What's the point of 64T film?

nickandre · Oct 22, 2009

B&Wpositive said:
Where on Earth can one get push processing for ECN-II color neg film?

Better yet, where on earth can one get processing for ECN-II color neg film? You could do it yourself if you ordered 50 gallons of developer concentrate and enjoyed gunking up your dark closet with remjet backing.

keithwms · Oct 22, 2009

I adore fuji 64T, the newer one. Fantastic colours, very accurate. It is a very useful film for ~3200 K light. I have used it quite a bit for outdoor night architecture; here is an example. I also like it for colour still-life stuff. For star trails, by the way, it is the *best* colour film in my opinion- the sky becomes a really glorious blue; here is an example. Is it for motion, no, but neither are a lot of things.

c6h6o3 · Oct 22, 2009

B&Wpositive said:
Where on Earth can one get push processing for ECN-II color neg film?

C-41 films just develop to completion and that's it. Only color chrome films can be expanded with extended time in the first developer.

Personally, I don't believe that push processing is possible with any film. Just expanded contrast through extended development. For all practical purposes the shadows are going to remain about the same density no matter what you do.

2F/2F · Oct 22, 2009

c6h6o3 said:
C-41 films just develop to completion and that's it. Only color chrome films can be expanded with extended time in the first developer.

Personally, I don't believe that push processing is possible with any film. Just expanded contrast through extended development. For all practical purposes the shadows are going to remain about the same density no matter what you do.

Of course C-41 films, and not E-6 films alone, can be expanded via pushing. Haven't you ever done it?

Despite your personal beliefs, push processing is possible with any film I can think of. Of course what you describe in your second paragraph is the case. That is what pushing does. That is what pushing is; making the film more contrasty. It is not a magic way to make your film faster across the board. Everybody knows that...hopefully.

ECN-II films are push processed fairly frequently in the MP industry for the same reasons it is done with still pix: to increase contrast, increase grain, etc. It is not an odd thing to have movie film pushed. I do not know where to get short rolls of MP film processed any more. A and I quit doing it.

Terrence Brennan · Oct 23, 2009

Fuji 64T film

Rudeofus said:
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..

I used to use Fuji 64T film to make copies slides on a tungsten-lit copy stand, and as well as indoor exhibit photography (after hours). The film almost always required supplementary filtration; typically I would add something like CC10B + CC5C on the copy stand, and an 82A or 82B, plus a CC10B, for exhibit photography, AFAIR.

Ian Grant · Oct 23, 2009

c6h6o3 said:
C-41 films just develop to completion and that's it. Only color chrome films can be expanded with extended time in the first developer.

If these films were developed to completion then dev times & temperature wouldn't be so critical. They most certainly aren't developed to even remotely close to completion.

You can push C41 colour films a stop or so but like all push processing it's a compromise. As others have said ECN-II is an entirely different matter.

Ian

ajuk · Oct 23, 2009

I find when capturing traffic trails at night with Ektar, an 80b filter is good enough,

c6h6o3 · Oct 23, 2009

My point was that with chromes +/- Zone System controls can be very effective. I've had good results with N+/- 2. That's 4 stops of control. With C-41, not so much. 1 stop maybe.

2F/2F, we only disagree on terminology. When I hear the term 'push' I think of increasing the speed of the film. This is what most people seem to think it means. (How many times have you read posts where someone says 'I accidentally exposed my Tri-X at 1600 during my sister's wedding where I was the only photographer. What can I do?' Well, not much. No matter how long he develops it, he will have Stygian shadows. Yes, maybe the lower part of the scale will move 1/2 stop or so closer to the straight line portion of the characteristic curve, but you won't get really useful shadow detail.)

hrst · Oct 23, 2009

I haven't encountered anyone who had mistakenly thought that push processing would really increase the real film speed. Everyone understands it's a compromise.

But, I have encountered many who mistakenly think something absurd like "there is no push processing" or "push processing is a myth" or "push processing does nothing" etc. How hard it can be to understand? Push processing just means processing to higher contrast and it's done to push lower midtones and midtones higher, to get better Exposure Index; the downside is the compromised shadow detail. In addition, YES, it REALLY increases the real ISO speed also, --- but not much.

