Any suggestions for a slide film to be used under a ghastly mix of fluorescent, halogen, and natural light.

Apparently we will not be allowed to use hot or strobe lighting to shoot the inside of a retail store. I am using a R8 with a variety of wide-angle lenses (19/24/35), a Mamiya M7 with a 43mm (approx. 21mm equiv.), and tripod for the job.

The intent is to capture the interior design and materials used to create the stores "unique shopping environment" (barf!)

I have used Provia 100 and 400 films in the past with good success but have no experience with these films under this type of lighting.

For those inquiring minds, this an exercise in photographic problem solving for a class.

-- Scott (PFD261@hotmail.com), March 30, 2002

Answers

Use print film. It's the better tool for the job.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 30, 2002.

Part of the challenge here lies in not knowing what fluorescent bulbs the store uses. They do vary a bit in spectral output, with many conventional, e.g. cool white, bulbs having a horrid green balance. It used to be that a so-called "daylight" bulbs were pretty harsh. But recently I've seen and bought, in Home Depot, a daylight bulb that is easy on the eyes and more plausibly like a pleasant daylight color. I also bought a "kitchen and bathroom light" that is decidedly warm. As to the acid test, photographing under them, I'm afraid I haven't gotten around to it. My point is that I would see if you can find out what bulbs they have. Norman McGrath, in "Photographing buildings inside and out" has a table of corrections for the various fluorescent bulb types. As to the halogen bulbs, the result will of course be warm if shot with a daylight film, but would very likely be acceptable to the viewer. And of course if you use tungsten film, the natural light areas will be very blue.

I don't suppose the instructor woud allow the use of a color negative film from which positives are then made for projection. That would permit some color correction (but would likely be expensive to do). What about using Ektachrome EPP 100? I think the blues would be a bit stronger, which might help offset the yellow incandescent light and maybe subdue the greens in the fluorescents. A 400 speed would be more practical for the job. I would worry that Fuji might be a little green for the purpose (outdoors, the same sky that would be very blue with Ektachrome will be cyan with Fuji).

If you want to find out what bulbs they use, I can at least post McGrath's filter corrections for them.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 30, 2002.

Scott, I've found that Fuji Astia handles difficult lighting better than any other film I've used. If it's possible to do so, I would recommend that you do some test shots first and have them processed before doing the actual shoot. Test by photographing a typical scene with 10, 20, 30, and 40 magenta filters. You might also do the same with red filters. Bracket exposures with each filter and keep notes so you'll know the exposure and filtration used for each frame as you look at your test roll.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), March 30, 2002.

1) If you can stand the grain - 400-speed films. with their lower saturation, tend to de-emphasize the color differences. The old Fuji 400 used to be 'touted' as a good film under flourescents - relatively speaking - something to do with the spectral sensitivites. I don't know if 400F is still the same.

2) Most advice from pros on this subject amounts to: determine which light source is MOST prominent and balance for that via film choice and/or filters - and let the other sources do what they will. A little incandescent orange from ceiling can lights or table lamps usually just makes a picture look warm and 'homey' if the main light is daylight windows, e.g.

3) It's possible to get big sheets of colored plastic to put over windows to 'balance' them to the interior light (and then filter for the interior light/windows together) - but it may be too big an expense unless you're shooting a Hollywood movie.

4) It's also possible to temporarily replace some light sources with 'corrected' bulbs - at least 'daylight' fluorescents or 'blue' tungstens. I can understand SOME of the light source color being part of the 'unique shopping environment' - colored neon decorations, e.g. AND you'd want to retain THAT color.

5) ...but if the client wants their store to look good - they're going to need to work with you by paying for window gels or allowing some artificial fill or allowing temporary replacement of bulbs. Talk with them about the options and remind them that THEY want the results to look good and YOU want the results to look good, so determine together what "good" is and do (read "pay for") what's needed to get there.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 30, 2002.

Let us know the results. I have used provia and astia, and the green tint, when present, is not too bad (but noticeable), and the reddish tint most noticeable in direct comparison. Will this be correctable in the final product (brochure, etc.)?

-- L Smith (lacsmith@bellsouth.net), March 30, 2002.

I had to shoot a bank building, and some adjoining offices that were a mix of daylight and flourescent - and it had to be on 120 'chrome.

My solution was to go with the bountiful light as available, BUT, to get into each flourescent fixture, and stick a sheet of Roscoe Tuff-Minus-Green in each one. Sure it made the shoot a little slower. And, I had to get on a step ladder about 8 times for each shot.

The results were perfect, or so near perfect that it was a non issue.

Roscoe sells that stuff by the wide and long roll. I think its 48 inches wide, and 25 feet long. I paid $98 US dollars for it, and ... (wooohoo) its leftover for the NEXT job that comes along, I saved all the standard fixture size pieces!

This stuff is well worth it, and will get yer keister outta hot water quite well.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), March 31, 2002.

Many thanks to you all for your tips and advise. All are great ideas, and better yet some I had never considered.

Thanks again!

-- Scott (PFD261@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.