Why is Tungsten film so slow?

[JBrunner]

While power shouldn't be an issue when it comes to strobes, I'd like to know how tungsten light is so abundant in a studio setting. I did some shots of my baby daughter with two 500W halogen lamps through umbrellas or reflected via a wall. They were uncomfortably bright, yet yielded exposure times of only 1/8 to 1/30, and I didn't stop down beyond F/5.6! I wish I would have had some 400T film, this 64T drove me nuts!

How did they cope with hot lights in studios? Deep fry the models with 5000W? Open up to F/2? Push the 64T to ISO 400?

The only things I heard of motion film for still photography were scare stories about some reckless cheapo manufacturers packaging motion picture film in 135 cartridges and selling them to unsuspecting photographers. For some reason or another this was Really Really Bad (tm). No idea what the real issue behind this was, but we all were supposed to be very careful when buying film :rolleyes:

Tungsten light was once abundant in studio settings in product shooting, catalogs, etc. Many photographers/creative directors/clients in the day preferred constant lighting, and also may times tungsten film was used in conjunction with video or MP production, where sets were lit to such levels. Yes, very bright by todays fischer price standards, but you got used to it. The lights we used (and still do on occasion) ranged from 2-5K and occasionally a "Tenner" meaning 10K. I also used a fun light called a nine light on occasion, nine 1k lamps in a rectangular bank. A 500w light would be something used for a set accent, and not generally bounce or diffused, since diffusing such a small source at any distance acts more like a scrim. The last large studio set I lit, about ten years ago, used on the order of 160K total. Set ups like that are much less common these days, more because of the market than any technical reason. We are talking studios with over 20ft ceilings and tons of AC. Although the studios got warm most of the heat stayed in the ceiling. You'd really know it if you went up a ladder though! If the AC failed, it would shut down production, as equipment would overheat way before the people. These days for location MP work I most often use HMI's in the 1.2 K to 12k range, and tungsten in the studio. The amount of light needed depends entirely on the camera format, but given a choice in a studio, I'll use hot lights every time. Also, in motion picture production, the term "Circle of Confusion" refers to the area around the camera.

The 12K on the last film I shot (The Wild Stallion) was named "Betty"

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXjcbZUeUtk[/YOUTUBE]



The company selling ECN here was called "Seattle Film" or some such. The film was to be sent to them for processing.

 

[2F/2F]

Yes, working with people and 500W (or even 1K) lamps is difficult. Ideally, I can use 2K or 4K M-Rs...but generally make do with the 1K Softlites and various 'Spots.

Power is even more important with the Softlites, as much of the light is lost in the bounce.

I generally use a 1K 'Spot for the main light and use 1K Softlites for fill when shooting (people or other objects). I move both CLOSE to the subject most of the time, and am constantly cycling them on and off to keep the temp down.

Yet another one of the reasons electronic flash (NOT "strobes") took over. Extreme amounts of wasted energy, and uncomfortable working conditions to shoot pictures when using tungsten lamps.

Nonetheless, I love using them. You can always manipulate things to make electronic flash look roughly like tungsten lamps and vice versa, but the large and varied fixtures and accessories for M-Rs just provide an inherently "better" quality of light than most electronic flashes available today, IMHO. (This is a subjective criterion, of course.) To get modern studio flashes looking that way is a pain (requiring much accessorization and often lots of jury rigging) when the lamps are in such dinky housings. Additionally, when using b/w film, you get an effect similar to using a warm filter over your lens, without needed the filter.

Call me a stick in the mud...but I learned with M-R hot lamps, and I still love them more than any sort of flash for most things.

 

[Rudeofus]

Thanks, JBrunner & 2F/2F, for the explanations. So studios rather put up with 10kW hot lights than accept the limitations of tungsten balanced film with ISO160. Think of it: 160T film would be happy with 4kW where 64T film needs 10kW lights. It appears, though, according to PhotoEngineer's explanations, that 160T is a lot harder to make than 160 daylight balanced films, so I guess that's it.

@2F/2F: What exactly did you mean with "quality of light" when you referred to hot lights? I cheer the fact that I see what I get when I use hot lights vs. flash, but I wouldn't have seen any difference in quality of light which wasn't due to the diffusors or setup.

 

[A_M_Johnson]

Thanks, JBrunner & 2F/2F, for the explanations. So studios rather put up with 10kW hot lights than accept the limitations of tungsten balanced film with ISO160. Think of it: 160T film would be happy with 4kW where 64T film needs 10kW lights. It appears, though, according to PhotoEngineer's explanations, that 160T is a lot harder to make than 160 daylight balanced films, so I guess that's it.

@2F/2F: What exactly did you mean with "quality of light" when you referred to hot lights? I cheer the fact that I see what I get when I use hot lights vs. flash, but I wouldn't have seen any difference in quality of light which wasn't due to the diffusors or setup.

Thanks for all the explanations +1. If I would have spelled the word "tungsten" right to begin with in the search, it might have turned up the original thread mine was merged with!

@Rudeofus, I think the reason for the T64 as opposed to slower films was the fine grain needed for the type of publication the picture was going in.

 

[Tim Gray]

Thanks, JBrunner & 2F/2F, for the explanations. So studios rather put up with 10kW hot lights than accept the limitations of tungsten balanced film with ISO160. Think of it: 160T film would be happy with 4kW where 64T film needs 10kW lights. It appears, though, according to PhotoEngineer's explanations, that 160T is a lot harder to make than 160 daylight balanced films, so I guess that's it.

@2F/2F: What exactly did you mean with "quality of light" when you referred to hot lights? I cheer the fact that I see what I get when I use hot lights vs. flash, but I wouldn't have seen any difference in quality of light which wasn't due to the diffusors or setup.

I think studios (still) for the most part are probably either using digital and/or flash. So daylight film is fine when film is actually used.

As far as studios (motion) they do make faster tungsten film. Do they even make a 64T motion picture film? As of now, I think Kodak makes 100T, 200T, and 500T film motion picture film. Which cuts down the requirements some for lighting. Also a lot of motion picture cameras have quite fast lenses and shutter speeds are usually in the neighborhood of 1/48 s. I'm sure JBrunner can add more.

As far as the quality of light - you can get a lot more (or at least types of) control from hot lights in my experience. Part of that obviously comes from the visual feedback, but I feel like you can control the shape of the light better with fresnels, etc. I think you'd be somewhat hard pressed to reproduce the shape and control of something like a dedo light with a flash, without some kind of optical attachment (which may very well exist for all I know). Throw in the fact that many hot lights come with scrims, barn doors, and other kinds of attachments opens up a lot of possibilities.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think studios (still) for the most part are probably either using digital and/or flash. So daylight film is fine when film is actually used.

As far as studios (motion) they do make faster tungsten film. Do they even make a 64T motion picture film? As of now, I think Kodak makes 100T, 200T, and 500T film motion picture film. Which cuts down the requirements some for lighting. Also a lot of motion picture cameras have quite fast lenses and shutter speeds are usually in the neighborhood of 1/48 s. I'm sure JBrunner can add more.

As far as the quality of light - you can get a lot more (or at least types of) control from hot lights in my experience. Part of that obviously comes from the visual feedback, but I feel like you can control the shape of the light better with fresnels, etc. I think you'd be somewhat hard pressed to reproduce the shape and control of something like a dedo light with a flash, without some kind of optical attachment (which may very well exist for all I know). Throw in the fact that many hot lights come with scrims, barn doors, and other kinds of attachments opens up a lot of possibilities.

All of those light modifiers you mention exist for flash units. Not all manufacturers make all those varieties, but the big ones (fresnels, barndoors, snoots, scrims, softboxes and umbrellas) are available for most major brands of electronic flash units. Are they cheap? not so much, at least with things like fresnels and softboxes.

 

[imokruok]

As far as studios (motion) they do make faster tungsten film. Do they even make a 64T motion picture film? As of now, I think Kodak makes 100T, 200T, and 500T film motion picture film.

Very interesting thread. I had never considered using tungsten film in my still cameras, but have seen some very beautiful examples on Flickr and elsewhere, and will probably pick up some Fuji to try it out.

Also, yes, you can still buy Kodak 64T motion picture film - it's available from B&H, etc., for about $18 a roll for Super 8. I'm in LA, and I think a lot of film programs here still look favorably on shooting a little bit on film to understand the history of the process.

I am assuming it doesn't hurt Kodak to continue to manufacture it if it's exactly the same as its 35mm cousin. They've already paid for the machines to cut and spool it into different formats, so as long as they're making one, they might as well continue making the other as long as it's selling. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're still shooting on Super 8, I think it's the *only* color film still readily available. I read somewhere that Velvia 50 is still packed in 8mm, but haven't seen it.

 

[Tim Gray]

Kodak makes some color neg for 8mm. 500T and 200T. I think the 64T you speak of is reversal film. I don't know if it's available in 16mm or 35mm; it might be. I'm pretty sure a reversal product is offered for those formats, but not sure if it is daylight or tungsten balanced.

I'm think in color negative film for 16mm and 35mm, your choices for tungsten balanced film are ISO 100, 200, and 500.

I got to shoot some 500T in 16mm over Christmas. Wow, that stuff looks great.

 

[kadath]

I shot some porta 400nc under tungsten light, some shots with a correction filter, some without. This was with a dedo. After I got them back, I couldn't tell which was which. So I don't bother with it now. I've only shot in a studio a couple of times, but I can't use flash as a main source, seems like too much of a blunt instrument to me. I only use it for a bit of fill occasionally. Even a basic redhead is better. I always shoot at f2.8 max with tungsten light however, preferably f2, it's easier to control and not so hot. You can get away with 500W fresnels for the main source.

 

[Athiril]

I would love it if there was a Tungsten balanced 800 speed colour neg film, for the low light situations that I am almost inevitably in when I need tungsten balanced film.

Kodak Vision2 500T, in 35mm, can shoot faster than 800 with it. Or Fuji Eterna 500T

 

[Anon Ymous]

Kodak Vision2 500T, in 35mm, can shoot faster than 800 with it. Or Fuji Eterna 500T

But these are ECN2 films and you can't give them to a local lab to be processed.