Well, it's the Stella Polaris windmill in Demen, the Netherlands and it's used to live in. A pretty remarkable "house".
This photo has been made about 3 weeks ago.
Here a detail of the top with the name. Made on Efke 25 in Beutler.
Couldn't one determine/estimate the exposure using an SLR, focus+adjust for IR without the filter, then put the filter on for the actual shot?
Originally Posted by RobertV
Thanks for the film and development tips.
Yes, you can, but every time you have to unscrew and screw your filter again.
One of the reasons HIE was populair for SLR useres because you could generate the Wood effect with a simple red filter with this film and here you still have a pretty good sight by the SLR finder.
In this way a TLR or rangefinder is the best camera when using the opague IR filters together with the actual IR films available.
My TLR: Yashica Mat 124-G with the bay I Yellow and IR RG715nm filters:
Are you setting the ISO on the camera at 25? If the ISO is set at 25 can I just use the meter readings to set exposure?
You could do that but I am using my handheld Gossen Lunasix-3 because the EV is much wider and you can set from iso 0,8 - iso 25000.
For the Rollei IR 820/400 I set the meter to iso 12 and for the Rollei Super Pan 200 iso 6.
You never know the E.I. exactly because you can not measure IR light with the meter. I assume it's the same like visible light but of course this is not the case.
Here are the data sheets for both Rollei films and the developing table:
Both films are made by Agfa Gevaert in Belgium for the Rollei-Maco company.
Rollei High Speed/AM74 is a good fitting semi compensating developer for these films however each semi compensating developer is suitable for IR photography.
It's not rocket science. Once you have to do it and have the same experience of this interesting field of photography. You have to deal with a few practical "problems".
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Roughly, sure, but if you're metering visual light, the reading won't really reflect the amount of available IR light very accurately. It varies with time of day, for one thing---at morning and evening, there's more IR relative to the amount of visual light than at midday. (Stands to reason---same mechanism that makes sunsets and sunrises red.) Visible light scatters more than IR, so if you meter something that's lit indirectly, it will read brighter in the visible spectrum than in IR.
Originally Posted by stradibarrius
But like everything else in photography, it comes down to "think about it and understand how light works". It's just that in this case it's light you can't see.
I've always used the Efke IR film rather than Rollei---the Efke has more extended sensitivity, I believe---but I found it to be *much* easier than I was afraid of when I first picked it up. You have to guess at exposures a little more than you normally would, which means you should bracket and experiment to figure out what works in practice. If you ask me, that's half the fun.
Metering *through* the filter sometimes works, too. Different meters probably have different levels of sensitivity to IR, though, and again some experimentation is called for.
TLRs are great IR cameras, not just because you don't have to look through the taking lens, but because the leaf shutter is easier to handhold at slow shutter speeds as compared to an SLR. Leaf-shutter rangefinders should have the same benefit.
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
Thanks for that now another way to ask the same question...when you load the Rollei IR400 film in your camera what value do you set the camera ISO...400???
For the sake of this discussion let's say the filter is a 4 stop filter.
Man, this is better than I thought it would be. Keep it goin', guys.
"Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti
Originally Posted by Q.G.
How about "Would Effect"?
Or perhaps, "Would affect." (as I'm sure it does... )
Originally Posted by jim appleyard
Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada
Ansel Adams had the Zone System... I'm working on the points
system. First I points it here, and then I points it there...