Tungsten Balanced,ISO800, 120 Film Project

I saw that Ferrania had backed it (!) following a link from their Kickstarter page.

I'm interested - have to decide whether I can go for this - the processing may be a killer. But 3200 (pushed) sounds very attractive - it's where I shoot my B&W usually, making this comparable.

And C41 - I thought CineStill might have been some exotic development.

Who makes their film stock for them? From the KickStarter it looks like they are planning to cut their own - for 120 anyway.
 
This is interesting, but I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

I remember in the past when we could order 35mm cine film, with processing included, for discount prices. It was also tungsten-balanced and it required a conversion filter. At the time, there was talk that cine film was not optimized for the range of shutter speeds used in still photography and it was generally considered a substandard film.

I'm intrigued by the claim that no filter is needed with this film and that it can be push-processed. I'm curious if there would be a shutter speed issue with this film, as was attributed to past cine films.

Question: Other than for specialized circumstances, is there an advantage to shooting tungsten-balanced film? Or, other than shooting under artificial light, does this film offer any advantage over Portra?

I'm actually hoping that there are good answers to my questions and that this could prove to be an exceptional new film.

- Murray
 
1) They already have it in 35mm - give it a go if you want to try
2) Tungsten-balanced = natural colours in artificial light. This is what white balance is for in digital. No filter is required for natural colours under artificial light but a filter will be required for natural colours in daylight. Daylight-balanced film has the opposite issue. Shoot either without filter for unnatural colours - the same as having the white balance setting wrong in digital.
3) I have no idea what "not optimised for the range of shutter speeds in still photography" would mean. Did they mean reciprocity failure with slow shutter speeds? Hard to see that being a practical issue with an ISO 800 film. Particularly not one with the sort of latitude this is said to have.

Commentary: http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2013/08/excellent-film-news-new-film-from-cinestill/
 
They're just taking short ends of 5219 and removing the Remjet. That's it. "Not Optimized for the range of shutter speeds" is bs. They're just trying to make it sound like they're doing more than just removing remjet.

5219 is commonly exposed at 1/4800th of a second. Short exposures are no issues, long exposures neither. I work with DP's who throw ECN2 film into their rangefinders and slr's to do camera tests then send it to Technicolor with no problem
 
Scrambler said:
1) They already have it in 35mm - give it a go if you want to try
2) Tungsten-balanced = natural colours in artificial light. This is what white balance is for in digital. No filter is required for natural colours under artificial light but a filter will be required for natural colours in daylight. Daylight-balanced film has the opposite issue. Shoot either without filter for unnatural colours - the same as having the white balance setting wrong in digital.
3) I have no idea what "not optimised for the range of shutter speeds in still photography" would mean. Did they mean reciprocity failure with slow shutter speeds? Hard to see that being a practical issue with an ISO 800 film. Particularly not one with the sort of latitude this is said to have.

Commentary: http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2013/08/excellent-film-news-new-film-from-cinestill/
Click to expand...

2. They're saying on the website that no filter is needed for daylight shooting.

I'm guessing they mean that filtration at the printing stage compensates effectively and/or negatives can be scanned and filtered in post-processing.

3. Yes, this reference was to reciprocity failure.

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
2. They're saying on the website that no filter is needed for daylight shooting.

I'm guessing they mean that filtration at the printing stage compensates effectively and/or negatives can be scanned and filtered in post-processing.

3. Yes, this reference was to reciprocity failure.

- Murray
Click to expand...
"Q: Should I use a filter on 800Tungsten in daylight?
A: You do not have to, but if you wish to cut down on exposure while helping to create a warmer image with more accurate color a 85 or 81 filter is recommended for shooting in daylight. All negative film is color balanced while the professional scans are made so there is some forgiveness. If you will be shooting mostly in daylight we recommend using a standard daylight film like Kodak Portra 400."

http://cinestillfilm.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions
 
Thanks, Scrambler. I found some questions at the bottom of the page, but I didn't get to that FAQ page. The answer makes sense.

- Murray
 
I'm interested in having new options in 120 instead of suffering with the increasing losses.

I also am supporting the Ferrania color film restart on KickStarter. That project is now fully funded - this one is not.

Indoor, concert and night time MF + astronomical opportunities.

Doesn't tungsten based film render the sky blue instead of black?


Texsport
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom