Kodak Supra film & Tungston light...?

[detune]

am i asking for trouble using Kodak Supra in a normally lit room? Like with light bulbs, no flash... will it all turn to horribly yellowness?? help!! :confused:

 

[Photo Engineer]

am i asking for trouble using Kodak Supra in a normally lit room? Like with light bulbs, no flash... will it all turn to horribly yellowness?? help!! :confused:

You should use a filter for this or you will have trouble.

PE

 

[jd callow]

What PE Said...
or it will be yellow orange.

 

[detune]

dang... thanks tho
Maybe I'll grab some Fuji 160C (i think thats it...).

 

[bob100684]

....which won;t be any better its still a daylight film

 

[Helen B]

If you overexpose daylight neg film by a stop or two in tungsten light (with no filter) it will help you get a properly balanced print - the blue-sensitive and green-sensitive layers will get enough exposure, and the red-sensitive layer will usually be OK thanks to the overexposure latitude of the film. You would lose two stops if you used a correction filter, so there's no difference in the exposure setting. Use a filter for the best quality results though.

Best,
Helen

 

[dmr]

I've had real good luck shooting the various Fuji color negative films in available incandescent light and in mixed light. The machine made lab prints are usually warm but not objectionably so, and it's easily correctable to a normal look on scans.

 

[jd callow]

If you take the route of over exposure I wouldn't use a consumer film. I would recommend 160nc. The older version, which I suspect is what is sitting on most store shelves. If you can find it kodak 100t or fuji NPL would be the films to use.

 

[Gerald Koch]

A friend in the custom lab business once said that the old rule of thumb is that the eye will tolerate any color shift provided it is on the warm side. What really sets people off is when Aunt Martha is purple.

 

[Photo Engineer]

If you overexpose daylight neg film by a stop or two in tungsten light (with no filter) it will help you get a properly balanced print - the blue-sensitive and green-sensitive layers will get enough exposure, and the red-sensitive layer will usually be OK thanks to the overexposure latitude of the film. You would lose two stops if you used a correction filter, so there's no difference in the exposure setting. Use a filter for the best quality results though.

Best,
Helen

Helen;

Sorry to say that this probably will not work due to the crossover that will be introduced.

Examples of this are shown in Ctein's book "Post Exposure" and some of the texts on color photography that are available.

The latitude of the various layers are not long enough to allow you to get a good result, merely a sometimes acceptable result. To me, it has never been acceptable.

PE

 

[dmr]

The latitude of the various layers are not long enough to allow you to get a good result, merely a sometimes acceptable result.

PE, maybe you can explain this. I've always got good results (okay, maybe I should say acceptable) shooting the off the shelf Fuji 400 and 800 in available or mixed light. I've come to believe this "4th Color Laver" helps with this.

However, I tried some of that Walgreens/Agfa 400 last year under the same conditions and it was awful. The blue channel just wasn't there and trying to adjust with levels/curves just resulted in very bizarre colors.

Is it this "4th Color Layer" or maybe something else with the film that helps out here.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The 4th layer is for fluorescent lighting only AFAIK.

So, imagine 3 curves that are identical and lined up with each other. These are the RGB layers of a daylight film in daylight. Then offset the blue by two stops less and the green by one stop less. This is daylight in tungsten. The red is exposed properly, but the other two are very slow.

Now imagine that the cyan runs out of shoulder density and toe density in the middle of the yellow and magenta curves. This is what happens. At that point you get crossover.

Printing can balance the mid tones, but the shadows and highlights show the crossover.

This is illustrated in curves and pictures by Ctein.

PE

 

[dmr]

Printing can balance the mid tones, but the shadows and highlights show the crossover.

Thanks for the quick response. I think I see now why I got the bizarre colors, when I was trying to balance for midtones.

So, imagine 3 curves that are identical and lined up with each other. These are the RGB layers of a daylight film in daylight. Then offset the blue by two stops less and the green by one stop less. This is daylight in tungsten. The red is exposed properly, but the other two are very slow.

Ok, help me understand this, and this goes back into ancient history.

When I was very young, maybe 9-10, I went in to buy a roll of color (Kodacolor something) film for my Brownie Starflash. (Probably the first color I ever shot.) I knew my dad always used blue flash for color, so I was going to buy blue flash bulbs with it, but the druggest said that from now on, you use clear flash with Kodacolor. I remember that to this day. This would have been in about 1962 or so. (Not to admit to my real age.) I used clear flash, and they came out just fine.

Was the Kodacolor of that day maybe a compromise between daylight and clear flash spectrum, or was there just enough latitude in the film to make it work?

 

[jd callow]

the blue tint on the bulbs was to balance the yellow light (~3200k) to white/daylight (~5000k). Subsequent bulbs had the filaments changed to produce the white light. The blue bulbs were the equivalent of adding a blue filter to the lens.

 

[Photo Engineer]

In the 60s, Kodak made a CU (Color Universal) Kodakcolor for C-22 that was balanced between daylight and tungsten. It was an utter failure as it didn't work well for either.

PE

 

[Helen B]

The straight line portion of many modern colour neg films is long enough to withstand two stops of overexposure in the red-sensitive layer. Whether the quality of an unfiltered shot taken in tungsten light with daylight film is good enough is a judgement call.

Here are four examples. I've stopped using filters with colour neg for documentary purposes. These were taken with about one stop of 'overexposure'.

Best,
Helen

 

[Lopaka]

I think that whether or not you like the results depends on the subject. When I started shooting weddings in the 60's I was taught that the time exposures from the back of the church taken during the ceremony had to be done with the blue filter. Of course we were already breaking the 'rules' since at that time the Kodak professinal film had two versions - 'short' exposure and 'long' exposure. One day my blue filter seemed to be missing from my bag - so I shot the time exposures without it. A print from one of these won an award at a PPA print competition - the judges loved the warm glow and 'mood' it set for the subject. It never hurts to experiment.

Bob

 

[Photo Engineer]

Helen;

These are excellent examples, but they may prove the exception to the rule. No Daylight film was designed for Tungsten exposure.

Having designed one generation of 400 speed film at EK, I know what problems can crap up (and that pun was intentded). You cannot rely on a huge long scale on all 3 layers. A layer has to have a toe and a shoulder somewhere, eventually.

PE

 

[Petzi]

dang... thanks tho
Maybe I'll grab some Fuji 160C (i think thats it...).

You mean Fuji NPL.

 

[Drew B.]

...just use natural light from the windows...leave the lamps off. NPS and/or its replacement works great.

 

[Drew B.]

Here are four examples.

Hey, who's the blond babe on the right? I thought I saw her just the other night...here in Boston.