Why use Tungsten film ?

[digiconvert]

I understand the reason for Tungsten film existing due to colour temperature considerations but given the slow speed of the Fuji slide film (64 ISO) why not use a faster film and a blue filter ? After all even a 200ISO film reduced 1 stop is still 100ISO. I know that for still life shots the shutter speed isn' t likely to be a problem and accept that grain of the 64 may be far less but given modern film technology is it really worth buying 'T' film ?

 

[railwayman3]

I'd suggest that the Tungsten film is specifically designed as an exact match for the color temperature of the tungsten lamps, and that daylight film with a filter is a slight compromise when total accuracy is needed (and remembering that a main use of the film will be product photography where accurate color is needed, and slower shutter speeds are not a problem).

I'm sure I've read also that daylight film with a filter is less satisfactory than the "other way", i.e. artificial light film filtered to use in daylight. (That would seem to accord with Kodak only producing Super-8 movie cassettes in "Type A" film?)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

An 80A filter requires 1-1/3 stops compensation, so you're back to 64 with an ISO 200 daylight film.

Since there is way more light outdoors, it's arguably easier to shoot tungsten all the time and filter in daylight than the other way around.

 

[nickandre]

Super 8 mm film uses 64t because the theory of super 8 is to use tungsten film so that when you're indoors and have less light the speed is higher. That theory was made in the 1970s when 160ASA was a blazing fast film. Nowadays I can't imagine using tungsten film for anything really. But that's just me.

I don't think that that's entirely true. Daylight film is an exact match for daylight, which is a set number of degrees kelvin away from tungsten illumination. Plus tungsten is not always the same temperature.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Once when I was traveling, I brought two cameras--a 6x9 Bessa II with 105/3.5 Color Heliar loaded with daylight transparency film for outdoor daytime shots and a Vitessa-L with 50/2.0 Ultron loaded with Ektachrome 320T for indoor and night shots. It worked out well.

 

[2F/2F]

I understand the reason for Tungsten film existing due to colour temperature considerations but given the slow speed of the Fuji slide film (64 ISO) why not use a faster film and a blue filter ? After all even a 200ISO film reduced 1 stop is still 100ISO. I know that for still life shots the shutter speed isn' t likely to be a problem and accept that grain of the 64 may be far less but given modern film technology is it really worth buying 'T' film ?

You have to shoot it to appreciate it. It is absolutely gorgeous film. It looks so realistic. It is also great for long exposures. Plus you don't have to use a filter. On top of that, it is also incredibly sharp and fine grained.

On the not-so-fine-grained side of the spectrum, Kodak 320T was my favorite color film. Portra 100T was not far behind. I still have about 30 rolls of 100T in 120 format, but I am totally out of 320T...ARGH! It was the greatest film for shooting in low light. I have two pro packs of 160T left, but not a single exposure on 320T. I shot my stockpile already.

I agree that the low number of people using hot lights and the low speed make it rather frustrating as far as tungsten film selection goes. However, the film is killer for anything still shot with hot lights. If daylight was 3200K, I would use this film more than any other!

 

[Ian Tindale]

One thing to bear in mind though: tungsten film matches a specific photoflood lighting type and colour temp. Many people think that it's just any artificial light produced in a tungsten light bulb, but the kind of light bulbs in the home aren't actually the same colour temp as a photoflood light bulb. So, tungsten film indoors on random incandescent bulbs is probably as inaccurate or perhaps more so, than daylight film and a selection of accurate blue filters to randomly choose from.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

And with the increased use of compact fluorescents all bets are off. Might as well give up and shoot B&W.

 

[gr82bart]

Tungsten film at twighlight gives rich blue skies and that feeling of night. Tungsten film shot on a hazy or rainy day and then cross processed gives a surreal colours the dullness of the day filters out. Finally tungsten film in the studio with tungsten lighting gives perfectly matched colours as others have pointed out. Using the blue filter with higher speed daylight film is the analog version of Photoshop.

Regards, Art.

 

[Ole]

I don't think that that's entirely true. Daylight film is an exact match for daylight, which is a set number of degrees kelvin away from tungsten illumination. Plus tungsten is not always the same temperature.

You got that exactly backwards...

"Photographic daylight" is a defined colour temperature, which is not necessesarily even close to real-life daylight illumination. Tungsten films used to come in two different versions for different colour temperatures (but one was dropped some years ago IIRC), and was exactly matched to standard tungsten photofloods.

 

[JBrunner]

The majority of tungsten chrome is used in advertising. One of the great things about it is being able to shoot under the same lighting set up that the film or video guys are using, as still and motion shoots are sometimes combined. This saves time, and time=money on a commercial set. Using an 80A on a faster daylight emulsion gains little or nothing speed wise over the 64 because of the filter factor, and the structure if the film isn't as tight.

 

[benjiboy]

One thing to bear in mind though: tungsten film matches a specific photoflood lighting type and colour temp. Many people think that it's just any artificial light produced in a tungsten light bulb, but the kind of light bulbs in the home aren't actually the same colour temp as a photoflood light bulb. So, tungsten film indoors on random incandescent bulbs is probably as inaccurate or perhaps more so, than daylight film and a selection of accurate blue filters to randomly choose from.

That's quite correct Ian, 64T is balanced for a colour temperature of 3100 K photoflood bulbs are about 3500, K and need an 80A filter to balance the colours, the best lamps to use with 64T in my experience are Photopearl P2/1 500W they have a colour temperature of 3200K and give very acceptable results without filtration and last 100 hours.

 

[PhotoJim]

JBrunner said it. "...the structure of the film isn't as tight". You're better to shoot an ISO 64 film unfiltered than to shoot an ISO 200 film filtered. Lower grain, higher sharpness.

 

[Photo Engineer]

That 200 daylight film filtered to match tungsten will still have the grain and sharpness of a 200 film which is poorer than a 64 film. A 64 tungsten film will match a 64 daylight film for grain and sharpness in most all cases.

So, add this into the consideration as well.

PE

 

[budrichard]

At one time Tungsten film was available up to 320 ASA from Kodak and could be pushed. It was therefore the choice for available light indoor film photography, particularly for sports, concerts and photojounalism. I never pushed but frequently used 320T Ektachrome with good results.
With the advent of the digital age, acceptable results for some are being obtained with digital. Demand has gone to almost zero for Tungsten film and the only surviving T film is very slow ASA.-Dick

 

[Pupfish]

Never was a big fan of tungsten films myself, but it stuck in my craw that a noted commercial/food photographer once told me that for twilight shooting Ektachrome 64T had the best reciprocity characteristics (incl. lack of color shifts) of any reversal film.

That was easily 15 years ago, however; more recent formulations of Fujichrome daylight-balanced products seem to equal E64T in this regard, and retain their reciprocity characteristics and have better grain structure even pushed to ISO 200.

Too, by about a dozen years ago (long before digital capture made it trivial for just about anyone to change color balance), the niche for tungsten films had already dwindled to almost nothing. This was after newer negative emulsions like Reala and Supra gained their reputations for working so well with multiple/mixed light sources. Scanning these eliminated the need transparency films for commercial shoots in many instances (becoming almost foolproof with the greater latitude, with entirely adequate results in a hour from most any minilab. The majority of E6 one-hour places went under, long before digital capture, due to this).

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tungsten balanced films need either less or no filtration in late daylight shooting due to the higher red content of the light, but in twilight, all films require some filtration due to the blueness.

Light varies throughout the day from red to white to blue white to red to bluish white.

PE

 

[PHOTOTONE]

As I recall, and if wrong, please correct me, but it seems that Tungsten based color negative and color transparency films have better reciprocity effects for longish exposures than Daylight balanced films. Therefore, even if you were to "convert" your Daylight balanced film to an approximate "Tungsten" balance thru the use of a filter, you still would face an issue with reciprocity calculation for longer exposures that is minimized with Tungsten balanced film. I am speaking here of just "still" films, as movie film stocks are all exposed at very similar shutter speeds regardless of whether Tungsten or Daylight balanced.

 

[Steve Sherman]

Years ago we would use Tungsten Ektachrome for a longer scale chrome. If we needed more contrast we'd go back to Daylight Ektachrome. Each film would be filtered back to correct white balance with CC filters but the Tungsten shot would always be less contrasty, smoother to my eye.

Slight overexposure and some pull processing and you would get chromes which looked markedly different than the daylight film.

As stated the film deals with reciprocity much better.

About when I was getting out of studio work Fuji came along with Velvia that changed everything

 

[Photo Engineer]

With today's technology, reciprocity of all fims can be made to be almost exactly the same.

As for Digital, it "corrects" everything, and thus the photo in my gallery of the surfers in the late afternoon is "fixed" by digital and ends up being awful. I tried to re-create that scene, taken in late afternoon, using a digital camera and it corrected for the back lighting and for the steely hue, and ended up with a "perfect" but unusable photo. It would have taken hours in PS to "fix" the photo and make it look like the analog result that I got and that I like for artistic purposes.

PE

 

[2F/2F]

That's quite correct Ian, 64T is balanced for a colour temperature of 3100 K photoflood bulbs are about 3500, K and need an 80A filter to balance the colours, the best lamps to use with 64T in my experience are Photopearl P2/1 500W they have a colour temperature of 3200K and give very acceptable results without filtration and last 100 hours.

It is 81 and 82 series filters that you use for minor tweaking of color temperature when using tungsten films. An 80 series is a major tweak. The tungsten film gets you in the ballpark of 3200-3400K, and the 81s and 82s are used to exactly match whatever tungsten lamps you happen to be using.

 

[DanG]

An 80A filter requires 1-1/3 stops compensation, so you're back to 64 with an ISO 200 daylight film.

Since there is way more light outdoors, it's arguably easier to shoot tungsten all the time and filter in daylight than the other way around.

Absolutly! Plus, there are two distinct advantages to shooting Tungsten balanced emulsions outdoors with an 85B filter on the camera ( only 2/3 of a stop exposure compensation is required) Tungsten balanced emulsions generally exhibit lower contrast than Daylight balanced emulsions (longer tonal scale) and they have much better reciprocity characteristics than Daylight balanced emulsions.

Dan Gordon
Calgary

 

[AutumnJazz]

With today's technology, reciprocity of all fims can be made to be almost exactly the same.

As for Digital, it "corrects" everything, and thus the photo in my gallery of the surfers in the late afternoon is "fixed" by digital and ends up being awful. I tried to re-create that scene, taken in late afternoon, using a digital camera and it corrected for the back lighting and for the steely hue, and ended up with a "perfect" but unusable photo. It would have taken hours in PS to "fix" the photo and make it look like the analog result that I got and that I like for artistic purposes.

PE

That's why so many pro digital users use custom white balance.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, in this case it would be custom "red" balance.

But hasn't the argument that real tungsten films have better grain and sharpness struck a chord here? Using a filtered 200 film is a no win situation in terms of qualiity when compared to a real tungsten film shot under tungsten light.

PE

 

[Markok765]

Well, what if you are using 35mm to shoot a room, and you want to light the room with lamps to make it look more natural?