Black and White Film and Artificial Lights

[Drew Wiley]

The specific tech sheets from major film mfg (Kodak, Fuji, Ilford) give you comparisons for daylight vs artificial light sources, along with recommended differences in filter factors. Most EU films don't. You can also balance artificial lighting the appropriate blue gels or lens filters, at expense to film speed. But there is simply no substitute for running your own tests until it's figured out. It can get complicated. For one thing, color response can shift at long exposures, and not just exposure
time compensation itself. A film that is quite consistent in this respect is Fuji ACROS, which also has reduced red sensitivity, much like a pan film with a no. 11
yellow-green filter on it. T-Max films are also relatively good for this kind of work, and have quite a bit of studio application testing behind them.

[Jerry Bodine]

Just a thought although I maybe way off track, would adding a blue filter to the light source increase the amount of blue which is what the film like to receive

Ian - have you considered using blue incandescent bulbs? I use them for indoor testing of my films for illuminating white mount boards;they're 500W and 4800K (fairly close to daylight color) in 12" reflectors. They may be a bit too hot for certain subjects, though. In the U.S. I get the best price from B&H: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._Lamp_500.html
I also see them on Amazon for a bit more.

Don't know if they're available in UK.

[Bill Burk]

Since you are totally in control of the scene, are you considering your lighting ratio?

The first thing I thought when I read your dilemma is that maybe you created a low contrast scene and your film needs to be developed longer to boost the contrast in the negative.

[Peter De Smidt]

Development primarily effects higher densities, whereas exposure primarily effects low ones. Is the lighting ratio a normal one that can be captured easily on film? In other words, do the shadows fall on Zone III and the bright areas with detail fall on Zone VIII? If so, then given that he doesn't have enough shadow detail, then he needs to rate his film lower. Once he gets the proper density in the shadows, then he can figure out if he needs to develop more or less for Zone VIII. If the lighting ratio is leads to a greater contrast ratio than mentioned above, then fill light should be added.

[IanBarber]

Thanks everyone for all your comments. I shall be doing more testing over the next few days, I will start at the beginning again and concentrate on making sure the negative covers a good range and then look at tackling the colour issue.

I have alsi just ordered a box of Kodak TMAX to see if that gives any better results over the Fomapan

[IanBarber]

there's a guy in the UK with excellent misleading data (some for sale) about all this, he has a few websites & forums and never gets anything right

Any more information on URL's etc

[LabRat]

You are applying bellows compensation factors, correct??? If you are severely underexposed, you might be 1,2,3 or so stops under depending on the bellows extension... (My EI for the Foma 100 is about 50- (but usually) 80 depending on the batch)

The Fomapan 100 should be fine, as the reciprocity factors listed are correct on the tech sheets (+1 stop@1sec/+3 stops@10sec/+4 stops@100sec) and I have shot them many times under strobe/tungsten/CFL/LED lights and work fine... Foma 100 has a slight green sensitivity peak (in the middle of the spectrum) and most lights have plenty of green, so I think not the issue... I don't think filtering the lights is needed, and the issue is elsewhere...

Steve K

[IanBarber]

Thanks Steve

Am I right in assuming that when you worked out the EI for the fomapan, this was based on Darkroom printing. I currently only scan the negatives and wasn't that sure as to whether a personal EI was something I should be looking at

[LabRat]

Thanks Steve

Am I right in assuming that when you worked out the EI for the fomapan, this was based on Darkroom printing. I currently only scan the negatives and wasn't that sure as to whether a personal EI was something I should be looking at

Yes, the corrected EI will produce good shadow density, and balanced highlights to the Dmax (the film takes a little overexposure pretty well), that wet prints well, and is nicely balanced for scanning... At the box speed, the shadow detail is a little thin, and the lower values are a little depressed, so a little tweak there helps... Slightly cutting development (try about a minute less) prevents the highlights from blocking up, so that is a starting point...

Nice film,but it's that reciprocity thing to watch for during longer exposures, but the tables do work well... And double check your bellows factors...

Good luck testing!!!

Steve K

[SergeiR]

When I was doing low key still life with the digital setup it was fairly easy because you could see the results on the screen. Now I have moved to 4x5 everything appears to be heading south on me.

I use the following lights

• Modelling lamp from a studio head (usually with a 10° grid)
• Incandescent light

I have noticed that the majority of my exposures look awful, under-exposed, mushy low values.

I use the manufacturers (Fomapan) reciprocity times for exposures longer than 1 second but I have noticed that their data sheet does mention these times are for daylight.

Does black and white film react differently to this type of lighting in any way ?

so instead of doing some esoteric calculations, have you ever tried to just calculate values using scale or scale target? I think best thing i ever did for my still life stuff is to by visual target scale that takes all the guess work away - you just stick it to your object, focus, measure compensation on ground glass and move on