Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,915   Posts: 1,556,365   Online: 1036
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Are those neg scans, kenaz? Very nice shots in any case.

    I shot a test roll of IR400 split between EI 12 and 25, and if I remember aright, the frames at 12 were in the "thin but usable" range while the ones at 25 were more at the level of "no way this is printable but a scanner might salvage it". That was in midday light, though, and you might have picked up a higher IR/visible ratio than I did.

    I agree with DWThomas---there's no really good recipe for figuring out how much IR is out there, though you can make some educated guesses. Basically, when the sunlight skews red, it should also have fairly high levels of near-IR.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    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_

  2. #12
    mhcfires's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    El Cajon, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    556
    I have ten rolls of Efke 820 to suffer through (bought at a good price for unexpired film). I shot a roll at EI 4. The negatives were horribly thin and grainy. Probably underdeveloped. I use an R72 filter on my Leica M2 Nokton 50/1.1 lens. How does this stuff compare with the Rollei film?

    m
    Michael Cienfuegos


    If you don't want to stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Ukraine - Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    305
    Efke IR820 is in fact an Efke 100 film with extended NIR sensitivity.
    So you can develop according Efke 100 specs. With an #88A IR filter it will be around iso 1,5-3.

    Here an example of the Rollei IR-400(S) film with a Heliopan RG715 filter (#88A - 715nm). E.I. 12 and developed in AM74/RHS. Best results you will get in a semi-compensating developer.



    Yashica Mat 124-G with Bay I filter. 1/30S f=4,0 handheld which is just possible with this IR film. For Efke IR820 you need always a tripod.
    My favorite store: http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4
    Thank you ntenny I always try.
    They actually are scans, my house is too small for even a 'flying' darkroom.
    In any case from my almost gone knowledge of proper printing the negs looked more than decent on the light table and I clearly recall they were very very easy to scan, actually I was surprised for the broad curve on such a tight portion of light getting on the film.

    The ship deck was shot at sunset.
    The cross was shot at noon with an overcast sky.
    The gobling ferry was shot a 6 p.m.

    As stupid as it my seem (I still think it is...), the 'method' used for evaluating close to IR is to look through the filter which I wrap around my hand as to make a viewer and then count until I see the 'glow', if it doesn't take to long there would be enough quasi IR... (please do not try this pointing at the sun!!!).

    To give some credit to the above pseudo-science I remember refraining myself from taking many shots, even if they seemed ok in theory, when I tried the stupid method on the scene it took ages to see any light through the filter. Sometimes was the angle sometimes there wasn't just enough light.

    Really don't konw.

    Again I am surprised by the amount of decently eposed frames I got in this roll.

    ken

  5. #15
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,252
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by mhcfires View Post
    I have ten rolls of Efke 820 to suffer through (bought at a good price for unexpired film). I shot a roll at EI 4. The negatives were horribly thin and grainy. Probably underdeveloped. I use an R72 filter on my Leica M2 Nokton 50/1.1 lens. How does this stuff compare with the Rollei film?

    m
    Looking over my notes (which a year later don't appear as well expressed as I might wish) I got decent results with about 6 or 7 stops more exposure than an incident reading at ISO100. That is, down around ISO 1. But some of that roll was trying to repeat a shot that previously frustrated me where a somewhat shaded river in the foreground seemed to radiate no IR period! The biggest advantage with the EFKE film was that you could go deeper into the IR region (Ex: 760 nM filter) and get slightly stronger IR effects without too much exposure penalty. Most of my shooting was done from mid-morning to mid-afternoon in mid-summer sunlight.

    Alas, it's even conceivable that some light meters might skew results a bit one way or the other depending on their spectral sensitivity curves. (Sorry I thought of that!)

  6. #16
    Copperrein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cleveland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    18
    Images
    10
    ntenny: I got both rollei and efke to see. No offense to Rollei, but in my limited experience using film, rollei film seems a little... kitschy. Not really a bad thing, but my gut tells me efke will probably get better results.

    DWThomas: thank you for the info. You also remind me to take a notepad with me and record expose and environment variables. Your shots are beautiful!

    Kenaz: Lovely work. I'll have to give the 'spyglass' technique a try. Will this work with a 720 and up?.
    Last edited by Copperrein; 10-14-2011 at 07:02 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by mhcfires View Post
    I have ten rolls of Efke 820 to suffer through (bought at a good price for unexpired film). I shot a roll at EI 4. The negatives were horribly thin and grainy. Probably underdeveloped. I use an R72 filter on my Leica M2 Nokton 50/1.1 lens. How does this stuff compare with the Rollei film?
    I've only shot the Rollei film in 120; I did shoot a few rolls of Efke IR in 35mm, lo these many years ago. Both are very grainy---I think grain is intrinsic to IR film for some reason---and that's why I haven't gone back to 35mm with it, though I did get some images I liked in that format.

    It seems to me like the results I've gotten from the two films are more similar than different; the Efke film's sensitivity goes deeper into the IR, which makes it effectively a bit faster behind an R72 filter than its ISO speed might suggest, but the different sensitivity range doesn't seem to translate into a big difference in the final image.

    I've shot the Efke film as fast as EI 12 and gotten away with it (targetting a scanner, though, not optical prints), but lately I've converged on about EI 3 for afternoon light on a sunny day. (It's *slower* at midday, contrary to what you might expect. I don't know what happens in the morning, because I'm either asleep or at work. :-)

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    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_

  8. #18
    Copperrein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cleveland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    18
    Images
    10
    If I can get my 'warm fuzzy' in 35mm I will most definitely switch to 120 immediately. 6x6 FTW!

    Though with the grain, I've seen a lot of really smooth, grainless film IR like DWThomas' work. Grain is ok for some things, but the dream-state feel of IR is the reason I was attracted to it.

    And another random question: Is digital IR photography (sensor mod or conversion in software later) REALLY IR photography? From what I've read film responds to different wavelengths and responds differently to said wavelegths than digital sensors. Would it be safest to say that digital IR will never equal traditional and digital IR is it's own thing?

  9. #19
    Andrew O'Neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Coquitlam, BC, Canada
    Posts
    627
    EI 1.5 through Wratten #87 (opaque) filter. Be careful not to accidently load two sheets of film in the holder like I did. It's so thin.

  10. #20
    Helinophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    565
    Images
    20
    You cannot really calculate this, because the level of IR radiation vary according to the sun position etc.....for example, where I live, I had my exposures around 1-2 seconds @ f11 - f16 with Efke (35mm).

    The IR light varied so much, that it was impossible to really tell anyway (this time of year, the sun doesn't come very high up here).

    Here's my review on that one and the resulting (hardly usable) photo: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum189/...rfaringer.html You may have to use google translate

    Problem was, that the contrast was so high on some (white stuff and black skies), while other photos (pine threes/forests) were so dark in general that they weren't usable at all.
    Mostly they looked like they'd been shot trough a night vision camera.

    It's a touchy-feely game I would assume, comes with trial and error...at least that's my impression

    My photos were all developed in a Tmax developer, probably the totally wrong choice, next time it will be ultrafine or a Rodinal stand or something.

    But for all intents and purposes, my IR antics are over until next summer, due to the light conditions here.

    I hope you get it to work, it can create something really stunning when it works out ^^
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails IMG087-Edit.jpg  
    -
    "Nice picture, you must have an amazing camera."
    Visit my photography blog at: http://helino-photo.blogspot.com

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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