Why is Tungsten film so slow?

[ajuk]

Hi,

The exposure adjustment for the 80 filter is not a recommendation to push the film. Filters not only change color, but also block the overall level of light, so you just have to rate the film at a lower EI in order to give it enough exposure. The papers that came with your filter should say how much adjustment you need. It should be two stops, but may be plus or minus depending on the specific filter manufacturer. This means that you rate your 160 film at EI 40 if you want to read the meter directly, or keep it at 160 and add two stops to what the meter says. It will be tough if shooting a person with 600W lamps, but it can be done, especially if you get the lamps close enough and use your lens wide open or close to wide open.

Surely the camera's AE will notice there is less light? Are you sure it's 2 stops, I thought a mild colour correction filter only filters out 2/3 of a stop.

 

[Fredrik Sandstrom]

Are you sure it's 2 stops, I thought a mild colour correction filter only filters out 2/3 of a stop.

Yes, 80A, which converts tungsten lighting (3200K) to daylight balance (5500K) requires a two stop increase in exposure. It's not a "mild color correction"; it's color conversion really.

 

[A_M_Johnson]

Whats with Slow Tungston Film?

It looks like T64 is about it. Do people just gel the flash and use it indoors with flash? I would have expected that it would be available in 400, 800, 1600 etc but it isn't.

Edit: That's Tungsten for those that can spell better than me!

 

[RGS122]

Kodak made Portra 100T, Elite Chrome/Ektachrome 160T, Ektachrome 320T, 400T, and 1600T. That was in the early 2000's then they stopped making them recently. You can still find 320T and 160T on ebay or other sites.

EDIT: Ya your right JD, I looked on the internet and saw that they didn't make 1600 and 400 as a tungsten film. sorry about the misinformation.

 

[jd callow]

I don't remember the 400 or 1600T films, and 160t and 320t are both gone... I don't know why they are slower, but generally speaking people who use them are doing copy, architecture or studio work and therefore don't need faster films. Filtered for Tungsten, daylight film is lowered 2 stops which might explain the speed thing.

 

[nickrapak]

Try the below link for another thread on the discussion:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[2F/2F]

You would think that high-speed tungsten films would be a popular type, but I guess there just aren't that many people who shoot in low light indoors. Since this is what I think makes some of the best pix, I am peeved as well.

I think the slower ones surviving is largely due to the fact that the types of things that are most commonly illuminated with photo floods are still objects, with which you have the luxury of using any shutter speed you want. The same types of subjects (products, etc.) generally benefit from as sharp and fine-grained a picture as possible as well, in the commercial world.

...but, I face it. As much as I love film, the low-light ability of modern digital cameras is simply stunning. A usable ISO 6400 (non-expanded) on a mid-level camera is amazing to me. (I'm talking about the Canon 7D.)

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another advantage of the slow tungsten films is that they have less reciprocity compensation. Many of the old ones didn't need compensation out to about a meter-indicated 5 or 10 seconds, IIRC.

 

[bdial]

BTW, strobes are balanced for daylight, so wouldn't be useful for tungsten film. But it's good for the stuff already mentioned, and perhaps wide-open portraits under hot lights.

 

[jd callow]

threads merged...

 

[nickandre]

Fuji 64T requires no reciprocity correction at 2 minutes of exposure.

 

[keithwms]

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.

I always thought it was just because it doesn't need to be fast. Any time I have used it, I've been doing products or still life stuff under well controlled lighting.

Note that Fuji really advertised the good reciprocity characteristics of their tungsten slide film... that's all I really care about when shooting a motionless subject.

 

[Rudeofus]

You would think that high-speed tungsten films would be a popular type, but I guess there just aren't that many people who shoot in low light indoors. Since this is what I think makes some of the best pix, I am peeved as well.

They stopped selling many types of light bulbs in the EU recently, and actively try to move people towards using fluorescent light instead, reason for this is the much better power efficiency of fluorescent lights.

So I wonder for how long we will even need tungsten balanced film. Maybe we'll use our 80A filters only for creative purposes and scream for fluorescent light tolerant film soon

 

[2F/2F]

Fuji 64T requires no reciprocity correction at 2 minutes of exposure.

At two minutes, that is correct, but I thought the data sheet stated that its reciprocity would hold would hold out to four minutes.

Actual testing proves that it is at least 15/16, just like Fuji Provia.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had only used Tungsten slide films for night photography of floor lit buildings and monuments. The results were great.

Steve

 

[perkeleellinen]

I used to like Ektachrome 320T for shooting indoors, I had a project photographing cars in museums with this film. Abstract close-ups of curves and contours and plays of light/shadows from the spotlights. The results were often a little cool, but pleasant, I'd sometimes push the film a stop in dimmer light. It was also nice for candid non-flash shots at parties, again a little cool. Sad it's gone, but I must say that I haven't shot a single roll of slide film since I started colour printing. An 800T negative film would be a joy to shoot (and print). I wonder how easy it is to filter out the casts from indoor lighting in the darkroom...

 

[WolfTales]

Tungsten's going out of fashion too. Seeing more and more CFLs and LEDs.

 

[hrst]

Tungsten's going out of fashion too. Seeing more and more CFLs

.... and 99,99% of CFLs are "tungsten-balanced" at 2800-3200 K.

 

[WolfTales]

What about LEDs? Where are those balanced at?

 

[hrst]

Most white LEDs are very bluish, you can't even say "balanced" because the spectrum is so horrible, even worse than with cheapest CFLs. There are "warm white" LEDs but their efficiency is inferior to halogen (tungsten!!!!! OMG) bulbs and spectrum is worse, so they are not used. LEDs cannot be and are not currently used in general lightning for obvious reasons. In the future, however, they may be. It has been actively discussed more than 10 years now.

However, the desired color temperature (warmness or coolness of light) is not only a question of technology but a question of taste. Somehow people seem to prefer warm lightning over cold. It's not so surprising.

Tungsten-balanced film is balanced to give neutral results in light significantly warmer than daylight. It is completely irrelevant how the light actually is produced.

OT: It's always sad when people who has no understanding nor information about any given technology, make technical decisions based on their false emotions. It's even more sad when they are allowed to pass laws.

 

[SuzanneR]

OT: It's always sad when people who has no understanding nor information about any given technology, make technical decisions based on their false emotions. It's even more sad when they are allowed to pass laws.

Let's stay on topic, and collegial, please.

 

[keithwms]

There are decent CFLs and very good LED sets, but... $$$$

There is a clear correlation between the rise of digital and the decrease in concern about the quality of light. Foremost, in defense of digital (bite your lip apuggers ) digital does have the feature of auto white balance, which is now used extensively. It does not make CFL any less spikey and weird, but it does take care of the broad cast as long as the light source isn't mixed with incandescent and natural. But, beyond that and perhaps more important, colour digital shooters are now willing to spend all kinds of time in post processing to (try to) take care of lighting issues. (and, in all fairness, automated processing techniques have vastly improved too) And I don't mean only white balance, I mean fill and such as well. Features like active and passive D-lighting and AWB etc. are de rigueur in digital. In fact D-lighting is killing flash in general now.

I think those issues have led to an overall decline in the number of people interested in the highest quality light sources, diffusion methods, you name it. Too bad. I am *not* saying that these methods produce results as good as old-school methods, and I also am not belittling new technologies, but.... this the real reason why the tungsten films vanished is that they weren't in demand any more for product stuff. If you took a 64T tranny of a product to a client they simply wouldn't know what to do with it. Too bad, it's a marvelous medium.

Mercury aside, my issue with the fluorescent spectrum is its big nasty spikes (which come from the mercury, but anyway...). LEDs can do much better, at least on that front, but they are also far more expensive per lumen, as I recall. The cute thing about LEDs though is that one could envision a bank of them in all colours with a tuning mechanism that automatically rebalances them to daylight (or whatever you want). But one of the aspects of incand. light that I like is the way it produces nice deep shadows and dramatic contrast. LEDs and fluorescent banks etc. just don't do that, at least not in any simple way. If you want tons of fill, sure, they're good for that.

Anyway I agree with Suzanne, let's stay on topic, and again I apologize for bringing up the mercury issue again. It is one of my pet peeves.

 

[hrst]

CFLs/fluorescents are indeed spiky and LEDs are not, but LEDs have the overall, average form of spectrum even more wrong with huge drops at some colors. So, generally, fluorescents can give not so nice surprises where some color pops up in a weird way, but LEDs can leave some colors very muted and dark, but maybe in a more WYSIWYG way.

I have been playing with the idea of controllable LED light for years, but it wouldn't be just RGB, it would need at least 8-10 different wavelengths in order not to be too spiky, and generally these LEDs at correct wavelengths are not available, even with $$$. Maybe with $$$$$$$$$ .

But, dealing with fluorescents is not a new thing at all... Fluorescents are older than color films, and problems with them are well known.

And I think that people's desire for warm-colored lightning won't go anywhere, so there will always be need for white-balancing. With film it's film selection, filters or post-processing.

Thank you mods for being equal in OT censoring. I'm sorry for joining that.

Closer to topic: the only satisfactory answer for the need of fast tungsten films are the ECN-2 motion picture films, like Vision3 500T with the newest grain technology. It's said it can be well pushed to 1000, or even to 2000 when needed.

ECN-2 chemistry is available and the formulas are public. Just buy a roll of 35mm and share with other people if you don't use so much.

For neg scanning, the different contrast of ECN-2 films won't be a problem. For analog printing, maybe, maybe not. With today's higher-contrast enlarging papers, it may not be a problem at all, and you can control contrast in film processing by pushing a little. Vision3 500T enlarged to Ultra Endura could be very interesting. I want definitely to try it when I have money to buy a big roll of film...

 

[JBrunner]

Having shot all sorts of film including motion picture film under various sources including discontinuous sources I have found that the color responses of most color films have a wide tolerance. An emulsion balanced to a particular temperature still has a wide curve, not an abrupt shut off that renders any deviation or spike a deal breaker. Small corrections at the lens or with ones supplemental lighting (adding an equal amount +green to HMI's to match the green in an ambient fluorescent situation for example, and then correcting the green out in post) are usually all that is needed to achieve professional results. Also, he popularity of tungsten balance film has always been based in the studio, one of the reasons they have always been slow, as there isn't generally a shortage of power or light in a studio. The type of bulbs used in consumer applications is a very small, probably even non-existent part of the equation concerning its current popularity or lack thereof.

Motion picture film probably won't be making any significant foray into still use. It was tried already in the US on a commercial scale and after a time failed as a business model, and that was back when everybody shot film. Unfortunately I think the chance of that scenario being resurrected today in any remotely convenient or economically feasible fashion is slim.

 

[Rudeofus]

Also, he popularity of tungsten balance film has always been based in the studio, one of the reasons they have always been slow, as there isn't generally a shortage of power or light in a studio.

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?

Motion picture film probably won't be making any significant foray into still use. It was tried already in the US on a commercial scale and after a time failed as a business model, and that was back when everybody shot film. Unfortunately I think the chance of that scenario being resurrected today in any remotely convenient or economically feasible fashion is slim.

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: