Why no still picture "T" films anymore?

Michael Guzzi · Mar 25, 2017

I've recently was looking trough E-pay, and noticed the many different Tungsten balanced films that are no longer made.

I dug into their datasheets and found interesting info when comparing with the current offerings:

- They seem to suffer less from reciprocity (Fujichrome 64T type II seems real good with only +1/2 stop needed all the way to 256 seconds exposure); and

-Can be converted to daylight with less of a penalty (Portra 100T: +2/3 stop) than converting daylight to tungsten(Portra 160, Ektar 100: +2 stops (!)).

So my question: Why were they all axed? Were they considerably more expensive than their daylight counterparts, or the converted color rendition wasn't really great, or something else? To my eyes it seems nonsense, they seem all around more versatile.

guangong · Mar 25, 2017

I suspect that most tungsten balanced films were used by professionals under studio conditions. Most of this work is now done using digital capture rather than film photography for reasons of economy.

trendland · Mar 25, 2017

Thing on
the produktion scale of film manufactors.

For example the slide films from Kodak.

2001 they have had 14 different emulsion.

Slide films have always had only less than 7 - 8 % of the whole film produktion.

And that over all the years back to the
70th.

The very first emulsions wich where discontinued : Thungsten Films, Kodak EIR Infrared, together with some 220er Mid-Format confections.

Why? Because professional photographers dont need them any more.

They used this emmulsions till the late 90th only indoors (studio shootings).

The same is today with the Fuji you
mentioned.

with regards

Michael Guzzi · Mar 25, 2017

Why is that it was only used indoors? I surely would like a film which can be used both indoors and outdoors with small to minimal adjustments in exposure needed. If I want to use, say Ektar indoors I have to compensate two stops (less of a problem if you use flash et al of course, but this kills available light photography). Also on Ektar, with exposures longer than 1 second Kodak recommends running my own tests to determine how much to compensate exposure, and what if any filter I will need to use.

Ektar may not be the best example for indoors, but the point is that most current films lose 2 stops on the conversion to Tungsten.

trendland · Mar 25, 2017

......to the expansive of production, no -
they where not more expansive in produktion than other emulsions.

Perhaps only less than a few cent per
roll.

The fact is that the worlwide produkton
of film till - let us say 2000 has has an
eqivalent of (estimated) 3.500.000.000
rolls of color film.

Thungsten films has had (estimated)
0,2% from this. I guess at an absolut
maximum.

So all manufaktors together have produced (in the near of) 7.000.000 Thungsten films in one year.

But this was not really economical for them. Thing of the big maschines wich where designed to a produktion scale
of the eqivalent of 5.000.000 rolls per
month or much more than this.......

As a conclusion of that facts they use
a much better method of produktion.

They produces some rare film materials
in much higher scales, stored them and
they bought them for (let us say) the
next 6-9 years.

As digital workflow boomed in the middle
90th (professional studio shots)
film producers realised that their storage
of rare films where for a couple of many
additional years.

As a result of that they killed the produktion of that films.

Today you need 1,5 % - 2% of the
films wich where bought in 2000.

This makes (estimated) 70.000.000 film rolls in a year and this worldwide.

Let us guess if there is a need of 0,1%
for Thungsten films from special photographers whow loves this rare
emulsions.

Than you have the equivalent of 70.000 rolls of Thungsten film.

Fuji is absolutely unable for this kind of small produktion even when they are willing to make a new produktion for the next 30 years at once.

As a conclusion of that all you can estimate that the films you need
for special reasons and you could
bought them in the last years where
perhaps from the produktion out
of the late 90th.

with regards to you

to produce for one year.

trendland · Mar 25, 2017

.......but if you are absolutely willing to
use Thungsten film for avaible light -
its wonderfull - i know that - there could be a last chance for you.

Look at kodak motion picture films.
They have two Thungsten films in
use.

Here you can get also the rare " T "
in their names.

I mean the KodakVision3 family.

Excellent emulsions because of the fact
that these are the latest and most modern films Kodak ever made.

But i have to warn you : The situation of using this
film materials is identical to the situation
mentioned with still films in the mid 90th by profesionels in studios.

They become rare in use.

The digital workflow with " Red " Motion Picture Systems and some outhers is
"exploded".

And they are a little bit expansive due to confections (400ft, 1000ft rolls)

But you may have a look at Frame24 -
they ship worlwide.

And you have to develope these films
yourself.

Its a little bit tricky - but absolute possible.

The same stuff is avaible by cinestill.

I thing only one of Kodak s Thungsten.

Its the original Vision3 500T - as an
ISO 800 from cinestill.

Absolutely to expansive to my oppinion
$ 12 ,50 one roll 1 35-36 what a price ??

with regards

Michael Guzzi · Mar 25, 2017

I do understand Tungsten balanced emulsions sold far less, but why was it so, when all the tech sheets etc seem to point that it was a more versatile kind of film? I am genuinely puzzled.

The motion picture films do look interesting (I was aware of it), though I'd have to mix my own ECN-2 chems for optimal results.

MattKing · Mar 25, 2017

Michael Guzzi said:
I do understand Tungsten balanced emulsions sold far less, but why was it so, when all the tech sheets etc seem to point that it was a more versatile kind of film? I am genuinely puzzled.

Because the vast majority of film is shot by people who are more interested in snapshots than in something that requires use of complexities like colour compensating filters.
And because the relatively small percentage of film users who enjoy complexities like colour compensation filters includes a substantial number of people who use SLRs, and they don't like having to view subjects through a coloured filter.

jvo · Mar 25, 2017

daylight balanced flash and strobes...

trendland · Mar 25, 2017

...... a very good question a least.

Thinking on the mass of amateur photographers still using film till
2003,2004,2005 that was the end.

That wasn't the professionals,
that wasn't experienced amateurs,
these mass of users like your neightbor -
who was unable to find his camera because he went on hollydays next
morning, they bought 90% of the
produced films in that time !!

And they came back from holidays
with excellent 5x6 pictures.

If they bought a Thungsten film,
they would use them on the beach
without wratten at 6300 kelvin and
made lots of troubble to their laboraty.

What do they bought over the years ?

At first ISO 100 films for hollydays,
then ISO 200 films as a new standard.
Some years later ISO 400 also as a new
standard.
At least a "very good new film" :
ISO 800 ( on the beach ).

Iss never they qualitativ best system
wich will win.

The system bought by the mass is always the winner.

with regards

Michael Guzzi · Mar 25, 2017

So I guess it boils down to ease of use. Digital took over film for the same reason...

MattKing said:
Because the vast majority of film is shot by people who are more interested in snapshots than in something that requires use of complexities like colour compensating filters.
And because the relatively small percentage of film users who enjoy complexities like colour compensation filters includes a substantial number of people who use SLRs, and they don't like having to view subjects through a coloured filter.

I for one don't care about tinted subjects, I often use yellow and deep red filters and, apart from the dim image, there is no problem. But to each its own. I guess I like quirkiness too much for my own good.

Agulliver · Mar 27, 2017

The general public didn't use tungsten balanced films much except in super 8 cameras which had built in filters for daylight. The ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus was taking 90% of photos under natural light and the other 10% with "daylight balanced" flash guns/cubes/bulbs. He had no need for a T balanced film.

The pro's who had been using those films for studio work have pretty much all "gone digital".

AgX · Mar 27, 2017

Yes, those Super-8 colour films were of Tungsten sensitisation, but yet short-exposure optimized.
There was no chance of using a masterroll both ways.

Wallendo · Mar 27, 2017

Movie studios shoot tungsten film, usually without a filter, outdoors since they can color-correct at the digital intermediate stage.
For still usage there is less utility. Home indoor shooting is complicated by the fact that modern fluorescent and LED lighting is more energy efficient than incandescent light. These lights tend to have a different color temperature from Tungsten. As a result, Tungsten film is only really useful to a small niche of professionals who have not upgraded their professional lighting or moved to digital.
I have thought about this a fair amount, as I was a kickstarter backer for Cinestill's 120 film. I did this thinking I was helping to keep still film alive. I now find myself in possession of 5 rolls of EI 800 Tungsten film with no anti-halation and spend a lot of time pondering what I am going to do with this FrankenFilm.

Sirius Glass · Mar 27, 2017

Tungsten film never sold well. It was designed for incandescent lights. As florescent and mercury vapor lights became more prevent, using tungsten film was no longer the go to film because tungsten film could not handle these other two types of illumination. Sales dropped and tungsten films started disappearing.

flavio81 · Mar 27, 2017

to the OP:

Ferrania has the formula for 3M ColorSlide 640T and there's a chance it could be reintroduced in a few years.

jvo said:
daylight balanced flash and strobes...

I use the color correction filter on my flash, and the blue CC filter on my lens.

Michael Guzzi said:
Can be converted to daylight with less of a penalty (Portra 100T: +2/3 stop) than converting daylight to tungsten(Portra 160, Ektar 100: +2 stops (!)).

One of the long forgotten truths of tungsten film.

Gerald C Koch · Mar 27, 2017

Daylight films can be shot indoors with the proper filter. I don't know about the comment that tungsten films were more versatile. T films died out because the demand for them decreased. Besides most home illumination is either CFL or LED which both have a higher color temperature than tungsten bulbs.

The following article lists all the Wratten filters D -> T and T -> D. You will notice that they are usually in complements pairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wratten_number

MultiFormat Shooter · Mar 27, 2017

Wallendo said:
I now find myself in possession of 5 rolls of EI 800 Tungsten film with no anti-halation and spend a lot of time pondering what I am going to do with this FrankenFilm.

Put an 85B filter on your lens and shoot it daylight. That's what I'm going to do with my Cinestill 800T (in 120), when it arrives.

AgX · Mar 27, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
Daylight films can be shot indoors with the proper filter. I don't know about the comment that tungsten films were more versatile.

As indicated above they are more versatile as they can be adapted to daylight with lesser loss than daylight film to tungsten lighting.

However tungsten still films are optimized for long exposure times. That difference reduces their versatility.

Cholentpot · Mar 27, 2017

I shoot Vision3 500T uncorrected in daylight. I fix in post.

In the two years I've been shooting the stuff I've never come across a situation that called for T balanced film. I'm a hobbyist who shoots in all sorts of conditions, tungsten balance is one I've not encountered yet.

Sirius Glass · Mar 27, 2017

Cholentpot said:
In the two years I've been shooting the stuff I've never come across a situation that called for T balanced film. I'm a hobbyist who shoots in all sorts of conditions, tungsten balance is one I've not encountered yet.

Because it has not been available for years.

Ronald Moravec · Mar 28, 2017

Got 5 rolls of tungsten Portra in my freezer.

Kodak is going to reintroduce Ektar slide G film. It used to be a movie reversal "G" type for for sun and indoor tungsten. What the new stuff will be will be seen.

Digi cams have a simple adjustment for color.

Cholentpot · Mar 28, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
Because it has not been available for years.

??

Tungsten light situations still exist no matter what film stock is available to consumers.

flavio81 · Mar 28, 2017

Ronald Moravec said:
Kodak is going to reintroduce Ektar slide G film. It used to be a movie reversal "G" type for for sun and indoor tungsten. What the new stuff will be will be seen.

Ektar slide G?

Surely you don't mean Ektachrome 100G ?

trendland · Mar 28, 2017

In general:

Never use a Thungsten slide film under
daylight conditions without the correct
wratten filter.
Do it in the same way with normal slide
films under conditions less than 5600
degree kelvin indoor.
This was the importance for Super8 in the past by using slide film as for still
films too.
When they have used Thungsten Film in
the 90th they may have had theoreticaly some benefits with color negative in
studio shots.
Today it is in your own if you care about
a correct color compensation while the
shooting or in the post.
(not for slide film as I mentioned)

I can not realy find out the difference, if you have a filter on your camera either
you are filtering in your darkroom due
to quality aspects.

It may be much more simple for the
darkroom work when the negatives
are compensated before with wratten
filters.

At least it may depend on your personal
experience.

In a digital post nobody cares about
"Thungsten-Daylight Balance" of color neagatives.
In the way cholentpot use a kodakvision
500T
i therefore agree with him.

Some professionals were using 500T
up to ISO 2000 and were proud of having
smal grain.

That is a little bit unbeleavable but it may
be indeed with 65mm motion picture film.

I would ever prefer 250T but my great ever lasting love is KodakVision3 50D.

And that "D" stands for "Daylight"

with regards to you

Why no still picture "T" films anymore?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency