questions about Kodak 64T film

[Michael Roberts]

For those of you who have experience with tungsten film:

My understanding is that if you want to shoot 64T outdoors, you should color-correct by using an 85B filter.

My question: Is it possible to use the film outdoors without the filter and, instead, color-correct digitally after scanning?

Thanks,
Michael

[BrianShaw]

... anything is possible and that is possibly probable with some effort. But a filter should be dirt-cheap since tungsten film isn't used much these days. I'll bet you can get one for free by just asking. Why work so hard if you don't need to.

[Michael Roberts]

Actually, I have an 85B filter. The reason I am asking is that 64 ISO is already quite slow for shooting outdoors in windy conditions. With a one-stop correction for the 85B, the effective ISO is down to 32...so, is it possible to avoid the filter and correct digitally?

[BrianShaw]

Yes.

[Michael Roberts]

Brian, with all due respect, "possibly probable" suggests guess-work. So, I would appreciate hearing from anyone with actual experience with this. Do you know for a fact that this is doable? If so, how difficult is it? I am not proficient at all with Photoshop. In fact, I only have a copy of the bargain version PS Elements available.
Thanks,
Michael

[Roger Cole]

But the reason for shooting tungsten film outdoors in the first place is/was usually to get lower contrast than daylight balanced film. If that's your goal, and you're going to correct digitally anyway, why not just shoot color neg? Then you can shoot Portra 400 unfiltered if you want speed, or Ektar 100 if you want saturation and still be lower contrast than transparency film.

[Sal Santamaura]

...to shoot 64T outdoors, you should color-correct by using an 85B filter...Is it possible to use the film outdoors without the filter and, instead, color-correct digitally after scanning?...


...With a one-stop correction for the 85B, the effective ISO is down to 32...so, is it possible to avoid the filter and correct digitally?The problem you'd face is that, shooting at 64 without a filter, you will underexpose the "yellow" part of the spectrum by one stop. There won't be anything there to bring up after scanning.

You can do this without a filter, but must expose at 32. You'd still have a blue transparency, but, since Ektachrome 64T has a rather long scale, wouldn't saturate the high values. I'd just use a filter. :D

[BrianShaw]

Brian, with all due respect, "possibly probable" suggests guess-work. So, I would appreciate hearing from anyone with actual experience with this. Do you know for a fact that this is doable? If so, how difficult is it? I am not proficient at all with Photoshop. In fact, I only have a copy of the bargain version PS Elements available.

Sorry, shouldn't have been so snarky. I have corrected, to my satisfaction, color bias from fluorescent... but not specifically tungsten film used in daylight. It was a total pain in the butt. I'll never do it again... too much work for little-to-no gain. I would have been much better off re-shooting the scene with the best filtration I could than trying to "save it". I used a full version of Photshop. Maybe I'm not as much of a power user as I should be (I admit freely to that) so maybe part of the probelem was my own ignorance.

[Michael Roberts]

Roger, my reason for shooting 64T outdoors is simply that I happen to have a box of 50 sheets of 8x10 64T that I want to shoot outdoors and I don't have any experience with it. I'm not selecting this film to achieve a particular goal (which might be better achieved with some other film). I just want to make the most of this film that I happen to have on hand.

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks Sal and Brian; makes sense to me. I guess I'm stuck with ISO 32...

[BrianShaw]

... or some different film. :)

[Michael Roberts]

One other question based on Roger's comment about lower contrast with 64T: I've seen a reference to this elsewhere (I think in Steve Simmons' book). Why does 64T have lower contrast? It's Ektachrome, right? Why would the contrast be lower than Ektachrome 100 EPP or EPN? Sorry if this is an absurdly stupid question...

[Drew Wiley]

This kind of stunt was a common one back in the 70's for "creative" artsy landscapes. They'd leave the filter off and then correct for the color temp in the darkroom. The result was pretty odd. PS will have an analogous result. But how old is your film? You could get some crossover in the highlights.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I happen to have a box of 50 sheets of 8x10 64T that I want to shoot outdoors and I don't have any experience with it...


...I guess I'm stuck with ISO 32...I've shot that film at altitude in Colorado and think you'll like the results very much, especially if there are clouds, snow or white water in your scenes. It can be a pain to compose through the 85B (or through a clear filter if you can't see well enough with the conversion filter in place, then switching to the 85B for exposure), but was well worth the trouble in my experience.

My attempts were in 4x5. At the time I thought the film was just a little short of sharpness. 8x10 seems like a perfect application -- enjoy!

