In article <4v9h3r$1or@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, gcruse@ix.netcom.co says...
>In <4v8q0k$lm6@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman)
>writes: [about tungsten-balanced color negative film]

>>There generally is no need for it - overexpose it some,
>>and have the lab correct the color when printing.

> When you say the lab can correct it when printing,
> you are overlooking the yellow/blue crossover that
> results. The original scene highlights for 3200K
> were orange/yellow and the shadows black.
> During printing, you have
> to remove orange/yellow from the entire negative
> not just the highlights. As a result, the shadows
> go the complementary color, cyan blue. And
> the heavier the original exposure, the worse the
> problem is. That's why Type L film was made.

Hmmm, I will have to tell my printer that there is a problem
when I don't see one....;-) I shoot daylight color negative
film under tungsten and flourescent light quite often (I
generally overexpose about 2/3rd stop), and the results with
various films are quite good - even on automated printing
equipment (blacks are free of color casts, though I usually
ask for some yellow-orange balance to remain [fully corrected
tungsten photos looks unpleasantly cold to me when it is
clear from the subject that the lighting was tungsten]). If
we are talking about precise correction for studio-type
work, I would probably agree with you - but for
journalistic-type work, the errors are too small
to matter, I think.
Hope This Helps