If you’re a user of vintage cameras, and you happen to read vintage camera manuals, you’ve likely encountered Kodak’s “film types” — nomenclature like “Type A” or “Type G” or similar indicators. If you look at today’s film stocks, however, you don’t see these film types noted. What do they mean, exactly? And do you need to care?
Setting the Stage
To really get to the meaning of these film type designations, we need to understand a few fundamental things. Among them? The visible light spectrum.
The range of visible light is merely a segment of the overall electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. Within that spectrum, on the lower frequency (or, longer wavelength) end are the radio waves, which is where everything from AM and FM to walkie-talkies, television, and WiFi lives. Toward the higher frequency (or, shorter wavelength) end are things like x-rays. And in the middle? Infrared, visible, and UV light.
The EM spectrum maps out something like this (not necessarily to scale):
I think it’s useful to see how this works, because it makes it easier to understand film sensitivities, and why (in the black and white film world) things like orthochromatic films are different from panchromatic films.
While this article is about color film, whether black and white or color, most of us don’t give much thought to the issue, but photographic films are sensitized in different ways to different frequencies of light energy. With color films specifically, that sensitization controls how the film reproduces color.
That’s important primarily because ambient light itself varies in its spectral composition — something that is referred to as color temperature.
Sunlight is considered cooler light because it carries a significant blue color bias. Artificial light historically has been produced by electrical current running through a filament that causes it to glow (incandescent light). That light is warmer because that glow carries a yellow/red color bias. Of course, today’s artificial lighting — increasingly produced by compact fluorescent or LED technologies — can be purchased in various different color temperatures, including ones that produce light similar in temperature to sunlight, or even in digitally-controlled variable color temperature forms.
Regardless of the light source, human vision is highly adaptive, so we see both warmer whites and cooler whites as white regardless. If you placed a sample of a warm white tone next to one of a cool white, we’d be able to perceive the difference between them. But unless the two are indeed side-by-side, both appear to our eyes to be white.
Here’s an example. Against a baseline white background, and side by side with each other, it’s fairly easy to see that the left “white” is warm, and the right “white” is cool. But if you block out everything around either one of these two rectangles, what’s visible would no doubt appear white.
Our vision adapts to the impact of those light temperatures on the colors in our environment as well. Cooler ambient light will tend to shift colors toward blues, but we don’t really notice it in most cases. Conversely, warmer ambient light will tend to shift colors objectively toward redder or yellower hues, but again, we don’t truly notice that unless it’s extreme.
Here’s an example of that. If you cover the image on either side, and look only at one of them for a few moments, your eyes will likely accept it as looking “normal.” Then uncover it — the difference will seem drastic. Now, do the reverse. Our eyes acclimate easily to the color temperature, and the differences are not really that obvious unless you’re looking at both at the same time.
Color film, however, doesn’t share our eyes’ ability to dynamically adjust; it’s designed to react to light (and hence color) in a certain, fixed way. As a result, film manufacturers have had to make specific choices for any given color film, calibrating its specific color spectral sensitivity to compensate for the effects of different types of ambient lighting.
Color temperatures are measured in degrees on the Kelvin scale, symbolized by the letter K. Somewhat unintuitively, the higher the Kelvin value, the cooler or bluer the light is. The lower the value, the warmer or redder the light is. This is the inverse of how we customarily associate color with depictions of air temperature, so it’s easy to get a bit confused; we normally associate high ambient temperatures with warmth and the color red, and low temperatures with coolness and the color blue. But again, with color temperature, it’s actually the reverse.
Visually, color temperatures and their effect on the whiteness of light looks something like this:
It’s worth noting that sunlight varies in its color temperature depending on its position in the sky, due to the scattering of the light by atmospheric particles. The density of those particles is higher closer to the ground, and additionally, light of different wavelengths is not scattered evenly by those particles. That’s what results in the orange/yellow/pink hues of a sunrise or sunset. But these differences aside, daylight is considered to be around 5500K in terms of color temperature.
Artificial lighting has come a long way in recent years as energy conservation drove a migration away from glowing incandescent lamps, first to compact fluorescent lamps, and then to LED lamps (although of course all three are still readily available depending on the usage application).
Regardless of the technology of the bulb, however, consumer room and task lighting generally falls into three temperature ranges, described by this nomenclature:
- Warm white lamps range from approximately 2700K to 3000K.
- Soft white or cool white lamps range from roughly 3000K to 5000K.
- Daylight lamps range from about 5000K to 6500K.
The specific color temperature of any given light bulb is usually listed on its packaging, regardless of the naming of the light type, and it varies depending on the manufacturer.
So, now that we have this level-setting out of the way, we can travel back in time to the actual subject of this article.
Rolling Back the Clock
For those of us of a certain age, the “standard” method of taking color photographs was always to shoot color negative film, then take the film to a photo finisher who developed it, and made color prints for us. “Consuming” the images was really all about that tangible paper print; sharing photos involved handing a stack of prints to a friend or family member to flip through, or perhaps ordering “reprints” to hand out. There was no internet, and hence, no Flickr, no Instagram (or any other social media), no e-mail, no JPEG files on a USB thumb drive — nothing but physical prints.
But it hadn’t always been that way; despite the fact that color negative film and color prints from those negatives have existed since the 1940s, it wasn’t really until the late 1970s or early 1980s before it supplanted the dominant color photography medium: color reversal film, also known as color slide film, or color transparency film. And the king of color reversal? The legendary Kodachrome, of course.
Most shooters of color film in midcentury film cameras were shooting Kodachrome, or perhaps even Ektachrome (which was introduced in the 1940s). As for Kodacolor — Kodak’s first color negative film — that was reportedly not even made available in 135 format until 1958.
The difference between color negative and color reversal films is quite important to this discussion. Using reversal films at that time nearly always equated to slides, and those slides were intended solely for projection onto a screen.
I’m sure some readers will relate, but one of my worst childhood memories is sitting through boring slide shows. For me, it was usually those of my paternal grandparents, with images of their globe-trotting retirement vacations that I couldn’t possibly care less about, and of aunts, uncles and countless cousins I’d never met because of dysfunctional family dynamics — blurry, repetitive shots distributed among seemingly endless Kodak Carousel trays, and each frame accompanied by sleep-inducing descriptions of the who, what, where, why and how of each and every shot. I was grateful that at least there were no 8mm home movies of it all to sit through too.
But I digress; the real point is that the color rendering and color balance of the slides themselves — in other words the color on the film itself — had to be right; it had to be accurate, because once the image was shot, there was no method of correcting it.
Color negative film really never had that issue, because in the print-making process, color correction was not only possible, it was an inherent part of the process. If a negative recorded the image with an excessively blue cast (for example), the print made from that negative could easily be shifted to correct for that to restore reasonably accurate colors to the image. By the time processing systems like minilabs emerged, the color correction process was automated; anyone could take color negative film to the local drugstore, and get back pretty decent, vivid color prints with reasonably accurate color.
And now we’ve arrived at the very nut of the issue: Because they could not be color corrected after being shot, color reversal films had to be calibrated to specific color temperatures to match the shooting conditions in order to yield accurate colors in the finished result — whether outdoor, or for various types of indoor light (photoflood, tungsten, or flash). And thus, film “types” were created as a shorthand for indicating the environment or condition in which they were intended to be shot in order to yield correct colors.
We tend not to think much about this today, because shooting color negative film is still the primary type of color photography we do. I think it’s fair to say that most film photographers have a hybrid workflow; the images may be shot on film, but the film is then scanned into the digital domain. And color correction in Above Lightroom or Adobe Photoshop is easy, quick, and painless. If the colors are off? Just click.
And, if prints are made, the ability to correct color still exists when making a true color photographic print (RA-4 process). Of course, for inkjet prints, the corrected digital scans are the source material — not the negatives.
That being said, color negative films are generally balanced for outdoor shooting, or are balanced for a point in between typical indoor and outdoor light, so that they’re “close” to what they need to be.
Color Types and Balance
When it comes to reversal films, however, color balancing is as relevant as ever. What’s changed, however, is that there just aren’t that many choices available anymore, and all are intended for daylight shooting, including Kodak Ektachrome E100, and Fujifilm’s Velvia 50, Velvia 100, and Provia 100 — all of which are daylight balanced.** Niche films, like Rollei’s Crossbird, are also daylight balanced. To the best of my knowledge, no reversal (transparency) films are currently available that are balanced for any type of artificial lighting.
Back in the day, however, there were more choices, and they were balanced for an entire range of situations. The “types” were a Kodak-specific construct, and the common ones you may see mentioned in vintage camera manuals, vintage film photography books, vintage photography magazines, and so forth are as follows:
| Type | Balance (K) | Balance (Name) |
|---|---|---|
| Daylight | ~5500K | Daylight |
| Type A | 3400K | Photoflood (“Movie Lights”) |
| Type B | 3200K | Tungsten |
| Type F | 3800K | Flash |
| Type G | Unknown | Indoor/Outdoor (Compromise) |
To the best of my knowledge, Type G was only used for home movie films.
Also note that Kodak Vericolor color negative films were occasionally labeled as Type L and Type S. These were not for color balance per se, but rather for long vs. short exposures. Type L was for long exposures, and Type S for short, and it was to compensate for how the film behaved in differing exposure situations.
Color Correction Filters
Of course, if you have films balanced for specific lighting situations, it becomes necessary to provide a means to correct for lighting conditions during shooting where the color temperature of the ambient light is not what the film is balanced for. If you fail to make the corrections, indoor films will render colors quite blue when shot outside, and conversely, outdoor films will render colors with inaccurately strong red, orange and/or yellow bias when shot indoors — in both cases, the results are unnatural.
Naturally, Kodak (and others) offered color correction filters for this very purpose. Using Kodak’s Wratten nomenclature, some of the common ones were as follows:
| Filter | Film Type | Allows Shooting In |
|---|---|---|
| 80A | Daylight (5500K) | Tungsten (3200K) |
| 80B | Daylight (5500K) | Photoflood (3400K) |
| 80C | Daylight (5500K) | Flash (3800K) |
| 81A | Type B (3200K) | Photoflood (3400K) |
| 82A | Type A (3400K) | Tungsten (3200K) |
| 82B | Type B (3200K) | Incandescent (2900K) |
| 85(A) | Type A (3400K) | Daylight (5500K) |
| 85B | Type B (3200K) | Daylight (5500K) |
| 85C | Type F (3800K) | Daylight (5500K) |
Here, for reference, are a few of these color correction filters, shot on my light table so the colors of the filter glass are more visible. Note that the two larger filters — both Kodak’s “32” size (actually 29.5mm threads) — have degraded around the edges; filter degradation† is a pretty common issue on vintage filter, depending on the way they were manufactured.
These filters often show-up with vintage camera or vintage camera accessory purchases. But are they still useful?†
Relevance Today
Most still photographers don’t need to think very much about any of the above. There are several reasons, including:
- Negative Film
If you shoot color negative film, color correction is done during printing or scanning, or post-scan — digitally, as mentioned above. On-camera correction while shooting is pretty much unnecessary. - Reversal (Positive/Slide/Transparency) Film Outdoors
If you make color reversal film shots outdoors — and I’d argue the majority of shots most of us make are outdoors — then any currently available film will provide good results. - Reversal (Positive/Slide/Transparency) Film Indoors
If you make color reversal film shots indoors — you may be able to choose lighting high enough in color temperature to get good results on your daylight-balanced film. Check the color temperatures of the lamps or photography lighting you’re using. But if you’re ultimately scanning the results rather than making slides, again, corrections can be done during or after scanning.
That being said, the color correction filters can still have some relevance:
- Reversal (Positive/Slide/Transparency) Film Indoors
Despite the last bullet above, you could certainly use one of the 80 series filters listed in the table above when shooting color reversal film (like Ektachrome) indoors, just to help ensure better color accuracy; it’s probably smart (or required) if you’re actually mounting and projecting color slides vs. scanning them. - Kodak Vision3 Negative Films*
Kodak’s Vision3 color negative films are intended for cinematography use, but many companies are repackaging them for still use. While it is color negative film, and like any other color negative film it can be color-corrected during printing or scanning, the film itself is nevertheless balanced for either daylight or tungsten lighting, indicated by the D or T suffix on the identifier. 50D and 250D are daylight balanced, while 200T and 500T are tungsten balanced. (The number indicates the exposure index or EI of the film.) Both 200T and 500T (tungsten / indoor) films can be treated like the old Type B films of yesteryear, and you can use an 85B filter to shoot it in daylight (an 85A or 85C will likely be close enough as well). Both 50D and 250D (daylight) films are the same as daylight films of old, and you can use an 80A filter to shoot it under tungsten or most artificial light (an 80B is probably close enough), as outlined in the table above. Note that the 80A and 80B filters are often labeled “photoflood” filters, or “Kodachrome photoflood” filters.
In Closing
For the most part, modern film photographers don’t have to think much about any of this, especially with hybrid analog/digital workflows that seem most common today. But if you’re a user of vintage camera gear, and were as curious as I was about what all this “type” stuff was about, hopefully this article will provide some interesting perspective on how things were in the old days — as well as making understandable some of the references you might come across.
Happy shooting.
Footnotes
* If you want to get really specific and technical about your shooting of Kodak Vision3 films, I would suggest doing a web search for the film name and the words “technical data” to find the corresponding data sheet. For example, “Kodak Vision3 250D technical data” as a search should yield you the PDF of the correct document for that specific Vision3 film. In these technical data sheets, Kodak provides a complete table of light types and recommended color correction filters, including ones I don’t mention above. They’re intended for cinematographers and motion picture uses of these films, and finding the filters or filter gels, as well as finding ways to mount them to your still film camera, can be a challenge. But if you want to make sure you’re creating the best, most color-accurate originals possible, then you can certainly go to that trouble. Most of us, however, will likely just Lightroom or Photoshop our way to color perfection.
** Technically speaking, Kodak Alaris describes Ektachrome as “neutral balanced,” but their data sheet goes on to spell-out that it’s intended for daylight and electronic flash photography. The data sheet also suggests that an Wratten 80A filter be used for tungsten lighting, and an 80B for photofloods — just like the daylight-balanced films of yore.
† One thing I’d point out is that vintage filters like the ones I put in the photo haven’t always fared very well, and you can see that in the photograph — and not just the edge deterioration. Depending on how they were made, and how they were stored, many of these filters have faded or developed hazing. As a result, their accuracy is going to be suspect at best. Especially for hybrid digital workflows, however, it likely just doesn’t matter. I’ve shot with some of these filters with the Vision3 films I’ve mentioned in this article, and my objective is to get the color balance “closer” — not to achieve perfection.
Update: April 24, 2020
The first version of this article incorrectly identified Kodak Ektachrome; it’s correctly referred to as “E100” — although the underlying facts I cited in the original were still accurate. In this update, an additional footnote was added about the Kodak Alaris data sheet for E100. Also in this update, additional graphics were added to illustrate the difference between warm and cool light and their impacts.
Update: July 25, 2022
In the original version of this article, I incorrectly identified the Kodak Vision3 film 500T as 800T. While the 800T identifier is used by CineStill for a film they derive from Kodak Vision3 stocks (and they probably use 500T stocks to make it), that’s not an identifier Kodak currently uses in its Vision3 motion picture film line-up.
