Tungsten Film 4x5

[Lenny Eiger]

I heard that Kodak has discontinued their Tungsten film for 4x5 - EPY. Any news on whether Fuji will do the same? Have they made any statements that would indicate one way or the other?

Please correct me if I am wrong....

Tx,

Lenny

[Mark Sampson]

Portra 100T (negative) is gone as well.

[Gordon Moat]

Fuji have a new Tungsten transparency film called T64 (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/t64/index.html), which is available in Quickloads. At launch, the reviews were a bit mixed, possibly due to an early quality control issue. I have yet to try this, though quite likely I will at some point soon.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Sal Santamaura]

I heard that Kodak has discontinued their Tungsten film for 4x5 - EPY. Any news on whether Fuji will do the same? Have they made any statements that would indicate one way or the other?

Please correct me if I am wrong...Where did you hear that? As of now, Kodak's site says nothing about such a discontinuation:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.11&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/catalog/kodakEktachrome64tProfessionalFilmEPY.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.11.22.7&lc=en

Kodak did discontinue EPY in Readyload packets some time ago; the entire Readyload system is now being discontinued.


Fuji have a new Tungsten transparency film called T64, which is available in Quickloads. At launch, the reviews were a bit mixed, possibly due to an early quality control issue. I have yet to try this, though quite likely I will at some point soon.I wouldn't waste your time with T64. See my post at the end of this thread:

http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00Kqm5

[RJ-]

Fuji 64T is my favourite tungsten emulsion; it is beautiful and also cross-processes very well. Perhaps it takes more 81 series filtration balance than the Kodak 64T equivalent.

Strangely, I've found Q labs tend to produce fairly neutral colour balance with 64T yet on other Fuji emulsions, a magenta cast is more likely. however remembering to use an 81A or B series may help. Many modern fluo' lights also contribute to the yellow-green lighting cast and the 64T is particularly sensitive to this. With the worldwide trend towards energy saving lighting, the position of any tungsten film may no longer be uncertain. It is harder to distinguish mixed lighting sources and I wonder whether the difficulties experienced relate to a surprise in the sensitivity of the 64T emulsion to fluo' lighting.



Fuji 64T:

[Sal Santamaura]

Fuji 64T is my favourite tungsten emulsion; it is beautiful and also cross-processes very well. Perhaps it takes more 81 series filtration balance than the Kodak 64T equivalent...however remembering to use an 81A or B series may help. Many modern fluo' lights also contribute to the yellow-green lighting cast and the 64T is particularly sensitive to this...I wonder whether the difficulties experienced relate to a surprise in the sensitivity of the 64T emulsion to fluo' lighting...The revolting yellow-green cast I experienced with 64T occurred under 100% halogen lighting and properly balanced filtration. This was a standard setup long proven with RTPII. I exposed some remaining RTPII at the same time and had it processed by the same lab (using Fuji Hunt chemicals) in the same run. The old film was perfect.

Perhaps using a "Type B" transparency film in the situations you've shown can cover a color balance defect, but Fuji's product is ill-suited to the application it's intended for. Unless they've corrected their problem, but I haven't yet heard from the Fuji technical specialist who was asked to let me know when they'd figured it out.

I hadn't previously tried Kodak's EPY but, when the 64T fiasco happened, gave it a whirl. Except for slightly larger grain, the Kodak product is even better than 64T was. We'd probably do well to support it as long as Kodak makes it.

[RJ-]

Hi Sal,

sorry to hear you had such a negative experience with the Fuji emulsion.

Classically, tungsten film colour balanced for a reference temperature of 3,200Kelvin. I'm not sure why this arcane reference point is used anymore. As far as I can tell, modern tungsten lighting sources vary wildly from 2,800 - 3,400Kelvin. The monolithic status of the textbook reference may need to be revised and tungsten lighting be reconsidered as a heterogenous genre, particularly in view of manufacturers like Osram, who push for 3,400K as a standard.

If you check the Fuji datasheet for 64T Type II, the colour reference point is given at 3,100K:

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/PDF/RTPIIAF3-024E_1.pdf

and for Fuji 64T:
http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/film/films/pdfs/t64datasheet.pdf

The colour reference temperature is given at 3,200K.

Does that 'modern' shift discrepancy in temperature between the two emulsions explain the findings from your studio lighting set? Note that the Fuji datasheet omits the use of colour balancing filtration for both film at 3,100K and similarly at 3,200K. I think this is the point that Fuji needs revising and perhaps, not the emulsion. Anyone familiar with both emulsions will perceive a shift for the same lighting conditions before having to grapple with the heterogenous halogen lighting issue that is.

I agree that the Fuji 64 Type II emulsion would be preferable, however there are limits as to how much one can stockpile of this discontinued emulsion. I love the fine grain and tonality from the Fuji 64T, as well as its excellent reciprocity characteristics. The combination of those factors seem to be bereft in the Kodak emulsions since the disappearance of Kodak 100T negative film.

Kind regards,

RJ

[Sal Santamaura]

If you check the Fuji datasheet for 64T Type II, the colour reference point is given at 3,100K...and for Fuji 64T...3,200K...Does that 'modern' shift discrepancy in temperature between the two emulsions explain the findings from your studio lighting set?...No, Fuji's claimed change of 100 degrees K in aim point from RTPII to 64T doesn't explain the problem. My halogen setup is extensively tested and filtered to neutralize any shifts from lamp housing reflectors and bounce surfaces. Even on a high-CRI light box, transparencies shot in light 100K warmer than the film expects would look very, very slightly warm. We're talking about sickly yellow-green results with 64T.


...I agree that the Fuji 64 Type II emulsion would be preferable, however there are limits as to how much one can stockpile of this discontinued emulsion...In my case the limit was zero sheets of 4x5. Immediately upon reading the photo.net thread linked above I tried to purchase a number of boxes, but it was already gone from the retail pipeline. I still had some 120 RTPII in the freezer and used that to finish a project. There was more grain and less sharpness on the cover shot than would have been apparent with 4x5, but at least it didn't remind readers of vomit. :)

[Helen Bach]

...
Classically, tungsten film colour balanced for a reference temperature of 3,200Kelvin. I'm not sure why this arcane reference point is used anymore. As far as I can tell, modern tungsten lighting sources vary wildly from 2,800 - 3,400Kelvin. The monolithic status of the textbook reference may need to be revised and tungsten lighting be reconsidered as a heterogenous genre, particularly in view of manufacturers like Osram, who push for 3,400K as a standard.
...

I guess that 3200 kelvin (sic) is still the predominant colour temperature for tungsten film (ie Type B) because of the colour balance of most studio lamps. For critical work we have to balance all the sources to a common CCT, so why not use 3200 K? Of course there used to be Type A tungsten film as well - that was balanced for 3400 K which matched the overrun P1 Photoflood type of lamp that had a higher efficiency than the lower CT lamps, but at the cost of a short working life.

The use of lamps that can run at the more efficient 3400 K and have a reasonably long working life is an advantage that we didn't have in the past, but if you are dealing with a variety of tungsten sources it is generally easier and more efficient to lower the CT of a high CT source than it is to raise the CT of a low CT source.

Best,
Helen

[Ash]

As an aside, or actually to answer the OP.... when the Fuji reps came to our degree class, they were very vocal in assuring that Fuji will continue to back traditional film and have no plans to halt processing emulsions (noting the reintroduction of Velvia).