[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Correction re tungsten film shot in daylight



Darren Lew writes:
>What differences have you noticed when correcting tungsten balanced film
>shot in daylight with either
>
>1) no filter
>2) a Tiffen LLD filter
>3) an 85 filter.
>With any of the above options, is one more appropriate for a given
>situation than another?

1) no filter
The ease of being able to correct back from a 'blue' neg depends on the
stock. Kodak's emulsion design is very generous in red, so usually you have
enough information to be able to correct back to neutral quite well.
However using the same with Agfa was a different story - it was harder to
correct back because of Agfa's emulsion design.
The only reason for shooting without a filter (apart from the purpose of
look) is to gain 2/3rds of a stop in exposure - and thus a heavier neg -
albeit to the dissadvantage of the red emulsion layer.

>2 a Tiffen LLD filter
Where you have to shoot uncorrected or where the advantage of the LLD is
that it gives a little correction with virtually no exposure loss. This
will help both in telecine and print correction by adding a little amber.
It's also handy where you do want a blue look but not quite that much.

>3) an 85 filter
It all depends on what you call an #85  If you take the Kodak Wratten #85
as the standard - the in glass the best is the new Schnieder B+W #85. This
is slightly cooler than the TIFFEN #85 that is basically their own
standard.

>Can the color correction be so good that there's no reason to use a
>>filter at all?
NO If you want to use the full range of your colour corrector a well
exposed balanced neg is an advantage - its always easier to take out than
put in what's not there.

Regards

John Bowing
LEMAC
Australia

John Bowring  jbowring at lemac.com.au
Lemac Film & Video, Australia
Phone +61 3 9429 8588 Fax +61 3 9428 3336