What's the point of 64T film?

[Lee L]

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

Fuji 64T and Kodak EPY are both still available.

Lee

 

[nickrapak]

Fuji 64T and Kodak EPY are both still available.

Lee

Sorry, but Fuji T64 has been recently discontinued.

 

[nickandre]

Sorry, but Fuji T64 has been recently discontinued.

It's still available though which surprises me because it was discontinued almost a year ago.

 

[Lee L]

I don't have full information, but I was under the impression that it was UK distribution that was discontinued, not necessarily availability worldwide. The BJP link talks about Fuji UK not bothering to market the films, not specifically about Fuji ceasing production. Of course that doesn't help those in the UK who don't want to pay to import it. Anyone have known good info on production as opposed to distribution? Fuji Film's global web site still discusses 64T as a current product in 35mm, 35mm 100ft rolls, 120, 4x5, 8x10, and 4x5 quickloads.

Lee

 

[ajuk]

Sorry, but Fuji T64 has been recently discontinued.

I didn't know they had done this let a lone 6 months ago, I am surprised as it was only 2 years old, looks like Kodak are the last makers of Tungsten film then?

 

[perkeleellinen]

Anyone have known good info on production as opposed to distribution?

This is the reply I got from Fuji UK when I asked:

Hi Steven and thank you for your enquiry.

The announcement you read in BJP is correct. This is a global
discontinuation due to very low sales volume.

 

[Ektagraphic]

It's still available though which surprises me because it was discontinued almost a year ago.

New old sock kind of situation. E100GX was actually discontinued two years ago from what I understand. All of the stuff that was out there was what was left in stock. When stock ran out Kodak never made any more.

 

[Rudeofus]

This is the reply I got from Fuji UK when I asked:

Hi Steven and thank you for your enquiry.

The announcement you read in BJP is correct. This is a global
discontinuation due to very low sales volume.

What's particularly strange about this is the fact, that their web page still lists the film and doesn't even mention the fact that this film is no longer made :confused:

If the film was such a poor seller we should be able to get old stock for a while. Also, Fuji has reintroduced film when demand for certain types was noticed, I think that's exactly what happened with Velvia 50 some years ago.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

The fact a product can be discontinued and the effects not be noticeable for months (and years, sometimes) speaks of it's popularity. They just cant sell enough for it to keep it viable - think how much Agfa APX film is still floating around. I have Fuji 64T available at my local shop, and you can still buy it in all formats from japan exposures.

 

[Steve Roberts]

I used to use it for close ups of small mineral specimens after Kodachrome Type A became unavailable. It wasn't as good but was better than daylight film with filtration.

Steve

 

[Rudeofus]

I used to use it for close ups of small mineral specimens after Kodachrome Type A became unavailable. It wasn't as good but was better than daylight film with filtration.

Could you please elaborate on that? Ich which ways is an 80A filter inferior?

 

[Q.G.]

A filter will never be able to bring back what's not there to begin with.
Trying to balance daylight film to tungstens light is just that: trying to bring back what's not there.
Hence the high filter factor and less than optimum results

The other way round, balancing tungsten film to daylight using a filter is a doddle. Al you need to to do is remove the excess of blue, and you get perfect results and a low filter factor.

Along with it's very good Schwarzschild behaviour, that made Ektachrome 64T a perfect long exposure film, for tungsten and daylight alike.

 

[ajuk]

Eh all the filter does is cut out some of the light and so you increase exposure.

 

[Q.G.]

Eh all the filter does is cut out some of the light and so you increase exposure.

Think so?
All the filter must do is balance the abundantly present red end of the spectrum to the mostly absent blue end of the spectrum.
A tough job, that.

 

[Rudeofus]

Think so?
All the filter must do is balance the abundantly present red end of the spectrum to the mostly absent blue end of the spectrum.
A tough job, that.

A filter can't balance except by cutting away. So a KB12 filter (~ 80A) simply cuts some of the red light, as you can see easily from the diagram in this link.

There are monochromatic light sources where filters (or films) can't do a thing, low pressure sodium vapour lamps would be an example. But tungsten light should be easy to balance properly, at least with a colour meter. If you can't do it with filters, how do you expect 64T film does it?

 

[Q.G.]

A filter can't balance except by cutting away. So a KB12 filter (~ 80A) simply cuts some of the red light, as you can see easily from the diagram in this link.

The relative difficulty of correcting tungsten film to daylight vs correcting daylight film to tungsten light is reflected in the filter factors.

Sure, it can be done.
Balancing tungsten film to daylight however is much easier, and with a better result, than the other way round.

 

[RGS122]

For nighttime exposures, I assume you don't need the filter right?

 

[Q.G.]

What colour is the night?

Depends.
Assuming that most light you'll see at night is unnatural, a tungsten balanced film without filter might seem good. But artificial light itself comes in so many forms and colours that it is hard to get the colour right with either daylight or tungsten film, with or without filter.

Using moonlight only, a daylight balanced film would be a better match. Were it not that with the long exposures needed, colour goes haywire anyway.

 

[Rudeofus]

The relative difficulty of correcting tungsten film to daylight vs correcting daylight film to tungsten light is reflected in the filter factors.

It's reflected in filter factors and available ISO numbers. With Provia 400X and an 80A filter I get effective ISO 100, more than any currently available tungsten film will give me. Going the other way doesn't sound so great either: I get less grainy ISO 50 films for daylight.

Sure, it can be done.
Balancing tungsten film to daylight however is much easier, and with a better result, than the other way round.

Putting ISO aside, the results should be comparable in quality. All the light effects we care about are linear in nature, so linear filters should be able to properly compensate all common color temperatures. The only limit is light sensitivity of the film material, and here day light balanced film wins.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Could you please elaborate on that? Ich which ways is an 80A filter inferior?

The colour rendition was not as accurate when using the filter. This is important when trying to reproduce the subtle shades of samples. Google a few names of Cornish minerals such as torbernite, liroconite, azurite, pharmacosiderite, erythrite, libethenite, etc. and see the range of colours that needs to be accurately portrayed. Especially difficult are the numerous green secondary copper minerals.

Steve

 

[Q.G.]

Putting ISO aside, the results should be comparable in quality. All the light effects we care about are linear in nature, so linear filters should be able to properly compensate all common color temperatures. The only limit is light sensitivity of the film material, and here day light balanced film wins.

Putting ISO aside, you end up believing that ISO is the only difference?


Try a roll of tungsten balanced and a roll of daylight balanced film.
Compare how both perform, with appropriate filter, on each other's turf.
ISO is not the only difference.

 

[RGS122]

What colour is the night?

Depends.
Assuming that most light you'll see at night is unnatural, a tungsten balanced film without filter might seem good. But artificial light itself comes in so many forms and colours that it is hard to get the colour right with either daylight or tungsten film, with or without filter.

Using moonlight only, a daylight balanced film would be a better match. Were it not that with the long exposures needed, colour goes haywire anyway.

I meant if I wanted to do long exposures, would I need the 85b filter to do that.

 

[DanielStone]

I think that's exactly what happened with Velvia 50 some years ago.

IIRC, the original Velvia was discontinued for environmentally-detrimental reasons (in the manufacturing). It wasn't that it was not selling, in fact, it was the opposite.

But when they re-introduced it a year(2?) or so back, it was re-formulated to be more safe to the environment when being manufactured. In terms of by-products.

some still claim that the old stuff was way better than the new stuff.

 

[DanielStone]

oh....

I noticed that no one mentioned (film-recorders) in the myriad of uses for this wonderful film. Some labs used it for outputting digital files to film (Kodak LVT, etc...)

being that its tungsten balanced, and the recording laser works in the tungsten color spectrum. the two work out very nicely as a combo.

One photog I know of here in LA (who shoots digital for most of her work), outputs her best and most selected work(fully edited) to 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies. they look funny when on a lightbox, cause they don't have the normal rebate area like regular film.

kind of a reverse-hybrid method

-Dan

 

[Q.G.]

I meant if I wanted to do long exposures, would I need the 85b filter to do that.

Long exposures in daylight? Depending on how long (Schwarzschild): yes.
Long exposures in twilight? The same (that is: a conversion filter, though not necessarily the 85B).
Long exposures when there is no natrual light at all? Hard to say.