Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,533   Posts: 1,598,702   Online: 907
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Ir Photography

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,335

    Ir Photography

    Yes I know it's not the right time of year... or is it.
    Well For my Yashica 124 G I got this heliopan 715nm IR filter. I was thinking I would try the Maco 820 C (Aura) IR film. Now, besides the Woodland effect which of cource work's best with leaves on the trees and the dramatic sky which effects will I get and when. Those of you who shoot IR, Which subjects, time of year/day. In short spill it
    I also have a 665nm filter that I was planing on using on my QL17.
    I would like some comments and sugestions on the subject in general.
    Regards Søren

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    I'm a rank beginner with infrared film, just beginning to try it this past spring. Unfortunately, my project for using IR film fell through. Just puttering around, I tried the MACO Aura film and liked the results. My only advice with this film is bracket the hell out of it. I used Hoya R72 and #29 filters. The only other film I've tried is Ilford SFX200. With that film, the R72 gave a nice mild IR effect and the #29 didn't do much, if anything. I still have 3-4 rolls of the MACO film and some 35mm and 120 SFX200 I'm going to try next spring.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,335
    Thanks Lee. Is the IR effect strong or subtle in your experience ?
    Did you get the best results at noon or in the evening ? I read the articles in Black&White but I would like more info on shooting situatins and subjects that lend themselves to IR.
    Regards Søren

  4. #4
    jim kirk jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    743
    Images
    2
    Hope I can help a little.I've been using Maco 820c for almost two years and I use it in all weather,all lighting conditions.You're going to need to use the right ISO for the time of year your shooting in.I usually change ISO that I shoot at depending upon the time of year and increase or decrease exposure according to the lighting conditions I'm shooting in and the filter I am using for the image.You can bracket to make sure you have usable exposures(I do
    as each exposure can have a different quality)but you'll need to make sure your starting ISO is correct or you may have a roll of under/overexposed negatives.All lighting sitautions are good for IR(including overcast)once you have your ISO where you want it.Also in some lighting situations a darker or opaque filter will give you more contrast too.Experiment with the light and filter combo's-it's part of the fun.In short(my opinion and experience)you can use IR for whatever images you want and usually with a difference from regular film.

    Jim
    "An object never performs the same function as its name or its image"-Rene Magritte

    "An image of a dog does not bite"-William James applied to photography

  5. #5
    Robert Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Lehi, Utah
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,039
    Images
    28
    Let's keep in mind that our light meters are not calibrated for IR. They see visible light, not the near IR that the film sees. One using their light meters are guessing at best. What usually occurs when one finds the "right" exposure on there meter, is that they have found the ISO of the film for a standard condition, such as a sunny day.

    Kodak Infrared exposes best at f/11 and 1/125s on a sunny day through a red 25 rendering about a 200/250 asa once compensation for the filter is taken into account. But again, this is under the assumption that one is using a meter that is not calibrated for IR.

    Many have gone to the expense and trouble of creating an IR meter. These I would assume work fairly well, but again, the sun doesn't tend to change on it's light spectrum makeup and it's output.

    With MACO film I found that 2 seconds at f/16 gives me full shadow detail through an 89b (about 695nm cutoff filter). I develop them in PMK to make platinum density negatives. (The exposure is the same for silver print negatives, I change the dev time to make a less dense neg)

    At $20 a sheet for 12x20 I don't like to make mistakes on exposure, and I sure ain't gonna bracket! Admittedly, I "cut my teeth" on 120 size Maco, but the exposures are the same.

    I prefer the Non-aura version, if I'm using a piece of film that large, I don't want halation on it. I've also been in touch with Hans O'Mahn and there is a new Infrared film on the horizon.

    The emulsion tends to get a little soft and it scratches very easily. I run into problems with sheet film if I develop in a tray with corners scratching each other. Roll films are ok, but when I pull the film out of the spool, it strips the sides of the film on the spools leaving hair like pieces of emulsion on the film. If I pull the film out as I roll the spool, not dragging the film out, it works much better for me with no "hairs".

    Also, with PMK, I use 2+2+100 and develop for about 14 minutes at 74F in a jobo for alt process negs, but they print on silver very nicely too.

    BTW, it's the "Wood effect" It was named after the scientist that discovered the effect. Which while I'm on my soap box, keep in mind it isn't chlorophyll that reflects ir. It kills me that I still see this in print. Ir is reflected off the inner cell wall of the vegetation. This is the same reason that Skin looks so nice in IR. It isn't the light reflected off the surface of the skin, with all the blemishes, it's the sub cutaneous layer that reflects the IR that exposes the film. Essentially, it's the amount of inner cell surface (in plants and people) that allows how much IR light is reflected.

    Good luck on your IR shooting,
    Robert Hall
    www.RobertHall.com
    www.RobertHall.com/mobile
    Apug Portfolio
    Facebook Profile


    Technology is not a panacea. It alone will not move your art forward. Only through developing your own aesthetic - free from the tools that create it - can you find new dimension to your work.

