Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,957   Posts: 1,586,087   Online: 992
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    mid-Missouri
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by xtolsniffer View Post
    And another set, the sequence and exposures are as the last thread, unfiltered first at ISO 400, then rated at 12.5, 6. 3 and finally 1.5 with an 89b filter. Nikon FM with Tamron 90mm at f16, shutter speed varied.
    This isn't bad. Your first IR almost has adequate shadow detail. Same question on developer, which one?

    Steve

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    333
    It was Rodinal 1+25, 7 minutes 30 seconds, three inverts every 30 seconds

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    mid-Missouri
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    I have yet to do an A/B comparison because my own various filters are all different sizes (Series 7 89B, 67 mm 760 and 77 mm 720). I suspect a 720 nm filter would do better on IR effects than an 89B, which I think is around 695 nm. But I'm not sure the slight difference would justify the non-trivial cost of getting any filter you don't have. Some day I will try a test with creative use of tape or blue tack! ...
    About a year ago I purchased a cheap set of 4 IR filters on ebay for $40 (720/760/850/950). They seem to do the job. I'm not seeing that set now but there are a bunch of singles, and several in a three-group with a mix of various cutoff limits for that same price roughly. Might be worth experimenting with.

    Steve

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    333
    Update: I've now had a chance to run some test strips and a few prints from my first roll of IR400. I've never been that happy with negative scans to evaluate exposure. Personally I find it much better to run test strips on the paper I'll be using. For the unfiltered shots, they're pretty thin on the negative. Printable, but I think rating it at ISO 200 might have been a better move with my development in Rodinal. The optimal rating for the 89B filtered shots is around ISO 6. I think I'll rate it as that in future and give a +1 bracket as well.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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