Many shows and movies are shot on tungsten stock in daylight and don’t use a filter. Even things like Phantome Thread and Licorice Pizza which have been finished photochemically and only used analog color correction through printer points. The first season of Succession was shot entirely on 5219 underexposed by two thirds of a stop without an 85 filter. I find the difference with correct exposures is very subtle. I like using the filter too but I can see how people like Paul Thomas Anderson feel like not using a filter is more pure. With the filter they can come out almost a bit too warm at times. Kodak recommends to use an 85 (without a B) filter for Vision3 500T and 200T. The B is just a tat warmer.
I shot with the 85B filter using Cinistill 800 outdoors on my Nikon F3 I had no problem focusing I would rather have the filter on in the daytime then trying to correct it later.
Makes total sense. Especially in the daytime, that should be pretty easy. Mixed light or twilight might be more tricky but it's definitely worth the effort.
I say go with the filter. I like the look and it is just for me easier. A thing I also recommend is using a warming gel on a flash when shooting flash shots in rooms with tungsten light.
It really is great. And using a gel a great plan too. I've done that a few times during wedding dance parties when I know I'll be using the film in one setting.
@@Nickporter17 Exactly. You would want to shoot tungsten film in tungsten light with a warming gel on a flash and no filter, or shoot daylight film in tungsten light with a warming gel on a flash and a blue filter on the lens.
Just started shooting on the 500t recently. I had a horrible first roll. I used the 85b and they still came back blue. I am going to try again. 😢. But I love the video!!! Thanks for creating. 🐐
The answer to the title question depends on what you are planning to do with the resulting color negative. In the unlikely event that you are printing the negative onto a RA-4 enlargement print, then "yes", because you have relatively little color printing control for such mismatch in that system. If you are scanning and digitally manipulating the image, whether printed or "posted", probably not required, for two reasons. (1) The power of the computer grants enough control such that if you really want to color match the image, you can do a much better job than would traditional wet printing. (2) The standards of what is acceptable or good for image result in the digital era has degraded to the point where many don't even try. Unresolved color or contrast mismatch has become "style". Finally, consider how little tungsten light source remains available in the age of LED and other new light sources. Outside of a controlled studio setting, daylight balanced films are likely to look more natural in any event.
Yea. You're totally right on the technical. I would push back a little bit about folks motives in not editing "correctly." It's art. You can make it look however you want. And the more you know the tools at your hands, the better you can match your vision.
@@JTobiason Agreed. But IMO before someone is entitled to call off-color, or high key, or whatever, "art" or "vision, first they have to be able to command the medium. That is to say, be able to reliably achieve the "normal" color and contrast. Otherwise, "art" becomes a catch phrase for "I don't know what the hell I'm doing here, but if those guys say to shoot everything at half box speed, I will too."
Yea. It is a fine line between doing what you like and doing what you know. But also, we are all figuring it all out as we go. In the modern digital age, everyone is sharing their progression real time.
I have a pretty healthy collection of filters many of which I've obtained with lenses, ( too many UV), but the filters I've used most accross Digital and film both BW and colour, are CP and ND. I have colour filters I mainly use shooting BW films, Red, Yellow and Orange most often, Green sometimes. I don't have and 81B exactly and now am interested to try one I do however have an 80A which is fantastic for shooting daylight balance film under tungsten light, shooting tungsten film is relatively new for me, I like the Vission 3 500T not as much of a fan of Cinestill 800T for the halation, well maybe sometimes, but not as much. No idea why I never thought of using an 85B to warm up tungsten ballanced film I like this I do white ballance correct my scans but this is a fantastic sollution that should have occurred to me and never did. Great video. ❤
Glad to help. It definitely makes a big difference to make the photos look right. Also, it kinda is helpful with slowing down the 500 film a bit so you can use shallower dog if desired. But then take it off and speed up at night.
I was conditioned to use an 85B (or variations thereof) whenever using tungsten balanced film. Of course that was in the mid 1960s when I learned all about 8mm & 16mm movie making, so there’s that. I already have the filters in every size imaginable, so it’s habit for me at this point. Plus, I prefer to minimize digital image alterations. Opting for trying for the best I can achieve straight out of the camera(s).. still or cine.
Interesting. I probalby am not going to go out and get an 85C, but that is good to know that it's so similar (if I find one). And yea. Totally. Which can be fun with more blue night vibes. That is my street too. It's fun.
It is quite ironic how rangefinders really are the most adapted bodies to use these filters yet nobody seems to be manufacturing them for smaller filter ring sizes - I noticed you're using a step-up ring for yours, as well. I've been using the gelatin snap-on filter from Fotoimpex but a drop of water got on it and it seemed to dissolve the orange coating on the gelatine, so I've had a big white hole in the middle of the filter. Had to take it off mid-roll while I was on a trip so all the consequent rolls are unfiltered. I'm hoping it won't be too bad once I get the films back. So my question is, how are you scanning them ? Is there an adjustment you do to manually correct the color balance, or does your software take care of it for you ?
Yea. It definitely is annoying needing the step up, but my two lenses have different filter sizes. So, the step up does let me just have one filter for both. As for editing, I mostly just use auto-white balance in Lightroom before using Negative Lab Pro. It turns out ok. I use 500T a lot in my point and shoot camera, which can't use a filter. I'll be honest and sometimes it's easy to get right and sometimes it's hard to match. Not sure why.
Hi! Cool video, this might be a weird question, but have you tried using the filter at the end of the process, i.e. on the camera when DSLR scanning your negatives?
Good question. I just mean color corrected digitally. A jpeg can have it's white balance corrected but it isn't as versatile as a raw or tif. You don't have to do your own scans but there are rather few labs that do ECN-2 development (with remet removal). So many people using 500T are self developing. If you're getting cinestill 800t scanned, the lab will probably try to correct for you.
But daylight is not constant. Daylight can have colour temperatures from 5,000 K to 10,000 K and above. What do you do in deep shadows with blue Sky. To compensate this extreme colour temperature you need a filter, but which?😮
I've never felt like I needed a different one for daylight. The variations are easily fixed in editing. But I'm sure they exist if you want to take the deep dive.
Yes. It is the 80B filter. But, Id be careful with it. You lose a little over a stop of light when you use it. So that 250 becomes almost 100, which is tricky in indoor scenarios. You'll probably need a very wide aperture and/or tripod.
Hi, I'm currently considering to buy an 85B filter to get the natural look of tungsten film in daylight. But I have another question regarding black & white film photography. I really like the looks of landscape b&w pictures taken with orange filters. Does the 85B have a similar effect on b&w film as an orange filter? Then I would only need to buy one filter and could use it for both scenarios
I'm not a big fan of the tungsten film in the daylight look. So this balances it and slows the film a bit, allowing for depth of field options. But then I do have the fast iso/tungsten when i need it. It's the best of both worlds.
I think the filter itself slows down the exposure by 2/3 of a stop. But, I also overexpose mine by about a bit normally as well. So I probably am shooting it somewhere around 1 1/3 - 2 stops over. That said, if you're using a camera who meters through the lens, the internal meter will do it for you (because it's metering through that filter).
The colors are a little more baked in than in a raw. Kinda like trying to fix color temp in a jpeg. So if you can get it right in camera, less work later.
You definitely can edit it closer, but it isn't the same. I can still look good (I do that in the video) but Id argue it looks more natural with the filter. But there is nothing wrong with editing. It's just a different look.
Make a bunch of virtual copies in LR before you transform in NLP. Then try adjusting in various ways (WB, exposure up/down, etc). Then convert at the same time with the same settings. Then you can pick what you like best and do that to the rest of the similar images.
