Flourescent lights and negative or transparencies

[David Brubaker]

I am going to do some shots of interior spaces that have 4100K fluorescent lamps. These shots will be scanned for use in our brochure.

I have previously used Portra 100T with good results. I have heard that this film has an extra layer that is better for flourescent lights.

Several questions: 1. Is it better to use transparency film, or negatives? 2. Is it better to use tungston or daylight film. I realize both will need to be filtered. 3. Which film?

Thanks for your input.

David

[steve simmons]

Try using the Fuji NPS or NPL negative film w/o any filtration. The new Fuji 100 Velvia is a pretty good transparency film for mixed lighting according to Norman McGrath and the article he just did for the Nov/Dec View Camera.

steve simmons

[John Cook]

Now retired, it has been a while since I worked in color and the materials have changed. But some general thoughts (from the 1990's):

4100K sounds awfully warm. Can you get a case of daylight tubes?

Most commercial filters seem to be calibrated for daylight (not tungsten) color transparency. But they are somewhat crude. Testing is necessary to tweak things a bit.

If your printer can scan color negative, it will give you much more wiggle room than transparency.

My experience with Velvia makes me a bit nervous about Mr. Simmons' suggestion. Velvia distorts reality by artificially boosting color saturation, bigtime. This effect can be spectacular with dull, flat subjects. The problem is that it is completely uncontrollable - the film has a mind of its own. I have shot ears of fresh corn in the food studio under carefully balanced electronic flash and had Velvia render them as day-glo international orange.

[David Brubaker]

Steve thanks for your input. I just reread that article, as well as the one by Norman McGrath in the March/April issue. By the way I find these articles extremely useful.

John, as far as changing the tubes - in this case it is not practicle since the interiors I mentioned are operating rooms in a hospital. There are the flourescent lights as well as the surgical lights.

I think I will try the new Velvia 100 and the Fuji NPS unfiltered, and back it up with the Portra 100T with and without filtration. The filters I am using are 81A and 81EF for the tungston film.

[Paul Shambroom]

If you shoot unfiltered color neg you need to give it at least a stop more exposure than rated speed under most artificial light. (for example I rate Fuji NPZ at 320 instead of 800). It works out almost the same as the filter factor would. I've been shooting unfiltered fluorescent and tungsten on med format high speed Fuji (400 or 800 ISO) for years and correcting in the scanning stage with great results. This works MUCH better than shooting chromes, which I used to compulsively test and filter with a color meter.

[Scott Walton]

Fuji's Reala had the extra layer in it to reduce the green but I think the Reala has been discontinued. It did a fantastic job with no cross over, unfiltered, on a jewelry store I shot. If your going to scan, shoot negs and make it easier on yourself. After scanning you can do a color balance and a hue and saturation filtration and pretty much be done with it. It has been awhile since I have had to use mixed lighting but do a read on Fuji films and choose the one speed that you need that has the extra layer.

[Henry Ambrose]

NPS will do this job GREAT. If you have only the 4100K lighting to deal with you will have NO trouble, and no filtration is needed at all. Its quite simple to correct in scanning, as this is a very minor correction on NPS. I would not bother with the transparency film, NPS will let you carry some detail in the light fixtures and get good shadow information all with one exposure. Shoot it as metered and one stop over. I rate it at 100-125. I do wonder why you are changing from Portra 100T if you have been happy with it in the past?

[tim atherton]

On the Velvia 100F (and also Astia 100F), while these are also supposed to have Fuji's "4th layer) technology, it doesn't work the same way (or at least as well) as it does with Neg film.

I tested both in the sort of setting where I would normally either filter (light or lens) or just use NPS (much easier). They were an improvement over previous tranny films, but not that much. The Astia disappointingly so (as the Velvia, while less contrasty and somewhat less saturated than the 50 version still has those characteristics, with much less range than the Astia - closer to but still less range than Provia imo).

I read the View Camera article. My experience based on testing was a little less optimistic. Apart from situations where the mixed light sources are relatively quite weak, or a minor part of the image, these two films really don't cope with mixed light/fluorescent all that much better than normal tranny film, even the Velvia, which is the better of the two. Especially a daylight/fluorescent mix, which always seems the hardest. The Velvia is somewhat better than the current "traditional" tranny films, but not to the same degree as NPS/NPL. So you are still going to end up doing lots of filtering or Photoshop work if you have a significant amount of mixed light sources - or even just one source of a particular type. In most cases, NPS would still be a better choice, unless you are "forced" to use transparency film...

[steve simmons]

>>>My experience with Velvia makes me a bit nervous about Mr. Simmons' suggestion.>>>>>

The Velvia has been reformulated and seems to do a pretty good job. The NPS/NPL are being used all of the time by architectural photographers and all of the reports are pretty good. Do not filter this material. You will make life complicated if you do and the results will not be as good.

the 4100 Kelvin probably means the lights are warm white or warm white deluxe. Changing tubes is not always practical so I just filetered at the camera (this was beofre the newer films).

The Norman Mcgrath book, Photographing Buildings Inside and Out will have charts for using traditional transparency films with these lights. I would start with tunsgten transparency film and filter according to McGrath's recommendations if you want to be completly safe. However, I would not hesitate to use the NPS/NPL films unfiltered.

steve simmons

[David Brubaker]

Thank you for all of your input. I'll let you know how it turns out.

David

[David Brubaker]

Robert,

Thank you for your advise for my earlier post. The Fuji NPS worked fairly well in a project that had a mix of flourescent and tungsten lighting. I probably should have switched the lights on separately and filtered one of the light sources. I have some additional spaces to photograph that are going to need some additional accent lighting. They are completely lit with 4100K flourescent lighting, and there will not be any natural lighting in the spaces. After doing some research it seems I can do this several ways. The film will be scanned and adjusted in Photoshop. Being located in Chicago I can rent a variety of equipment:
1. Use hot lights, and cover the lights with gel to bring them to 4100K to match the flourescent lighting.
2. Use Dynalight flash heads and gel them to match the flourescent lighting.

Any other suggestions, and should I use a filter at the camera lens to bring the 4100K back to 5500K?