tungsten light, but I am curious to what other people do.

I have never shot in fluorescent before. How should I compensate for this type of light?

Sirius Glass · Oct 21, 2011

For starters, fluorescent light is not constant light; it flickers at 60 Hertz. So your exposure would need to be 1/60 second or longer.

Then there is a problem with the color spectrum of fluorescent light, which exposure compensation will not address. The only answers that I know about are filtering while taking the photograph or compensation filtering in the darkroom. The former works better than the later.

If you use a strobe, the strobe illuminated areas will be properly color balanced, the rest not.

Steve

2F/2F · Oct 21, 2011

Do yourself a favor and filter it, or at least use Fuji Pro 400H, which color corrects much more easily in foul light. +1 exposure helps too, in pretty much any light that is not in the 5000 to 6000 K range. That means overcast weather, cloudy weather, shade, and anything but a couple hours each side of mid day.

nikonF80 · Oct 21, 2011

The only reason I didn't want to filter it was because of the reduced speed.
+1 seems to work perfectly for tungsten lighting. I guess for the florescent I will need a filter. What filter would you recommend? I know there are many different temps for florescent .

markbarendt · Oct 21, 2011

Umm, the filters that would be used for fluorescent or tungsten would ask you to adjust about +1 from normal, so the same adjustment as what you're already planning, right?

So speed isn't a real issue.

2F/2F · Oct 22, 2011

markbarendt said:
Umm, the filters that would be used for fluorescent or tungsten would ask you to adjust about +1 from normal, so the same adjustment as what you're already planning, right?

So speed isn't a real issue.

Umm, for fluorescent it is about one stop, but not for tungsten. Correcting for household tungsten bulbs requires an 80A and an 81B together, and opening up 2-2/3 stops from the metered exposure.

markbarendt · Oct 22, 2011

2F/2F said:
Umm, for fluorescent it is about one stop, but not for tungsten. Correcting for household tungsten bulbs requires an 80A and an 81B together, and opening up 2-2/3 stops from the metered exposure.

Dang, I was wrong about somthing again. Memory is so fallible.

You are absolutely right, I normally use an 80a which needs a two stop correction.

I haven't added the 81b, that's something I might have to try but a little tungsten ambiance isn't bad either.

The basic thought that I was trying to get across is that in non-standard light, for example tungsten, exposing the blue layer of a daylight film enough to be able to correct well at the enlarger requires roughly the same change of exposure with or without a filter.

The advantage of using the filter is that the other layers will not be over exposed, relatively speaking.

benjiboy · Oct 22, 2011

Kodak Portra 400, or any other daylight balanced film in fluorescent or tungsten lighting without filters without producing a colour caste is impossible.

Sirius Glass · Oct 22, 2011

benjiboy said:
Kodak Portra 400, or any other daylight balanced film in fluorescent or tungsten lighting without filters without producing a colour caste is impossible.

Yes, what he said!

nikonF80 · Oct 23, 2011

Ok thanks everyone for the help

Kodak Portra 400 in tungsten and fluorescent WITHOUT filters

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency