I'm confused!

Jay L Smolowitz · June 2, 2014

I just ordered my first set of 16mm film ever. I went with daylight stock just so I can goof off an test out the camera. However, I was kind of thrown off by it saying on the pacakage: 3200 daylight.

This may sound dumb but I thought 3200 was tungsten and 5600 was daylight. Does that not apply or have the same meaning as the daylight stock and tungsten stock?

Adrian Sierkowski · June 2, 2014

It does apply, but just because the film is Daylight, doesn't mean you can't use a filter to balance it.

What is the stock number?

such as 7207

When you look at it, does it have a "D", such as 250D

You'll notice on the table it'll have 3200K and a different ISO value (160 if memory serves) , this is for the 85 filter factor's effect on the "speed" of the film, the same as opening up 2/3rds of a stop.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/H20_2pgs.pdf

Jay L Smolowitz · June 2, 2014

I actually just looked at it again. Its say 3200k with filter 80a next to it. I'm assuming if I shoot the daylight under tungsten lighting I need filter 80a to correct it. I over thought and misread. Being my first time shooting film ever, I'm super paranoid.

Thanks man!

Matthew W. Phillips · June 2, 2014

Being my first time shooting film ever, I'm super paranoid.

Thanks man!

Paranoia is good when shooting film...it keeps you from making costly mistakes. Have fun!

Steve Zimmerman · June 3, 2014

It's often a good idea to overexpose 2/3 to one full stop to get tighter grain, brighter colors and contrast. In the past I sometimes got blah images if i didn't.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Steve Zimmerman

Mark Dunn · June 3, 2014

If you did want to shoot daylight stock indoors, the 80A filter absorbs 2 stops, whereas to convert tungsten stock to daylight requires an 85 filter which only absorbs 2/3 stop. So if you wanted to shoot indoors as well, you'd be better off with tungsten stock.

Matthew W. Phillips · June 3, 2014

It's often a good idea to overexpose 2/3 to one full stop to get tighter grain, brighter colors and contrast. In the past I sometimes got blah images if i didn't.

I use to spout this too but it is really not the way you should plan your shots around. The whole "tighter grain" thing is bogus when compared to slower stocks generally. For example, you will get tighter grain shooting 200t at proper exposure than 500t overexposed by a stop.

I think sometimes we just say things because it is the popular thing to say and we dont actually go check the results for ourselves. And brighter colors has more to do with your colorist than how you are shooting a (low contrast) negative.

Gregg MacPherson · June 3, 2014

I just ordered my first set of 16mm film ever. I went with daylight stock just so I can goof off an test out the camera. ...

Is that 250D? If you end up inside with a reasonable amount of daylight and you want to add a little with one or two tungsten lights you can just use CTB gel on them.

Giray Izcan · June 3, 2014

Overexposing for tighter grain applies in the world of photochemical finish. You end up pushing more printer light through a thick negative.

Stuart Brereton · June 4, 2014

It's often a good idea to overexpose 2/3 to one full stop to get tighter grain, brighter colors and contrast. In the past I sometimes got blah images if i didn't.

As it's the OPs first ever rolls of film, I'd suggest that he expose it at box speed, and get used to using it, rather than instantly embarking on non standard procedures which he doesn't necessarily understand.

The whole "tighter grain" thing is bogus when compared to slower stocks generally. For example, you will get tighter grain shooting 200t at proper exposure than 500t overexposed by a stop.

Underrating a stock is merely a way of getting the tightest grain out of it. Is it going to make a 500asa stock look like a 200asa? No, but that's not the intention anyway.

Overexposing for tighter grain applies in the world of photochemical finish. You end up pushing more printer light through a thick negative.

By over exposing your image you are placing more of your picture information on the upper part of the characteristic curve, which is where the finer grains are. So your negative appears finer grained whether finished digitally or photochemically.

Matthew W. Phillips · June 4, 2014

Underrating a stock is merely a way of getting the tightest grain out of it. Is it going to make a 500asa stock look like a 200asa? No, but that's not the intention anyway.

Then what exactly is the point of shooting 500t exactly? If you need low light? Fine but if you are going to rate it slower anyway then why shoot it? I hear fanboys for this stock all the time but never hear why it is supposedly so great.

Stuart Brereton · June 4, 2014

I'm sure I don't have to explain the benefits of a 500 speed stock over a 200 speed stock for night and low light shooting. As for underrating it, common practice would be to rate it at 320ISO, which still gives a significant speed advantage over 200t, while retaining the ability to rate it faster if the need arises.

Some people like the texture of the coarser grain, some people like the highlight handling. It's not inherently better or worse than 200t. You could equally argue that you should shoot 100t rather than 200t or 50D not 250D. There are times when you need the speed, and times when you want fine grain. That's what the choice is for.