Ektar 100 Revisited

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Michael Benveniste, Mar 25, 2010.

  1. A couple of months ago, the claim was made here that the 'usual
    "daylight/tungsten" rule doesn't apply' to Ektar 100. I was curious
    about this claim, so I decided to try a somewhat controlled test.

    I set up a simple shot on my copystand and took 6 shots, each lit with
    a single bulb. 2 of the shots were taken with a daylight-balanced
    fluorescent with a claimed CRI of 88. 2 were taken with an ordinary
    household 75-watt bulb, and 2 were taken with a 250W ECA 3200K
    photoflood.

    I used aperture priority mode on the F100. Nothing was touched
    between shots except to change the bulbs and trigger the release.
    Before shooting, I turned on each bulb for 3 minutes to minimize
    any startup effects.

    After shooting the rest of the roll, I had the film processed at a
    local "dip and dunk" lab and a traditional contact sheet made.
    This allowed me to view the results before any corrections were
    applied in the printing.

    Here is a scan of the relevant frames from the contact sheet:
    http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/ektar.jpg

    As you can see, the results are pretty much what you'd expect from
    any daylight balanced C-41 film. The background of the copystand
    is an 18% neutral gray. So the "CRI 88" fluorescent has a greenish
    cast, but both the consumer bulb and photoflood shots have the
    traditional strong orange cast.

    My conclusions? Ektar 100 doesn't break any of the traditional rules
    for daylight balanced film. But modern analysis and digital correction
    permits permits you to get perfectly usable prints and scans from
    it, even when done automatically in a minilab.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 25, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Your claim was that there was something special about Ektar.

    The contact sheet was done using traditional analog techniques, and I
    asked the lab not to apply any filtration. The daylight shots on the same
    role verify that there was nothing unusual done. Any such filtration
    would have been independent of the film used.
    Please feel free to post a link to such specs. While household lights
    have changed a bit, photofloods have remained the same. They are
    still 3200K black-body light sources, just like in the 1950's.

    All of which is totally irrelevant to your original claim, which was
    'Don't ask me what Kodak has done with that film, but the
    usual " daylight/tungsten" rule doesn't apply here.' It still does.
    Which is why I tried both a photoflood and a modern 75-watt
    incandescent bulb.
    In addition to using the modern 75-watt incandescent bulb as you
    suggested, I also used a daylight-balanced "full-spectrum" fluorescent
    bulb. The typical tri-phosphor compact fluorescent sold as an
    incandescent replacement has a much worse green spike. You can see this
    by examining the spectral power distribution curves of such bulbs.

    Try starting here:
    http://www.gelighting.com/na/busine.../learn_about_light/spec_light_color_final.pdf

    Of course, you could just try shooting under such lights.
    Nothing you've written refutes my claim. When it comes to how it
    handles tungsten lighting, there's nothing special about Ektar.
    Please post a link to where I've made such a claim. I'm lucky enough
    to have two nearby pro labs, plus a lab which does black and white
    exclusively.

    I'll be generous and assume you confusing me with someone else.
    Those results are from modern digital correction techniques
    that could be applied to any C41 film.
    That's not what I'm smelling right now. I smell someone blowing
    smoke, and that someone is you.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 26, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Agreed. The problem, of course, is that daylight isn't daylight either,
    depending on time of day, time of year, latitude, haze, and clouds.
    The problem I saw with using flash was keeping everything else
    constant. I would have had to gaff something like a SBR-200 to the
    support, and even then I would have ended up with a harder light.
    How about a scan from a FS4000US? Here's one of the 3200K shots. I
    used VueScan, set the film type to Ektar and the color balance to
    Tungsten. I did no other post-processing other than to crop.

    http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/ektar-after.jpg

    That's exactly the same approach I'd use with any daylight-balanced
    film shot under photofloods.
    Since I don't have one, the best I can offer is the 18% gray background
    as a reference. Sorry.
    I could have done that, but the differences were so dramatic I decided
    to go with what I had.
    I'm out of Ektar right now, and I'm not sure I'll be buying any
    more soon. Both of the labs I use currently have the same
    turnaround time for E-6 and C-41, so Ektar loses one of its
    key selling points. What I do have in the fridge is 160S and
    Velvia, so I'll probably use those up first.

    This coming weekend? APX 100 and infrared digital.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 26, 2010
    #3
  4. Just to address this part of your post, I don't have evidence at hand to
    back this up (I've searched), but I'm fairly certain that today's
    incandescent bulbs are not substantially different from those made 50,
    or even 75 years ago for that matter. Despite much vaunted
    "technological advance" in things electrical, tungsten is still
    tungsten, and incandescent bulbs are pretty simple devices. No great
    magic there, so I think the results one would get with that source of
    illumination would not have changed much, if at all.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Mar 26, 2010
    #4
  5. Michael Benveniste

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    3200° K. (and 3400° K.) are the standards for artificial light used for
    *photographic* purposes.
    Bulbs used for photography (unless they're daylight bulbs) still use
    that standard.

    Ordinary domestic incandescent bulbs are more like 2800° K. That hasn't
    really changed in 70 or more years; your classic 75 watt tungsten
    (non-halogen) lightbulb is virtually identitcal to its ancestors.
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Mar 26, 2010
    #5
  6. Michael Benveniste

    Noons Guest

    Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2010 1:00 PM:
    Nope, it wasn't. What I said is that with modern negative films I find I don't
    have to worry as much about colour balances. I didn't explain why.

    Yes, Michel. But folks don't use photofloods to light their homes, coffee
    shops, restaurants or just about any indoor situation. Of course if you use
    photofloods in a studio, I'd expect you to use a CC filter!
    I am not talking about lab conditions, I'm talking about loading up a film and
    going out to take photos. Notice the difference? That;s why I said you folks
    need to get out more...

    Nope, it doesn't. The usual daylight/tungsten rule is for 3200K lighting. You
    don't find that lighting temperature anywhere nowadays without going looking for
    it explicitly. Hence, you don't apply that rule everywhere.

    Dunno. You must have different 75W incandescent bulbs from the ones available
    here. I can guarantee you that most of the ones you get at the local Wollies or
    Coles are simply not in the 3200K class. Far from it. And I have the dslr shots
    to prove it.


    I do. We have fluoro lighting at the office and it has no green component
    anywhere. What can I say?

    I'd rephrase that as: when it comes to handling *3200K lighting*, there is
    nothing special about Ektar. How you get that *specific* lighting might be a
    problem nowadays, here in Australia at least.

    Not really. I don't select auto-exposure for every frame of my negative scans.
    Usually I pick one of the frames with what looks like average density and
    auto-expose it. I then use the result for the rest of the frames in that strip,
    unless there is something obviously different. Rarely do I need to compensate
    for any colour balance with artifical lighting. I recall the only time I had to
    seriously adjust was with street lighting with sodium lamps: that is absolute
    murder on ANY film!

    Good. Here is a hint: you keep the smoke, I keep my film images taken with
    modern lighting rather than 50 year old photoflood bulbs. OK?
     
    Noons, Mar 26, 2010
    #6
  7. Michael Benveniste

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2010 2:21 PM:
    Ask them, Bret: I don't make cameras, I just use them like everyone else here.
    My guess (and that is a pure guess!) is that they use a value that pro folks can
    easily relate to. So they use the old 3200K formula: after all, studio lighting
    uses that unless it's flash.
    Fact is: 3200K lighting you can only get with photofloods or similar specialist
    lighting nowadays.

    Try it. Set your dslr to 3200 (not the little indoor lighting icon, the actual
    temp) and take a few photos indoors at a restaurant or shopping. See if you get
    a natural balance or if you have to tweak the raw WB.
    I've found for example that my D200 produces the best results indoors at my
    place when I pin it at around 4400K. I have low-voltage built-in spotlights in
    most ceilings. 6 per room, with dimmers.
     
    Noons, Mar 26, 2010
    #7
  8. Michael Benveniste

    Noons Guest

    David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2010 4:10 PM:

    Oh I don't know, David. Just a 30 second search has produced this site:
    http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/article/colour-temperature/
    where you can clearly see the differences with modern lighting. It provides
    technical information on the actual colour temperature of many light bulbs that
    you can get at the local shopping. Check for example the light saver bulbs and
    their colour temp: I guess 6500K is a bit different from 3200K, no?

    At first look you are absolutely right, tungsten is tungsten. But there is such
    a thing as glass and mirror coatings. Once again: check that site carefully for
    many, many examples of classic light bulbs with completely different colour
    temps. For example, these:
    http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/product/2540/m258-12v-50mm-4000hr-cool-white-50w-38-degree-4500k/
    are what I use in my house spotlights. 4500K, dude.
    What can I say? Perhaps tungsten is not tungsten after all?


    Like I said, folks: open your minds up! Standards of 50 years ago are NOT
    today's standards. We need to rethink all those "recipes" of yore, in a modern
    context.
     
    Noons, Mar 26, 2010
    #8
  9. Michael Benveniste

    Noons Guest

    Rol_Lei Nut wrote,on my timestamp of 26/03/2010 6:27 PM:
    You couldn't be more away from modern lighting. See my reply to David.
    Yes indeed: back in the 60s I'd have agreed with you on the 2800K. Like I said:
    check that site. You'd be hard pressed to find a light bulb in there with 2800K
    temp! And that's just one of many other sites...
     
    Noons, Mar 26, 2010
    #9
  10. Michael Benveniste

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    I just measured the few incandescent bulbs left in my building with my
    thermocolourmeter:
    Bathroom light, 50W 2600° K.
    Hall light, unknown wattage 2800° K.
    Attic light, 25W 2800° K.

    Yes, you *can* get fancier incandescent bulbs with different colour
    balances, but the everyday plain-vanilla one are still mostly 2800° K.
    or less.
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Mar 26, 2010
    #10
  11. Revisionist history. The topic was Ektar 100 specifically. See your
    actual quote below.
    Still waiting for you to post specs. Your claim was specifically about
    tungsten lighting. You actually need a stronger filter if using
    standard household lighting, be it fluorescent or incandescent.
    Fail. Your original claim was "Ektar 100 is great indoors with tungsten
    light." That's what I tested, with two different forms of tungsten
    light.

    Are you sure you know what tungsten light _is_?
    As of late last year, you don't have 75W incandescent bulbs available
    for sale in Australia at all. So I don't know what you are shooting
    under or what corrections your dSLR is applying.
    The human brain is very good at color correction. Film? Less so.
    I have no idea which brand you use in the office, but Philips bulbs
    also show the same spikey distribution:

    http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/p-5123.pdf

    Your office lighting is likely 4000K "cool white" fluorescent.
    Whatever you are shooting under, it wasn't tungsten. Here's what
    your government has to say:
    http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/energyefficiency/lighting/

    Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) come in a range of colours, these include:
    Warm White - provides a soft warmer light comparable to light provided
    by traditional incandescent light bulbs
    Cool White - provides neutral light comparable to office lighting
    Daylight - similar to outdoor light comparable to midday lighting
    conditions.

    I took a look at Woolworth's homeshop.com.au site. The majority of
    bulbs offered there are "warm white." In fact, I even find one with a
    listed color temperature:
    Woolworths Essentials 11w Lookalike Es 2700k WW

    2700K is _warmer_ than both the tungsten bulbs I tried.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 26, 2010
    #11
  12. Michael Benveniste

    Noons Guest

    Rol_Lei Nut wrote,on my timestamp of 27/03/2010 12:51 AM:

    It's not really "fancier". It's just an availability thing. I forget when was
    the last time I had 2800 bulbs anywhere in my house. Over here, the "daylight"
    type seems to be all over the place. Mostly because folks find them a lot
    easier for reading and for any type of at-home work.
     
    Noons, Mar 26, 2010
    #12
  13. Michael Benveniste

    Noons Guest

    Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 27/03/2010 1:37 AM:
    You started with "tungsten is 3200K!", now "tungsten is 2700K!" and seemingly an
    entire range of temps all the way to daylight, and I'm the revisionist?
    So? Do you think the lighting changes because of the film?
    Please check the reply to David and stop the nonsense quote/re-quote, this is
    not a torah reading/discussion class, OK?
    No. My claim was that I don't find Ektar 100 as affected by the
    daylight/tungsten rule under modern lighting conditions. Period.
    No you don't. It depends on the type of lighting. Stop thinking your house
    lighting is the same as everywhere else in the world. Not everyone uses the
    same as you, ok?

    Michel: you did not test with *MY* lighting nor did you bother asking what it
    was, you just ploughed along assuming -erroneously- it was the same as yours. By
    your own admission, so-called tungsten lighting varies enormously in temp. Had
    you tried the most basic approach which would have been *asking* what the
    conditions were, you could then have had a valid test. Please stop the semantics
    right now, you can't carry through that sort of nonsense.

    Are you? Because according to you it varies from 2700K to well over 3200K all
    the way to daylight. Surely that tungsten atom is showing some signs of stretch...



    Exactly and precisely: you don't know what I am shooting under! As to the
    corrections, given that I stated "set the dslr to 3200K", I find it strange your
    claim you don't know what that was. And you didn't bother to ask the entire
    conditions of the test. You simply carried along assuming a lot of things that
    are nothing but that: assumptions. But hey: keep "testing" like that....

    Check the site I showed to David. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the
    manufacturer.
    Dunno, but I'll check Monday.


    That's not even new. Commerce and most public venues changed their lighting
    here ages ago, for a lot of economic reasons. You simply cannot find any public
    place with 2700K lighting anymore, in any major city. Other than those who keep
    lighting low for ambiance. That's a totally different consideration.

    No. Totally wrong. They come in a range of *colour temperatures*! And of course
    "colours" as well, but that is a totally different thing!


    LOL! 11W? Why not quote a 5W bulb, Michel? Yes, you know the difference
    between that and 60 or 75, don't you?

    But I seem to recall you stating absolutely and categorically that only 3200K
    was "tungsten" balance? Is it 3200 or 2700? How come they sell "daylight" bulbs
    as well?
     
    Noons, Mar 26, 2010
    #13
  14. Not a seemingly endless range, nor have I ever claimed that. I
    tried both a 3200K tungsten bulb and a standard household
    incandescent.

    The color temperature of a black body light source like a tungsten
    filament varies with the physical temperature of the object. But the
    physical limits on that process run out far below the rated
    temperature of Ektar or any daylight-balanced film.
    Revisionist History. Shall we look at your quotes again?
    Perhaps you meant to say that, but you didn't, and your
    responses at the time make that clear.
    Sure. That's why I looked at sites in your country to ensure that
    your stores sold the same lights and used the same definitions.
    They do. Household CFL's are not tungsten, and the ones typically
    sold in the supermarkets, both here and there, are 2700K.
    Read the thread. You stated tungsten lighting. So far, you've yet to
    produce a single example of a tungsten light with a light color above
    3400 K. Still waiting for those specs...
    Wrong on two counts, and stop calling me Shirley. I've never claimed
    it stretches to daylight. It doesn't. This time, I'm less sure that you
    are confusing me with someone else. Second, as I noted above, the light
    temperature of a black body source can and does vary based on
    physical temperature.
    Did you actually _read_ it? Here are some quotes from your own
    source:
    2700K -- Similar light to "normal" incandescent bulbs
    3000K -- Appears slightly "whiter" than ordinary incandescent lamps.
    3500K -- The standard colour for many fluorescent and compact fluorescent
    tubes.
    I see the word fluorescent. I don't see the word "tungsten" at all.
    Which means they are no longer using tungsten lighting. What don't
    you understand about that?
    I'm quoting your own government site. Don't blame me if they simplified
    the language.
    Do you? The reason your goverment forced a switch to CFL's is because
    they use less power. You noted the same. Power is measured in wattage.
    Output is measured in lumens. But unlike incandescents, the color of
    CFL's is independent of output level. There are some dimmable
    fluorescents that you can run at _2_ watts and still retain the same color
    temperature.
    Care to provide a quote? Didn't think so. If I had claimed that,
    why would I have tested two different tungsten-based sources?

    This is now 4 or 5 times you've claimed I wrote something I
    didn't. Each time, it gets harder to assume it's carelessness.
    Tungsten balanced film was for 3200, but whether you choose 3200 or
    2700 Ektar behaves no differently than any other daylight-balanced film.
    They sell "daylight" balanced _fluorescent_ bulbs because there's a
    demand which the technology permits them to fill.

    You made a claim about indoor _tungsten_ lighting and Ektar. It's now
    clear that you used the wrong word.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 26, 2010
    #14
  15. True, but then someone else could (and no doubt would) claim the
    test was invalid because of the color bias imposed by the diffuser,
    or (correctly) point out that dSLR's have different settings for
    daylight versus flash.
    When a minilab corrects a shot for color balance, it doesn't
    have a control to work off of either.