I remember reading KODAK document about ECN-2 negative pushing. It said that 1 stop push increases real speed by 1/3 stop and 2 stop push by 1/2 stop. That's about it. So, with 2 stop push you sacrifice 1 1/2 stops of shadow details but can get good lower midtones. The underexposure latitude in these films is often so good that decent results are still obtained. It still may have more latitude than digital cameras!

I mentioned pushing Vision3 500T to 1000 because I read somewhere (probably at Kodak's website...) an interview of some cinematographer who specially mentioned how well this new film handles pushing to 1000, even 2000. Edit: or it may have been 250D that he liked to push to 500 or 1000.

Movie industry needs pushing because there is a certain limit in exposure time because of the frame rate and shutter angle.

I've also pushed C-41 films with good results. It DOES help compared to underexpose+normal dev. Not as much as in BW world where even 3 stop pushes are common, but if you've underexposed, unintentionally or intentionally (not enough light to shoot), just push. It helps a little.

And, who does ECN-2 push, well, any movie lab. I haven't used labs though as I'm building my own.

If you want ECN-2 chemicals, you don't have to buy gigantic liquid concentrates. Just mix using raw chemicals. The formulas are in KODAK h2407 processing manual. It's easy, I've done it.

Tim Gray · Oct 23, 2009

You're right about 500T. I seem to remember reading that the new 500T performs better at 800-1000 than the old 800T did at it's native speed.

benveniste · Oct 23, 2009

hrst said:
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.

I have a little over 100 feet of Fuji Eterna 500T sitting in my freezer, and could probably be persuaded to spool up some if anyone wants to try pushing it. I believe both http://www.thecamerashop.com/ and Dale Labs will process it in still camera lengths.

But before doing so, I suggest reading the following:
http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Support/Technical_Information/Processing_Information/push.htm

Quoting:
Push processing is not recommended as a means to increase photographic speed. Push processing produces contrast mismatches notably in the red and green sensitive layers ( red most) compared to the blue. This produces reddish- yellow highlights, and cyan- blue shadows. Push processing also produces significant increases in film granularity. Push processing combined with under exposure produces a net loss in photographic speed, higher contrast, smoky shadows, yellow highlights and grainy images, with possible slight losses in sharpness.

I found that exposed at ISO 500 in an F100, Eterna 500 had grain similar to that of old NPZ. Perhaps it's due to my limited artistic vision, but I can't see how I'd use a "significant increase in film granularity" to my advantage.

hrst · Oct 23, 2009

That is just the document I was remembering before: "Push 1 processing produces ER speed increases of less than a 1/3 of a stop and Push 2 produces ER speed increases of around 1/2 of a stop. Push 2 taken in combination with two stops of under exposure represents a stop and a half loss in real speed"

But don't get too technical . Push processing is used when the lights cannot be added and exposure time cannot be increased. If the other choices are: underexposed but not push-processed film, or no shooting at all, push processing is the best choice. It does not produce the same results, but usually there is nothing to compare with, as higher exposure would mean different lighting leading to completely different look and mood to begin with.

In addition, that document was written before Vision3, maybe even before Vision2 (there is no date); as said before, these give better shadow detail. In addition, the extra highlight latitude helps with the increased contrast in push processing. Color crossover is harder to deal with, but it may not look that bad. If Digital Intermediate is used, it can be fixed anyway.

This is why push processing ECN-2 is a normal lab service. It is used to some extent.

ajuk · Oct 23, 2009

I herd Microphen can increase the true speed by 2/3 a stop.

RGS122 · Oct 23, 2009

When I put on an 85B filter, do I change the camera's ISO to adjust for the filter? Or do I just go with what my light meter tells me? My Light meter meters through the lens by the way.

nickrapak · Oct 23, 2009

Set the ISO to that of the film, and shoot it through the filter. The meter will automatically correct for exposure.

ajuk · Oct 24, 2009

Yes back on topic, OP your not the first person to make issue with this, I had trouble working out why Portra 800 isn't tungsten Balanced as I though that film was for taking photos of events such as wedding receptions indoors at night, Surly there would have been a really big market for 800 speed tungsten film pre digital age?

mopar_guy · Oct 24, 2009

Rudeofus said:
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.

I was going over some OLD information from 60+ years ago when hot lights were more commonly used for studio work. Keep in mind that the useful life of a Photoflood lamp is only a few hours. A common work-around to prolong the bulb's lifespan was to use some kind of dimmer/voltage regulator in the wiring to allow the line voltage to be decreased while lighting is being set up. Only when the exposure was ready to be made would you "bring the lights up" to full intensity. Also, flood lights would have been used more to illuminate backgrounds or bring up shadow values while a spot light would have been used as a "key" light. I have some data that give two #1 Photofloods and one #2 Photoflood at 1/25th second as having ISO Guide number of 46. That would mean lights at 8 feet from subject and an aperture of roughly 5.6. Of course, spot lights could be farther back.

Look at some of the photos of photographers like George Hurrell and see what they were doing. It may not be like using flash, but it worked well for a lot of photographers.

Rudeofus · Oct 25, 2009

Thanks again for all the replies, I certainly did not expect to trigger such a long and informative thread with my humble question! Anyway, unless great improvements to film emulsion technology are made, 800T film appears unlikely to ever happen. Realize that tungsten light has only little blue light, that's why an 80A filter eats 2 stops of light. An 800T film would be an ISO 3200 film in the blue channel, something which is unlikely to happen in decent quality.

But even 400T would help a lot. With my EOS 3 and ISO 400 I can hand hold my 85mm portrait lens indoors, a 400T film would even yield good colors! User ajuk is right on spot and all the more shocking when he writes, that digital has eliminated the need for 320T and 400T emulsions. This is an important field where the film industry voluntarily gave up way too early. Indoor ambient light shooting is an important field for GWC/PWCs like me and one where my pure analog setup is severely lacking.

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Oct 25, 2009

I'm curious, were there ever tungsten balanced colour negative films? I brought the matter up recently with my colour professor and he reccomended compensating for the colour cast manually in the darkroom when printing. Makes sense to me - you dont lose light to a filter, and I was gonna be balancing it by hand anyway. Was this the general logic with print film?
It would explain why Portra 800 wasn't tungsten balanced.

EDIT: This is, of course, disregarding motion picture stock, which doesnt end in a manually corrected paper print.

Lee L · Oct 25, 2009

Kodak VPS and VPL for one pairing.

Vericolor Professional S (short exposure) daylight balanced for studio flash or outdoors.

Vericolor Professional L (long exposure) balanced for tungsten studio lighting.

Lee

perkeleellinen · Oct 25, 2009

Until recently there was a Portra 100T.

Ektagraphic · Oct 25, 2009

I wonder how long they will keep Ektachrome 64T around. I like it.

nickrapak · Oct 25, 2009

Seeing as it's the only tungsten-balanced film around, it will probably be around for a while.

RGS122 · Oct 25, 2009

nickrapak said:
Set the ISO to that of the film, and shoot it through the filter. The meter will automatically correct for exposure.

Thanks for the answer!

Rudeofus · Oct 25, 2009

Fleath said:
I'm curious, were there ever tungsten balanced colour negative films? I brought the matter up recently with my colour professor and he reccomended compensating for the colour cast manually in the darkroom when printing. Makes sense to me - you dont lose light to a filter, and I was gonna be balancing it by hand anyway. Was this the general logic with print film?

There is another reason: negative film gives you more latitude, so if you overexpose the cyan layer (I mean the cyan colored layer which is responsible for red in the print) by 2 stops (which you effectively do if you shoot a day light balanced film in a tungsten lit environment), a slide film would blow out while a negative film can handle this without saturating. This allows the negative film to be color corrected during printing. I tried color correcting slide film after scanning (day light balanced film shot in tungsten lit room) and the results were less than stellar ...

What's the point of 64T film?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency