color LF

[armentor1@mac.com]

hello all,

I plan on extending a project that I'm working on to include LF color images. I'd like the end result to be prints sized at 20x24 or above. As I have very little experience with the color film process I was hoping to get recommendations on e6 vs. c41 and any filters I may need. The lighting conditions in the spaces are strange; interiors are often lit with tungsten, florescent and daylight. The capture will be scanned in and printed digitally. I'm solely using 4x5 with a 210 symmar.

Please see my website below for examples of the lighting - its illustrated in the
"After the Harvest" portfolio.

www.thesugarmillsessions.com

Thanks in advance -
dave

[sully75]

Not an answer to the question you were asking, but if it were me I'd be all over this with digital. Much easier to do color adjustments after the fact, much easier to get stuff right in camera. Probably cheaper if you already have the camera.

Just saying. I have very limited experience with color film, but find that I really like the results in really easy lighting situations, Portra has a look that's pretty unique and hard to match with digital. But I still end up screwing up easy color shots. Shooting something with mixed lighting with color film, I'm just not smart enough to do that.

YMMV.

[armentor1@mac.com]

That would be a much easier route to take but my digital equipment is very dated and can not handle the shadow detail nor would I get the desired resolution without spending tons of $$.

d

[rdenney]

The most detailed method for handling mixed lighting is to separately expose the subject under each light source using the correct filter. This is not easy to do in most real situations, especially in space is lit by lots of daylight, which can't be turned off easily.

Another approach is to replace tungsten bulbs with daylight-corrected bulbs, though this significantly reduces their output. That leaves the fluorescent bulbs as the outliers. I'm sure the real experts like Kirk will identify which film minimizes the greenish response to fluorescent. That escapes me at the moment.

My general experience is that negative film has more color latitude than slide film, and makes it easier to make these color corrections. Slide film adds saturation at reduced exposures (read: shadows), and the color differences become more obvious, while negative film becomes thinner at reduced apertures and the color differences become less obvious and easier to correct during scanning and post-processing. Crossovers are always the challenge, though (different color cast in shadows than in highlights).

You can, of course, rent digital equipment in most cities.

Rick "who doesn't much like the blue shadows given by most slide films for interior shots" Denney

[sully75]

That would be a much easier route to take but my digital equipment is very dated and can not handle the shadow detail nor would I get the desired resolution without spending tons of $$.

d
Got it. But for the record, color LF film is pretty friggin expensive, particularly if you are testing with instant film. And if you are printing large, you may need to get drum scans.

[Jim Andrada]

There's a lot of good stuff re mixed lighting on the dvinfo.net forum as it's a common issue in video. "Best" way is probably to use gel filters on all the light sources to bring them closer - including gelling windows to take care of daylight. You can get reasonably priced rolls of filter material that's intended to be applied to windows and doors. Admittedly more difficult if you're working on the 30th floor of a building as the filter material is best applied to the outside if a window falls into the picture. There are several "minus green" filters commonly used with fluorescent and often on LED sources as well - or replace existing fluorescents with better color balanced units.

Film or digital - mixed lighting is not good

[Ari]

I'd agree with filtering the light sources; you should end up pretty close.
Maybe your digital gear is still capable of giving you a decent preview, to see the colour of the light, but not to use as a replacement meter.
Once you have a decent-looking digital file, shoot some Portra 160 or 400, and bracket one stop over and under; negative film will be more forgiving than transparency.

[Noah A]

Don't make this out to be more complicated than it has to be. I'm assuming this is a fine/art documentary project, not commercial architecture work where the colors may need to be precisely matched. The first pic showed several different light sources and in my opinion that's what makes it interesting. If you filter it all to daylight then it'll look bland. And digital may not cut it for large print sizes, at least not without spending lots of cash on an MFDB and technical camera.

I'd shoot Portra 160 (they're going to be long exposures anyway, what's a few more minutes!), and frankly I don't think bracketing is necessary. You seem to have no problem with exposure. Just err on the side of overexposure, and you may have to increase exposure even more to deal with reciprocity failure at what I assume will be long exposures.

Scanning is a whole different issue, but there are many threads on that topic floating around.

[armentor1@mac.com]

Thanks for all of the tips guys. I'll start with portra and a few general filters first and see what results I get. I'll check back in when once I get a few images.

dave

[Thom Bennett]

Dave,

Check out Tom Paiva's work: http://www.tompaiva.com/p_night/night.html. I think he was featured in View Camera Magazine a few years ago. I'll dig it out and see if there's any info on his technique. Maybe an email directly to him would elicit some info.

[armentor1@mac.com]

looks good Thom thanks - if my initial push does not work out i'll send him an email and see where it goes.

dave

[jimmyp]

Try to find some NPL. Its been discontinued for a few years but it's beautiful in mixed light. I'd love to see some of the long exposures you have there on NPL.

Tom Paiva used to use a lot of NPL until it was discontinued.

Jimmy