Nighttime/Artificial Lighting - Color Negs or just stick with BW?

[GarageBoy]

Ugh, so I've tried Portra 400 and Portra 800 at night time, and with streetlights, things look ok, but inside, no flash, daylight film looks a bit...yellow (duh, daylight balanced). Also, the blacks in the minilab prints are no where near black

Is nighttime photography in color better left to digital? Or do my scans just suck?

How did everyone match their background ambient to their flash lit subjects?

The only reason I picked up Portra 800 was for nighttime photos on the streets

 

[icebear]

For film there are tungsten filters (blue-ish to correct for the yellow spectrum). But you will loose at least 1 stop.
For digital there is manual white balance, either before exposure or in post processing.

 

[jim_jm]

Shooting daylight-balanced color film using available light at night, you will need to use color correction filters for the types of lighting you encounter. Under fluorescent lights you'll need to compensate for the greenish cast, and most incandescent lights will need to compensate for the excessive warm tones. Digital is probably easier, but great color results can also be achieved with film if you use the right filters and practice.

Unless you like to photograph a lot of colorful subjects at night like neon signs or carnival rides, B/W film gives great results for night photography. I use Fuji Acros 100 as it needs no reciprocity compensation for exposures up to 3 mins.

Since most night photos have a predominance of dark tones and shadow, many labs will compensate to make the image look brighter when they print. This will often result in washed-out, gray shadows, which is not what you intended.

A good website for night photography is the Noctures at http://www.thenocturnes.com/resources.html

 

[Dwig]

...Also, the blacks in the minilab prints are no where near black

The prints were either printed poorly or the negs were underexposed and the lab compensated, sacrificing the blacks to get the mid-tones closer to correct.

Is nighttime photography in color better left to digital? Or do my scans just suck?

Digital handles extreme low light "better" than film. At any one ISO, the noise in modern digital images is substantially less than the grain of film. It is also possible that you scanning technique could be improved, but there is less adjustment ability in scans than there is in digital RAW files.

How did everyone match their background ambient to their flash lit subjects?

We did it then the same way you have to do it now if you want the best results. You filter the flash to match the color of the ambient and then either filter the camera to adapt the film to the ambient and flash or, if using digital, shoot RAW and adjust the white balance, both the red/blue and the green/magenta. In-camera JPEGs often can't adapt adequately to the most extreme off-color ambient lighting.

It is often possible to do an adequate, but not excellent, job of balancing mismatched lighting in post. Again, the adjustment range is greater with digital than with scanned film.

Back-in-the-day, most mixed lighting color images were printed without complete correction for the imbalance. A compromise balance was generally used. Drop by a good library and browse through issues of National Geographic from the 1970s or 80s and you'll see frequent examples. Don't substitute with a web browse; view the "real thing" in a printed copy.

 

[GarageBoy]

But if you CTO your flashes, won't the whole image be yellowish? I don't mind the casts, I'm more disappointed in the lack of blacks in these scans/prints. Also learned that dark bar lighting isn't that flattering ...

 

[rolfe]

You have to CTO the flashes AND filter the camera if you're using daylight film. Some color negative films have enough blue layer to allow the correction in printing, but not most. NPH is the best in this regard, in my experience -- it handles mixed lighting well, especially daylight flourescent mix.

 

[GarageBoy]

Thanks
If I filter, I'll lose precious film speed

 

[Bob Michaels]

There is a reason to shoot b&w and there is a reason to shoot color. There is a reason to shoot find grained film just as there is a reason to shoot higher speed film. Those apply after dark just as they do in the bright sun. Now you may end up needing a tripod to deal with the low light levels at night especially if you used color compensating filtration with color film. But there is a similar reason to use a tripod in the daytime as well.

Nothing is different at night, just less light. Everything else is the same.

 

[Dwig]

...I'm more disappointed in the lack of blacks in these scans/prints. ...

This simply means that either the prints were poorly done or that the images were underexposed and the prints were intentionally printed lighter to place the mid-tones at normal levels.

In the case of the scans, it simply means that the scans were not adjusted properly or that the images were massively underexposed.

 

[Takkun]

If I know I'm shooting low light with anything that moves (myself included, without a tripod) I go digital, mostly so I can see if I got the shot or not, and adjust ISO as needed.

Like bob said, it's same as daylight, it's just the increased likelihood of slow speeds and possibly mixed light if you shoot flash. Color is my last choice since I'm lazy with flash.

Not long ago I found a box of photos from when I was in a bit of a Weegee phase, shooting TMax 100 handheld and flashing strangers on the street.
I was a gutsy teenager.

 

[Murchu]

Sounds like the lab 'corrected' your shots, thus why you are seeing no real blacks. Most labs will probably do the same, and you will either need to find a lab that understands you're shooting night scenes, or else you may need to shoot transparencies to sidestep the issue.

If shooting film, you'll need to use colour correction filters if you want to correct for the casts you're seeing. The advice others have given re: matching your flash to the nighttime illumination present is spot on - filter both your flash and your film to the light source in the scene. As mentioned also, this is going to eat up stops in terms of filtration on your lens, so you're more than likely looking at needing a tripod if you opt to use colour film. If you want to shoot handheld, you're looking at either b&w film, or digital, and a fast lens.

Re: film or digital, both are perfectly useable, you just need to deal with the limitations the night imposes in terms of lower light levels, much higher contrast, and probably mixed lighting sources. However you go, enjoy your shooting, there is something truly magical about the night when it comes to photography 🙂

EDIT: forgot to add, with the advances in high iso in digital, it is possible to shoot in ways handheld in the lowest of light levels that was just simply not possible before. This may be one distinct reason to shoot digitally at night. Being able to shoot relatively cleanly at iso 6400/ 12800 or even more, has opened up new realms of possibility, imo, and although not essential to shooting at night, is one very strong reason to look at shooting digitally.