Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,000   Posts: 1,524,331   Online: 717
      
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 62
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Mt. Laurel NJ USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    172
    Look into the Cokin filter line. I use them with success. They re lot cheaper than the ones you mentioned.

    Howard

  2. #12
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    Stone, you seem legit, I will send out Monday my 67mm Hoya R72. I can flat rate small box it to your motel/hotel/post ofc or whatnot (shd be $7 w insur) you cover ship to and return with same (flat rate insur). Pm me if you wish. I need it back, no later tan 3/1/13, for when the spring begins here...

    This what you looking for (see bottom left)?

    Andy

  3. #13
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,207
    Images
    63
    I've used a Bower IR72 off ePrey ($47 for a 77mm in 2010) with Rollei IR400 quite successfully. Take an ISO 400 reading, add 6 stops and bracket, bracket, bracket! I agree tests ahead of time are to be highly recommended. Since our eyes don't see IR, we are denied a chance to do a lot of intuitive adjustments.

    Most recently I used a Wratten 89B (~695 nm) which was OK, but not quite as good as the 720 nm filter in the infrared effects, and I would expect a 25A to be even less good. I think the more ordinary red filters worked with the old Kodak stuff because it had a very wide sensitivity outside the visible spectrum, a sort of 'area under the curve' biased in that direction.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,236
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    Stacking the filters will not help! Either you have a proper filter, or you don't.
    Well, the transmission curve of the stack is going to be the product of the transmission curves of the components. B+W claims that their 091 transmits essentially 100% from about 660 or 670 nm upward---two of them should produce a *very* sharp cutoff slightly below that, which would be a kind of "very deep red" filter that passed IR freely, similar to a Schott RG665. I don't know if it would show any IR effects, but looking at the curve I think it's possible. Two 090s (is that the 25A equivalent?) would pass from about 580 nm and probably wouldn't work.

    Another problem is that the IR light reflected varies based on the vegitation. Deciduous trees and lawn grass reflect the most, and conifers and shrubs vary. Once again, Kodak had the best, and it's never been matched. Your results will vary, and will be useless without the right filter.
    *And* the compensation varies with the time of day, because the ratio of IR to visible changes (highest in late afternoon, lowest at high noon, generally). I never understood why so many people insisted that you needed to use EI 3 or less for IR film when I was getting decent shots at 6 or 12---well, I was doing all my shooting after getting home from work, when the visible light was dim and the IR relatively high. I suppose there could be variance with altitude too. Cripes, why doesn't anyone make an IR light meter?

    Oh, yeah: the tail end (black part) of E6 can be used as an IR filter. I've done it with Kodak, but I never tried it with the others. It might work. If you have some lying around, go ahead and try it, but you may need long exposure times.
    I've never tried it, but I remember reading that it only worked with HIE and was similar in transmission to one of the far-IR filters. The Rollei film doesn't go very far out of the visible range, IIRC.

    -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_

  5. #15
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,046
    Images
    223

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    Stone, you seem legit, I will send out Monday my 67mm Hoya R72. I can flat rate small box it to your motel/hotel/post ofc or whatnot (shd be $7 w insur) you cover ship to and return with same (flat rate insur). Pm me if you wish. I need it back, no later tan 3/1/13, for when the spring begins here...

    This what you looking for (see bottom left)?

    Thanks! PM sent


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #16
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,046
    Images
    223

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    Stone, I have had zero issues with the Hoya R72, used it today in 15F, FYI...
    That's good, I was told some of the older Hoya MRC filters were not coated properly and perhaps I had picked up one of those and that was the problem, all I know is B+W is all I use except for my Circ Pol which is Nikon even though I'm a Canon guy I found those to be even nicer than the B+W circ pol's

    Except the circ pol of the Mamiya 7 which is made by Mamiya themselves since its special for rangefinders.

    I assume the Hoya 72 and the B+W 90's dark red are the same thing with different number designations?


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #17
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,046
    Images
    223

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    I've used a Bower IR72 off ePrey ($47 for a 77mm in 2010) with Rollei IR400 quite successfully. Take an ISO 400 reading, add 6 stops and bracket, bracket, bracket! I agree tests ahead of time are to be highly recommended. Since our eyes don't see IR, we are denied a chance to do a lot of intuitive adjustments.

    Most recently I used a Wratten 89B (~695 nm) which was OK, but not quite as good as the 720 nm filter in the infrared effects, and I would expect a 25A to be even less good. I think the more ordinary red filters worked with the old Kodak stuff because it had a very wide sensitivity outside the visible spectrum, a sort of 'area under the curve' biased in that direction.
    6 stops down you mean? So 400 would be 8? Why not just make my ISO reading an 8? My meter goes to ISO3

    And bracket 2 rolls of 120? That's about 4-6 shots total, I guess I could do that... Oh lots of choices, myGF is going to be thrilled at the amount of time I spend with my tripod and meter... Lol


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #18
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Yes, Nathan, I also start out at EI 12, but the bracketing does cover 3 and 50. I could shoot Kodak just at straight 400 with no problems, but Konica, Efke, Ilford, and (I'm currently trying) Rollei, they don't have the same great response. Of course, I'm really glad just to have anything at all these days.

    Also, when I'm out photographing in IR, I've done stuff at the break of dawn, in deep forest, and at the last fading rays. So yeah, the bracketing needs to cover all that. Such is life with IR. I do know that some people have modified their light meters, and have removed the IR filter. The problem is that what I'd need is a spot meter, because some of the conifers don't reflect any IR in the lower spectrums where the current crop of films is sensitive to it. I have a few shots where some trees reflect it modestly, and others don't reflect anything at all.

  9. #19
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,046
    Images
    223
    [COLOR=#333333]So apparently the above poster was slightly right, I didn't do my FULL research, I didn't realize there were different transmission rates of the filters
    [/COLOR]

    I'm looking at the different filters on B&H's website.

    The question is, if the film is sensitive to 720nm vs higher rated film at 850nm ... and one filter allows transmission beginning at the 700nm's mark where another only starts at 800 or 900nm ... will the film that BEGINS senisitivity at 720nm not pick up the higher rated filter's specturm at all, or will it just take longer to burn in since the IR sensitivity is higher up? so if I wanted even more contrast, I would choose the one that starts at 800 or 900 and expose for longer correct?

  10. #20
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,207
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    [COLOR=#333333]So apparently the above poster was slightly right, I didn't do my FULL research, I didn't realize there were different transmission rates of the filters
    [/COLOR]

    I'm looking at the different filters on B&H's website.

    The question is, if the film is sensitive to 720nm vs higher rated film at 850nm ... and one filter allows transmission beginning at the 700nm's mark where another only starts at 800 or 900nm ... will the film that BEGINS senisitivity at 720nm not pick up the higher rated filter's specturm at all, or will it just take longer to burn in since the IR sensitivity is higher up? so if I wanted even more contrast, I would choose the one that starts at 800 or 900 and expose for longer correct?
    Don't do it! A 760 nm filter on the Rollei stuff needs about 12 or 13 stops additional exposure. Bigger numbers are farther into IR, the film sensitivity is already rolling off at 720 and drops like a rock beyond that. And to your question about my statement above, guess I would have been clearer had I said increase exposure by 6 stops. You could set your meter to a lower ISO. I was using a Digisix that only goes down to 6 -- and if I used the 760 filter, I need about 0.25!

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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