  6. #6
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hall
    ...
    BTW, it's the "Wood effect" It was named after the scientist that discovered the effect. Which while I'm on my soap box, keep in mind it isn't chlorophyll that reflects ir. It kills me that I still see this in print. Ir is reflected off the inner cell wall of the vegetation. This is the same reason that Skin looks so nice in IR. It isn't the light reflected off the surface of the skin, with all the blemishes, it's the sub cutaneous layer that reflects the IR that exposes the film. Essentially, it's the amount of inner cell surface (in plants and people) that allows how much IR light is reflected.
    ...
    I was under the impression that chlorophyll fluoresces in IR, and that's why healthy foliage is bright, while dead and diseased is dark?
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #7
    Robert Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Lehi, Utah
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,039
    Images
    28
    There is no cellular pressure in dead cells. If there is no pressure the cell can't reflect IR due to the cell wall being collapsed. This is (more or less) the reason that deciduous leaves reflect IR better. Larger cell walls to reflect. Evergreens have less water, smaller cell walls, for example, and reflect less IR.
    Robert Hall
    www.RobertHall.com
    www.RobertHall.com/mobile
    Apug Portfolio
    Facebook Profile


    Technology is not a panacea. It alone will not move your art forward. Only through developing your own aesthetic - free from the tools that create it - can you find new dimension to your work.

  8. #8
    rbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    2
    I've used the non-aura version of Maco 820c, and prefer its look with an 89b filter, as well. As you probably know, Søren, the IR level varies with season, time of day, and with latitude, because of atmospheric absorbtion. The example below was shot in September at 37°10', and the exposure was about 8 stops down from an incident reading of the ambient visable-spectrum light, as I recall.



    I've read of a fellow who modifies conventional meters to read IR light, but I haven't actually tried one of his meters. Sorry I don't have a link, but if he's still doing it, a web search should find him.
    [COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]

    Ralph Barker
    Rio Rancho, NM

  9. #9
    jim kirk jr.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    743
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hall
    Let's keep in mind that our light meters are not calibrated for IR. They see visible light, not the near IR that the film sees. One using their light meters are guessing at best. What usually occurs when one finds the "right" exposure on there meter, is that they have found the ISO of the film for a standard condition, such as a sunny day.


    At $20 a sheet for 12x20 I don't like to make mistakes on exposure, and I sure ain't gonna bracket! Admittedly, I "cut my teeth" on 120 size Maco, but the exposures are the same.

    I prefer the Non-aura version, if I'm using a piece of film that large, I don't want halation on it. I've also been in touch with Hans O'Mahn and there is a new Infrared film on the horizon.
    Personally,i've found my meter to be "correct" in as much as it is a
    starting point once my ISO is set.Then I make my exposures-sometimes bracketting if I want negs with different qualities(more grain,more contrast,etc)something which I find valuable myself.Each negative is an individual image,for you it's each sheet.I'm sure if you chose to you could make more than one image of a scene to see which it is that you prefer.I set my ISO for the time of year and over or under expose each frame according to the lighting conditions for that scene(most of which are different over the
    entire roll)and have had no problems.Just a different way of working I guess-I
    havn't had issues with mistakes(other than the-"why did I make this image to begin with types

    I too am looking forawrd to the 840 film next year.The last contact I had with them didn't say if it was a new film all together(different spectral sensitivity)or just an extended sensitivity version to 840nm of the 820c film.So if you hear anything please let us know
    "An object never performs the same function as its name or its image"-Rene Magritte

    "An image of a dog does not bite"-William James applied to photography

  10. #10
    Robert Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Lehi, Utah
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,039
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by jim kirk jr.
    mistakes(other than the-"why did I make this image to begin with types

    I too am looking forawrd to the 840 film next year.The last contact I had with them didn't say if it was a new film all together(different spectral sensitivity)or just an extended sensitivity version to 840nm of the 820c film.So if you hear anything please let us know
    I hear you on that first one!

    But this is an interesting point on the new film. The huge difference that some folks are getting used to is that MACO is panchromatic film (unlike the orthocromatic characteristics of HIE). I wonder, exactly, how much difference another 20nm of sensitivity will change the "look" of the IR.

    Kodak "works" with the red 25 because its orthochromatic. It might be nice to have less visible light sensitivity instead of more IR light sensitivity. I would think that MACO film may see more success if one could hand hold the camera. My exposures are 30 seconds to 1 minute at f/64. There are times I would like non-blurry clouds.
    Robert Hall
    www.RobertHall.com
    www.RobertHall.com/mobile
    Apug Portfolio
    Facebook Profile


    Technology is not a panacea. It alone will not move your art forward. Only through developing your own aesthetic - free from the tools that create it - can you find new dimension to your work.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin