Flourescent lighting

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

I plan to use the existing flourescent lights in an aircraft interior as the only source of light for the camera. (4x5/90mm lens) I plan to use Provia 100F, NPS 160 and I will do some test shots on Polacolor PRO 100 all with a Hoya FLD to correct for the flourescent light. My client would like color prints and digital files for printing large display photos. Shooting landscapes for many years this is my first attempt at using this type of artificial light. Your opinions on what kind of results I might achieve with with the above mention combination of film, light and filter would be very much welcomed as well as your suggestions on how you might do it! Thanks in advance to all responders.

-- Dan Skahan (danskahan@home.com), September 08, 2001


Use NPL instead of NPS. Do not use a filter with the NPL, it will handle the fluorescent well without one due to it's extra emulsion layer. The FLD filter for the other films may be better than nothing, but the right way to do it is to find out what type of fluorescent lamps (warm white, cool white, etc.) are in the space, then start with color compensating filter combinations as recommended in various published tables (mostly for Kodak). I think you will get the best results color wise from the unfiltered NPL.

-- David Rose (DERose1@msn.com), September 08, 2001.

Of course, each flavor of flourescent is different, but the most common is Cool White and generally an FLD or 30M gel is close. Also visit this excellend site by William Crockett (he is or was sponsored by Fuji so you will find great specs on Fuji films). http://www.shootSMARTER.com/pages/CCCG.html With color NPS neg film, because of the 4th layer, correction is almost optional with this great film.

-- Richard Stum (info@kinesisgear.com), September 08, 2001.

I think I'd go with NPS for this, unfiltered (especially if there's any available daylight leaking in as well...If you can easily get at the tubes themselves, consider using magenta Rosco gels on the lamps, either in tube sleeves, or just cut sheets for the fixtures. usually this will come close in correcting the green of the tube....(note: come close). I,personally, don't use any polacolor materials for color proofing, but do use alot of Type 55 for exposure/focus checks. You can also try to add some supplemental light this way, by using magenta gels on the flourescents, and using a "plus green" Rosco gel on a strobe. Or, with NPL, there's a corresponding set of tungsten/ flourescent gels as well. Then to complicate things more...there are combos of CC gels and ND filters as well...which might be handy for balancing ambient light. It's probably best to keep it simple....

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), September 09, 2001.

Hi Dan, Definately use a fld filter when using pcpro100, it will print green due to the lights.


-- Bill Jefferson (jefferw@together.net), September 09, 2001.

Fluorescent guys as in fluoridation for fewer cavities. George Nedleman DDS

-- George Nedleman (gnln@thegrid.net), September 15, 2001.

Actually George it is Flourescense, and it is Flourination, not Flouridation ( the act of adding Flourine to something)as in Chlorination, etc.

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), September 15, 2001.

No...actually I think he's right. Hey, what can I can say, we're "visual"...just remember, you shoot daylight it looks green...actually it's going to look funky on any type of film, unfiltered.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), September 17, 2001.

i'll assume you were joking but it is fluorescent. and there is nothing wrong with fluoridate or fluoridation - adding fluoride to something, like toothpaste, exactly as fluorinate is adding of fluorine. i don't know what flouridate or flourinate could mean.

-- adam (asfberg@hotmail.com), September 17, 2001.

Could that be the same as urinate?? Nahh......:-))

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), September 17, 2001.

Could that be the same as urinate?? Nahh......:-)) I suppose if we are adding Uranium then it could be urinate.......lol.

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), September 17, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