    I think you can get a pretty good idea by comparing against
    the daylight CFL shot. I wasn't trying to achieve exact color
    matching, nor, even in hindsight, do I feel that was needed.

    The CFL shot has a slight green cast. The corrected 3200K
    shot has a slight magenta cast. Either would be in the tolerances
    I'd expect from a minilab generated print or scan of a daylight
    shot of the same cube.
    I hear you. My fridge has a bunch of weird stuff in it that I'm
    sure I'll won't ever use up. Eventually, I'll send a bunch of it
    off to silver recyclers. Most of it isn't 35mm, but I do still have
    all that 500T movie film.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 26, 2010
    #15
  16. Others would. Trust me.
    Easily solved. To make things clear instead of murky, email me a
    snail mail address. I'll send you the actual cube. That's the
    best reference of all. (I've got at least one spare).
    They use either the same algorithm or similar algorithms to automatic
    white balance settings on a dSLR or in an editing program. If your
    willing to code dive, there's one in GIMP for all to see.
    Why not? They don't have a frame of reference either, so they
    have to guess as well.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 26, 2010
    #16
  17. Michael Benveniste

    Peter Irwin Guest

    In the 1930s it took around 7 general service 750 hour 100 watt
    lightbulbs to equal the light of a No. 1 photoflood 3400K 250 watts.
    Today it only takes five 100 watt bulbs. Modern general service
    lightbulbs run a bit hotter than they used to for the same rated
    service life. Photofloods last a little longer than they used to.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Mar 27, 2010
    #17
  18. Michael Benveniste

    K W Hart Guest

    snip
    snip

    Minilab manufacturers each have their own methods of computing the
    corrections for color balance.
    Basically, they look at the negative and want to see a certain density and
    overall color. If you were to print a negative of a black kitten in the
    middle of a snow-covered football field on a sunny day, the minilab would
    try to make the snow gray (possibly with a color cast) instead of white. If
    you were to photograph a bright red barn with a person standing in front,
    the minilab would try to tone down the red and the person would have a
    deathly cyan tint.

    Some minilabs have subject failure modes. In the above case of the red barn,
    the minilab would recognize that there is way too much red in the picture
    and ask the operator if (s)he wants to activate subject failure. If so, the
    minilab simply applies an average color filtration, perhaps an average based
    on the last X# of negatives or a preset average.

    Some minilabs have lighting failure modes. If the minilab detects an
    over-abundance of orange, it asks the operator if the picture was taken
    under tungsten lighting. If the picture were of a truckload of pumpkins, the
    operator would (hopefully) tell the minilab it is not tungsten, and to
    activate subject failure. If the minilab sees a lot of green, it might ask
    the operator if the picture was taken under flourescent light.

    When I had a minilab for my studio work, I got used to the way the minilab
    tried to "correct" my negatives. If the negative was shot on my hi-key
    (white) set, I made the first-run print at N-3, otherwise the white
    background would be gray. If the neg was shot on my red set, I printed
    first-run at R+8, or it would balance to cyan. I've gotten rid of my minilab
    and gone to an automated enlarger (Eseco Speedmaster AF-45). This enlarger
    will read the overall negative, but it has a probe that I can put on the
    baseboard and tell the enlarger what flesh or mid-density or highlight or
    shadow (depending on setting) looks like. Generally, the enlarger gets the
    density and balance right if I put the probe at the right spot.

    In the case of your example, the operator doesn't have an "81A" button, but
    probably just added some red to the image.
     
    K W Hart, Mar 27, 2010
    #18
  19. Michael Benveniste

    Noons Guest

    Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 27/03/2010 6:13 AM:
    Issue? Who said it was an issue?
    They don't, eh? So what is the Kelvin setting for that little "light" icon in
    your camera?

    As if that was something new? Hey genius, did anyone claim it was not possible
    to adjust WB in a dslr?

    Really? So is it "always 3800" or a variable? Which is it, Alan? You can't
    state something and the opposite and then claim they are the same, you know? It
    only shows your ignorance...

    And the current through the filament. And the gas inside the bulb. And the
    coating inside the glass bulb. And the formulation of the internal reflector,
    if that is the case. Once again, you show your total ignorance masked under a
    "superiority" that only exists inside your arse, Alan - where you shove your
    head often.

    Ah, so the "other" tungsten is not "conductive"? So what is that flowing
    through the other tungsten filaments, Alan? Ether?
    Examples, Alan? We all know how you've done everything before, but for once can
    you provide proof of ANY of your photographic exploits? Just once? It would
    help the credibility of anything you say, you know...
     
    Noons, Mar 27, 2010
    #19
  20. Michael Benveniste

    Noons Guest

    Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 27/03/2010 6:26 AM:
    Michel, I asked you to stop the semantics.

    "endless range" is not a synonym for "entire range".

    Stop inventing statements according to whatever the voices in your head say.
    Read carefully, and ONLY what was written. Nothing else. You are not
    authorized to extrapolate your thoughts into someone else's writing.
    Can you understand that? It's really very simple.
    I never said you did. Read properly, Michel.
    Good for you. Now: who told you I meant either of those two?
    Really? Amazing...
    So I guess all those lights with 4500K colour tempo are what? Figments? I've
    got over 30 of those figments in my house alone...

    Or the interpretation you want to give to my words. That's your problem,not mine.


    No you did not. You did it NOW, not before you tested.
    They don't.
    Dude, you have no clue what is sold in supermarkets here. I'll give you a clue:
    sales of low voltage spotlights for households have outstripped conventional
    bulbs for years now. The fact that you can find old style bulbs for saledoes
    not mean that everyone uses them. Can you grasp the difference?


    No, I did not.
    I already did, a number of times and again here. You are just not reading.
    Pause and stop imagining things: R-E-A-D!

    Still providing them.
    I'll give you a hint, since you seem to be as thick as a brick wall: spotlights
    are made with a tungsten filament, and they are indoor lighting.
    Got it yet?

    Again imagining things, Michel?
    But it does! Check the specs in the site I provided.
    Well... I never called you Shirley, you did...

    Dude, can you grasp the concept that no one lights their households or their
    shops or their streets or their whatevers with "black body sources"? I asked
    you to get out more. Please do so.


    Some quotes is not ALL quotes, Michel.
    Here are a few more, which you conveniently omitted:
    4000 840 Cool White Gives a more clinical or “high tech” feel.
    6000 860 Daylight Fluorescent or compact fluorescent lamps simulating natural
    daylight.
    6500 865 Cool Daylight Extremely “white” light used in specialist daylight lamps.

    Check the specs for spotlights.
    Check the specs for CFls.
    R-E-A-D.
    Not just what you want to see.
    A-L-L the information, Michel. All of it.
    Did you check the spotlights? Are they fluorescent?
    Like I said, Michel: R-E-A-D. Don't imagine.

    Like I said, Michel: R-E-A-D.


    I don't give a hoot about "my" government site.
    YOU brought that site in, not I, YOU should have checked if its language was
    appropriate!
    Don't blame me for the inadequate language of YOUR own references!

    Yeah. And?
    No, I did not.
    We agree on that.
    What is it dependent on? And what has that got to do with this?
    Oh, I dunno. Probably because you wanted to "prove" that "tungsten" can produce
    a warm colour balance? As if anyone ever denied it?
    You provided the 3200 quote when asked what lighting you used, and you claimed
    3200 photoflood as the "standard from the 50s":
    "They are still 3200K black-body light sources, just like in the 1950's. "
    Ah well, feel free to deny it...
    See above. What else can I say.

    And they sell daylight balanced tungsten filament lights for the same reason.
    Can you understand that? Please, R-E-A-D the site I provided, the specs for ALL
    lighting, not just the ones that fit your imaginary model.

    I did.
    It's now clear you can't read.

    A claim for indoor tungsten lighting can be for ANY type of indoor tungsten
    lighting.

    There are more than one. You have mentioned two, the "ubiquitous" - in your
    neck of the woods! - 2800K bulb and the photoflood type. There are more.Try a
    low voltage spotlight. Or a high voltage one. Various examples. Various
    colour temps. Various colours, even.

    I said *modern* indoor tungsten lighting, Michel. Not the 50 year old standard.
    Think outside the square. Or if you can't, A-S-K before you go off in
    tangents. It might make your life easier and save you a lot of "testing"...

    All you've done is prove that given 50 year old light bulb conditions, Ektar
    follows a 50 year old rule. Good. Now, try modern lighting. Notice the
    difference?
     
    Noons, Mar 27, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.