Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,220   Posts: 1,532,320   Online: 970
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Developing IR

  1. #11
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    weird - Efke shouldn't show much with a Red 25, but I could be wrong. I have only shot with an 89B.

    You can always set your compensation so that you get a lower ISO setting, essentially.

  2. #12
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by sidearm613 View Post
    2F,
    My camera won't let me go lower than EI 6.
    I have seen shots of the Efke film with a 25 filter, and they seem to possess the same amount of IR effect as HIE with a 25.
    Forget your in camera meter. You are better off with your head. Also, just because your camera meter is not able to go any lower than EI 6 does not mean you can't use it. Get a reading at 100, put the filter on, add 12 stops to it, and shoot a shot. Then bracket: add 11 stops, 10 stops, 9 stops, 8 stops, etc.

    Also, I can assure you the pix you saw on Efke with a 25 filter look nothing like HIE, but pretty much look like a normal b/w film with a 25 filter. The response of HIE and Efke IR820 are totally different, both in the IR range and in the visible range. Using a 25 filter on IR820, you barely tickle the film with IR.

    Nonetheless, waste your expensive film if you would like. You can't assume anything at first. You have to just do relatively controlled tests, which is why the extreme bracketing I listed above is a good idea for a couple of rolls.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 12-19-2008 at 07:13 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #13
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    This approach clearly works well for some people, but I haven't been that thrilled with it---perhaps it depends on the subject and how extreme an IR "effect" you're looking for, but I've generally liked the results I get from rating it at EI 6-8 (developing in HC-110; I haven't dialled in dev times I like with PC-TEA yet). The Wood effect is obvious, portraiture has the "soft skin and deep dark eyes" IR look, but there isn't an extreme "glow" like HIE.

    Souping it in Diafine is interesting, by the way. The IR "look" becomes much more subtle, grain is relatively fine (by IR standards), sharpness is good; I've used this combination to get some landscapes with a subtly-surreal look rather than the over-the-top appearance of many IR landscapes.

    It's a fun film to play with; people get a huge variety of desirable results with different approaches to it. Do something totally new and see what happens.

    -NT
    My first test roll I used an R72 and assumed EI 3 based on the data sheet. I also used a 25 filter and assumed EI 12, I believe, and bracketed two stops each way. I bracketed two stops each way in the sun, and every negative was thin, even the EI 0.75 ones. Too thin to even print. (I tried! All I could get was a very platinum-esque print on a 4-1/2 filter.) The developer was HC-110 as well. It is not that the IR effect was not apparent, but exposure was simply lousy and the negs were flat. So then I tried adding more and more exposure, and changing developers, and exposures got better and contrastier.

    The speed varies dramatically based on the lighting conditions. You get the most speed and the most IR effect in direct sunlight, and the film is very dead in the shade.

    The main point is that everyone needs to waste a few rolls on bracketing.

    In what light did you shot your portraits? What filter did you use? What was your exposure?
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 12-19-2008 at 06:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29
    FWIW here are some side by side examples of shooting Efke IR820 with a Hoya R72 and with a regular Red #25 filter

    first the Hoya R72


    and then the Red #25


    both were shot in full sun, on medium format film with a cheapy Holga Camera exposure was around 1 second. They were developed with Diafine, but I have also had great luck with semi-stand 1:200 Rodinal. I have also never had any issues developing many hundreds of rolls of IR film using plastic tanks either Patterson, or the generic AP brand that Freestyle sells under their house "Arista" brand.

    Also I would not waste HIE by shooting it with a Canon SLR. You will just ruin the film. I know I tried. Ironically I have had great luck shooting HIE in a cheapy $5 fixed focus Vivitar camera using the red lens from an old pair of 3D glasses from a comic book as the filter. I taped it inside of the camera over the film mask.



    also one last tip with the Efke film (and the Ilford SFX, and Rollei IR) if you do not have a Hoya R72 or similar filter you can stack a Red #25 with a 3 stop or deeper ND filter and it will work the same. The red filter will filter out everything but the red and IR and then the ND filter will filter out most of the visible red light while letting all of the IR pass since in IR ND filters are pretty much transparent

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,246
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    My first test roll I used an R72 and assumed EI 3 based on the data sheet. I also used a 25 filter and assumed EI 12, I believe, and bracketed two stops each way. I bracketed two stops each way in the sun, and every negative was thin, even the EI 0.75 ones. Too thin to even print. (I tried! All I could get was a very platinum-esque print on a 4-1/2 filter.) The developer was HC-110 as well. It is not that the IR effect was not apparent, but exposure was simply lousy and the negs were flat. So then I tried adding more and more exposure, and changing developers, and exposures got better and contrastier.
    Interesting---you didn't feel like you started to lose the highlights? With the rolls I've rated the slowest, I've felt like regions with a lot of highlights started to lose some detail. Maybe I'm overdeveloping?

    The main point is that everyone needs to waste a few rolls on bracketing.
    I'd agree with that. Probably a good practice anyway, but really, with IR film you're shooting in light that you can't see---small wonder if the results are a little difficult to predict and manage, I guess!

    In what light did you shot your portraits? What filter did you use? What was your exposure?
    Unfortunately, I rarely get organised enough to take notes, but I've always used it through a Hoya R72, and most of the portraiture happens in full sun, but in the late afternoon or early evening (we have a nice western exposure in the yard that makes this work well). Red and infrared attenuate less in the atmosphere than shorter wavelengths, of course, so the available light should be "more infrared" then than it is at high noon.

    I'm targetting a scanner rather than a wet print (heresy!), which means I can get away with thinner negatives than you can, but I just went back and looked at some of them and they don't look unreasonably thin to my eye, certainly printable.

    I append an example (scanned, of course, but what can a person do?). It's not the best of the bunch, but that one has boobs in it and might scare our American readers. :-) As far as I remember this was about EI 6, taken on a sunny evening with an R72 filter and a Rolleiflex.

    -NT


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