[Sal Santamaura]

...Why does 64T have lower contrast? It's Ektachrome, right? Why would the contrast be lower than Ektachrome 100 EPP or EPN?...Because "Ektachrome" is a name, not an emulsion. Each of those films are designed for different purposes and results. Contrast (gamma) is one of the parameters emulsion designers control.

[Sevo]

But the reason for shooting tungsten film outdoors in the first place is/was usually to get lower contrast than daylight balanced film.

The main reason used to be its lower reciprocity - for a very long time it was the longest exposure E6 film offered by Kodak. Past 1s, EPY including a daylight balancing filter was faster than EPR, and the latter needed a ton of batch specific correction filters while EPY was fine to 100s with one standard CC filter. EPP sort of caught up, but it still needed more filtration - it was not until E100G/VS that a Kodak daylight film beat EPY in the long time characteristics.

[Drew Wiley]

I've been thinking about the same kind of thing. I've got about a hundred sheets of Fuji
8x10 CDU, which is basically tungsten-balanced old-style Astia. Very little recip issues and
good latitude for a chrome film - but ... might be getting a bit too old. Not exactly a panic
issue ... I paid very little for it.

[Heroique]

One other question based on Roger’s comment about lower contrast with 64T: I’ve seen a reference to this elsewhere (I think in Steve Simmons’ book). Why does 64T have lower contrast? It’s Ektachrome, right? Why would the contrast be lower than Ektachrome 100 EPP or EPN? Sorry if this is an absurdly stupid question.

Lower contrast? You must be referring to Simmons’ remarks about the landscape shot titled “Ranchland, San Luis Obispo” (p. 118-119). That beautiful California landscape, using Kodak tungsten Ektachrome + 85b, displays a lower contrast due to the photographer’s one-stop overexposure & overdevelopment of the film.

BTW, my favorite color landscape combo is Fuji 64T + Lee’s 85b filter – and I’ve never thought it gave me less contrast than Fuji’s daylight balanced films. (I haven’t used Kodak’s Ektachrome version.) You can see plenty of these personal images on this site. Nor has Lee’s +2/3 ev filter comp ever been a significant inconvenience to me under any number of diverse conditions.

[Michael Roberts]

Because "Ektachrome" is a name, not an emulsion. Each of those films are designed for different purposes and results. Contrast (gamma) is one of the parameters emulsion designers control.

Ahhh! Exactly; I thought Ektachrome signified an emulsion--with slight adjustments for tungsten correction..

[Brian C. Miller]

Use the filter. The specific problem is that with Photoshop Elements, it isn't that easy to correct for a color cast without something being white or grey in the scene. If you actually have that, then you'll be fine. Otherwise, definitely use the filter! I speak from recent experience with Fuji 64T. (It was $20 off per box, so I was fine with it.) Also, even with the filter, your results may be a little "cold." Shoot one sheet at optimum, and then send it in for processing. Adjust from there.

[Michael Roberts]

Lower contrast? You must be referring to Simmons’ remarks about the landscape shot titled “Ranchland, San Luis Obispo” (p. 119). That beautiful California landscape, using Kodak tungsten Ektachrome + 85b, displays a lower contrast due to the photographer’s one-stop overexposure & overdevelopment of the film.


Got it in one, Heroique. Thanks for your clarifying comments!

[Roger Cole]

Roger, my reason for shooting 64T outdoors is simply that I happen to have a box of 50 sheets of 8x10 64T that I want to shoot outdoors and I don't have any experience with it. I'm not selecting this film to achieve a particular goal (which might be better achieved with some other film). I just want to make the most of this film that I happen to have on hand.

Well that's entirely different and I don't blame you. I think I'd just try to filter it, though.


Lower contrast? You must be referring to Simmons’ remarks about the landscape shot titled “Ranchland, San Luis Obispo” (p. 118-119). That beautiful California landscape, using Kodak tungsten Ektachrome + 85b, displays a lower contrast due to the photographer’s one-stop overexposure & overdevelopment of the film.

BTW, my favorite color landscape combo is Fuji 64T + Lee’s 85b filter – and I’ve never thought it gave me less contrast than Fuji’s daylight balanced films. (I haven’t used Kodak’s Ektachrome version.) You can see plenty of these personal images on this site. Nor has Lee’s +2/3 ev filter comp ever been a significant inconvenience to me under any number of diverse conditions.

Nope, actually I was thinking of Bruce Barnbaum's recommendation in his book, both editions. I'd never shot LF transparency until very recently and haven't processed any of that, but he goes into some depth about this and the reasons, so I pretty much accepted that.

[Jody_S]

Roger, my reason for shooting 64T outdoors is simply that I happen to have a box of 50 sheets of 8x10 64T that I want to shoot outdoors and I don't have any experience with it. I'm not selecting this film to achieve a particular goal (which might be better achieved with some other film). I just want to make the most of this film that I happen to have on hand.

Please keep us posted, I have a box of that stuff too.

[jcoldslabs]

Michael,

I'm in the same boat with about 100 sheets of expired 8x10 64T. I haven't done it yet since I want to try it at home to avoid the expense of a lab, but you could always shoot it unfiltered and cross process it in C-41 chems. That way there is nothing to color balance afterward since the color shifts will be strange enough as-is and, one hopes, part of the appeal.

Anyway, please report back on how it works for you since I'm right behind you.

Jonathan

[Michael Roberts]

Jody (Shrek??) and Jonathan: thanks for chiming in. I will report back, though with the low ISO, I'm thinking about heading to Utah and photographing rocks. Fall winds are starting to kick up here.... thinking about the Virgin Narrows in a few weeks....and maybe before that, a couple of nighttime scenes of downtown Denver....

[chamon88]

Kodak 64T in cross processing give nice vivid color , not bad twisted color like fujichrome film or certain ektachrome film.

Good shooting Chamon

[Doremus Scudder]

Possibly stupid question:

Since tungsten-balanced films are kind of rare these days, and do a splendid job for what they were intended, and seem to be a tad too slow outdoors when filtered, why not just save your 64T for interiors or subjects with mixed lighting (cityscapes at night, interior/exterior shots, etc.) where it really shines and use another, more suitable film for outdoors? When I was shooting transparency film, I really like 64T for those applications.

It seems a waste to just shoot it up because you have it, unless, like Heroique, you find the combination advantageous for outdoor color work...

And, if you're going to be in PS anyway, negative film will certainly give you more leeway.

Best,

Doremus

[jcoldslabs]

In my own case all I can say is that I have the most EPY of all the color 8x10 films in my possession. (Not sure why other than I picked up much of it at reasonable prices over the years.) If I were to save it for the most "proper" applications (indoors under hot lights and nocturnal cityscapes), it would go completely bad before I shot my way through it. Color 8x10 film being rather outrageously priced these days, I can afford to shoot the 64T I currently have for whatever subject I happen to be shooting, including daylight landscapes, more than I can afford to buy film that might be a better choice.

Jonathan

[Michael Roberts]

Doremus, I simply do not do (have not done) any indoor 8x10 work (4x5, yes, but not 8x10). And I have been intrigued by a few photographer's reports--like Heroique's--about the qualities of this film for landscapes. Also, like Jonathan, I have to admit to a bit of sticker-shock. I just finished up two cases of 8x10 Provia that I bought about two years ago....and, I do want to use the 64T before it ages any further, as well. So, basically, all of the above.

[Drew Wiley]

Most current transparency film "pull" process quite poorly. The tungsten films, Provia II,
and Astia did fine. One routine practitioner of this technique to get higher key results was
the late Morley Baer. There's always a tradoff however, and I personally prefer the much
greater control masking allows, though I have certainly done my share of experimenting
with exp and dev adjustment. But with the demise of Cibachrome, I don't have much motive to shoot chromes anymore, except for a rare dye transfer project where the special
color circumstances warrant the considerable extra effort. And then only polyester-based
films are truly cooperative. The CDU stockpile I have is on older triacetate base, so not
dimensionally stable. Neither is the current Provia III, for some reason I can't figure out.

[David Lobato]

Several years ago I tried to use up a few extra sheets of 4x5 64T film outdoors with an 85B filter in the East Texas Big Thicket. The film was leftover from an indoor job. I also shot some daylight Ektachrome film (without the 85B, of course) for side by side comparisons. The results with 64T/85B were not quite as good as with the daylight film. The 64T colors were slightly muted and warmer. It's a personal opinion and depends on the subject. Plus the reduced speed didn't help, though it has less reciprocity correction.

[Drew Wiley]

Here's another consideration ... Just using the 85B gives you approximate correction for
daylight. But you'd still need additional filters for the actual color temp of the situation,
leading to an inevitable bit of image degredation. But with daylight film in natural light, you
typically need only one filter at most to accomplish the same thing, once the balance is
significantly off "mean noon daylt".