What's the point of 64T film?

[Rudeofus]

I understand this film is color balanced for tungsten light, but at ISO 64 it's almost worthless for indoor shots if moving supeople are involved. The exposure times you get at reasonable apertures are too long even if you point construction lights directly at the subjects from close range. Flashes are obviously not an option since they spit out day light balanced light. For still objects it may be easier to mess around with color correction filters. Grain size of 64T is comparable to modern daylight balanced ISO 400 slide film.

There must be more than fringe use since Fuji even introduced a new emulsion some years ago. So please tell me: what is 64T film actually used for?

 

[hrst]

I've been wondering the same. Kodak and Fuji have great high-speed tungsten-balanced motion picture negative films, like the new Vision3 500T that can be pushed well to 1000 or even more. It's a shame that similar products are not available as C-41 or E-6 films. Especially a modern-technology 400 speed tungsten-balanced slide film would be so nice.

 

[tim_walls]

I thought 64T emulsions were intended for cine cameras, where continuous (tungsten) lighting would be involved.


That may just be entirely my imagination, though.

 

[jeffreyg]

With the camera on a copy stand with 120w flood lamps (3200k) it will yield excellent results for copy work and small objects. Why mess with filters if that film will do the job it is best for?

 

[hrst]

No, cine films are different. Negative films in process ECN-2 are used. KODAK's range is 50D, 100T, 200T, 250D, 500T and there was 800T. ISO values in cine may be a little lower, so according to some people, 250D in cine can be almost the same as 400 ISO C-41 film.

There are also reversal cine films but again, they are different from still films.

Copy work is indeed where you use this 64T still film.

 

[wildbill]

I don't think fuji had "construction lights" in mind when they introduced this film. Using tungsten units made for cinema/still lighting with this film works just fine. Also, look up the film's reciprocity characteristics.

 

[JMC1969]

I'm not sure how it is for others, but I can tell you what we us it for. Most of all it is for copy work in a few different forms. Copy slides of old prints to be reproduced is how we use it in 35mm. But, our biggest use was 4x5 shots of art work. The film has about the nicest and true to color reproduction value of any film we have tested for this purpose. It works very well and we are not using expensive lighting. Can lights with 3200 photo bulbs, cross polarized and get a nice exposure at our lenses prime spot (debatable, I'm sure).

35mm; 50mm lens F5.6-8 split @ ¼ sec
4x5; G-Claron 210mm 1/3 past F22 @ 8 sec.

It's what works for us to match color to color.

 

[Dave Swinnard]

Tungsten balanced films were also used by architectural photographers for shooting some interiors back in the days before digital processing allowed for (easy) white balancing.

A selection of film (neg or reversal, daylight or tungsten) and a bag of colour correction and colour balance filters (for camera and lights and windows) was pretty common and allowed the photographer to meet all lighting situations. (mostly...sometimes...)

Dave

 

[DWThomas]

It has long been my choice for photographing paintings and table top ("product") setups; though I admit my current trend is toward "alternate technology" as many of my final results are for the web.

 

[tim_walls]

No, cine films are different. Negative films in process ECN-2 are used. KODAK's range is 50D, 100T, 200T, 250D, 500T and there was 800T. ISO values in cine may be a little lower, so according to some people, 250D in cine can be almost the same as 400 ISO C-41 film.

There are also reversal cine films but again, they are different from still films.

Copy work is indeed where you use this 64T still film.

Ahh, fair enough. I never use colour negative film so I sort of completely forget the stuff exists. The only 64T films I've got are regular E6 process in Super8 cartridges.

 

[c6h6o3]

So please tell me: what is 64T film actually used for?

The Kodak 64T (EPY) is my favorite color film, due its low contrast, long scale and beautiful color balance. It's available in 120, 4x5, 13x18cm and 8x10 so I can shoot it in any of my cameras. I think the movie industry is the only thing keeping it in production. When it goes, that'll be the saddest day of all for me.

The Fuji 64T is pretty good, too, but I don't like the color balance as much. It leans a little to the green for my taste. It's definitely sharper than the Kodak.

 

[Mike Wilde]

The other nice bit is that the correcting filter to daylight is only 2/3 of a stop. But daylight corrected to tungsten is like 2 stops plus. So 50ish in daylioght, 64 in tungsten , versus say 100 in daylight and 25 or worst under tungsten. I have about 30 rolls of 35mm in the freezer, and feed it into my low end range finder and use it for street photgraphy (leaning aginst a post or product display shelf) when i am inside in malls or stores.

 

[Ektagraphic]

They are for studio work so that you would not have to filter if you were using tungsten balenced lighting. I love to shoot Ektachrome 64 in daylight (filtered ofcourse). It's a really nice film.

 

[2F/2F]

...at ISO 64 it's almost worthless for indoor shots if moving supeople [sic] are involved.

Not only is that statement a given for any slow- or medium-speed film, but that is also a huge if. There are plenty of things to shoot aside from indoor hand held shots of moving people...right? They make different films because there are many types of photographs taken by many different photographers with different tastes...right? You know what a tripod is and how to use one...right? So, I do not understand the thought that the film has no use just because you can't use it for your desired application. That's like saying that your cargo van is no good on the curves at Sears Point, so you can't see what use a cargo van has at all.

The Fuji is my favorite color film (and I like the Kodak too). It is one of the most beautiful films ever produced, IMHO. Amazing accurate color, super sharp, easily manipulated via exposure and processing, great for long exposures, great for night photography, studio still life and product photography, interiors, night cityscapes, shots with mixed lighting, copy work, making portfolio transparencies, even for portraits if you use enough light. Would I try to use it for indoor handheld shots of moving people? Of course not! You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. If you don't have a use for it, then don't use it. Nobody is twisting your arm...but you should try some if you ever do any of the things I mentioned above.

 

[Q.G.]

Kodak Ektachrome 64T is/was a perfect long exposure film, with filter for daylight.
No colour shift, like the daylight balanced Ektachrome 64 exhibited in heaps when you went longer than 1/2 sec.

 

[Rudeofus]

Thanks to all those who replied. A number of points have been raised in favour of 64T films, some were new to me and very interesting, some others were a little hard to follow for me. A number of folks mentioned copy work and product shots, which makes a lot of sense, since continuous light is cheap, much easier to set up and longer exposure times are a non-issue there. Cine work is obviously another task where continuous lights are the only option, and film emulsions from there may spill over into our territory.

What I still wonder is why only such slow film is made for tungsten balance. I realize there existed some 320T a while back, but evidently only 64T films are available now. I can positively confirm that portrait work is at least a royal pain with tungsten lights and ISO 64 film: I got 1/15s @ F/11 when I shone 2 500W halogen lights directly from 1m distance at some test subject, needless to say I did not even bother putting real humans in such a setup.

Don't get me wrong, I never questioned whether there were legitimate uses for this type of film, I just wanted to find out what these are (and evidently others were curious as well). I am here to learn and I'm glad I learned something here.

 

[2F/2F]

Like most of the good stuff, it went away because we live in a "free" economic market, and nobody bought it. Nothing matters in the "economically developed" world except what people buy. Good things go away if nobody buys them...so GO BUY SOME.

 

[c6h6o3]

Kodak Ektachrome 64T is/was a perfect long exposure film, with filter for daylight.
No colour shift, like the daylight balanced Ektachrome 64 exhibited in heaps when you went longer than 1/2 sec.

Another great feature of 64T (Kodak anyway-does Fuji's do the same thing?) - there's negligible need for reciprocity failure correction out to 100 seconds.

 

[gandolfi]

Fuji RTP 64 II has for a long time been my favourite colour film - for portraits - stills and fashion...

(I have never been a friend of the Kodak.. maybe because I paint with light, and the FUJI reacts so much better in this technique...)

look at the attachments.

 

[c6h6o3]

I realize there existed some 320T a while back

Hideous. So was the 160T. Nothing at all like the 64s.

Try some. You'll love it. Filter it with an 85B in daylight. Use a speed of 40.

 

[2F/2F]

Another great feature of 64T (Kodak anyway-does Fuji's do the same thing?) - there's negligible need for reciprocity failure correction out to 100 seconds.

Fuji's is even better. No correction out to four minutes according to the data sheet. In practice, I find that it is actually good out to at least 15 (just like Provia 100 and Astia). Fuji transparency films are amazing in this respect. (I have not tried long exposures with any of the Velvias.)

 

[c6h6o3]

Fuji RTP 64 II has for a long time been my favourite colour film - for portraits - stills and fashion...

(I have never been a friend of the Kodak.. maybe because I paint with light, and the FUJI reacts so much better in this technique...)

look at the attachments.

Breathtaking as always, Emil. Do you use a 3200°K light to paint?

 

[c6h6o3]

Fuji's is even better. No correction out to four minutes according to the data sheet. In practice, I find that it is actually good out to at least 15 (just like Provia 100 and Astia). Fuji transparency films are amazing in this respect. (I have not tried long exposures with any of the Velvias.)

I think I need to revisit the Fuji tungsten chromes. I haven't used it for about 8 years. There probably have been many advances made with it.

 

[2F/2F]

Hideous. So was the 160T. Nothing at all like the 64s.

I must beg to differ....wonderful, wonderful stuff. Two of the best films I ever used. Come to think of it, I could say the same thing of every tungsten film I have used, but these two were my favorites.

320T and 160T were some of my favorite and most used films. The film discontinuation that hit hardest for me was 320T. I used at least 6 or 8 rolls of it per week for shooting in low light at shows and various other events. I would use the 160T in my 645 with the f/1.9 lens. You could push this film to your heart's content in medium format. I would shoot normal if I could, but usually pushed, based on my spot meter readings. I have since switched to Press 800 or digital SLR (10D) as an alternative...but they are not the same at all. I still have two pro packs of 120 160T stashed. I went through my 320T already...alas...

 

[B&Wpositive]

I've been wondering the same. Kodak and Fuji have great high-speed tungsten-balanced motion picture negative films, like the new Vision3 500T that can be pushed well to 1000 or even more. It's a shame that similar products are not available as C-41 or E-6 films. Especially a modern-technology 400 speed tungsten-balanced slide film would be so nice.

Where on Earth can one get push processing for ECN-II color neg film?