Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,047   Posts: 1,560,993   Online: 1185
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62
  1. #21
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,504
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    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!
    OK, I think I understand so the 92 filter is best as I risk not exposing the film at all with the 93 because it begins at 800nm and some of the Rollei film doesn't even reach that high. OK, and I will set the meter to around 6 ISO and then bracket +/- one stop on either side (3 ISO and 12 ISO) and hope for the best haha. I was doing something similar when I was shooting my 1947 expired Verichrome... that was also 0.75 as an estimate of the EI I would have to use based on age... haha

    I like crazy films but they make me crazy too!

  2. #22
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,504
    Images
    225
    OK everyone .... so I did it, I bit the bullet, the cost of the B&W over the Hoya was about $40 but the overnight shipping was about the same, killer, but after the price of the B+W 92 IR filter and the overnight shipping my bill was $192 ... so much for "not having the money" ... stupid credit card *grumbles* but hey hopefully I'll get some awesome images out of it that will be worth the cost.

    Thanks everyone for chipping in and sending info my way.

    Be well everyone and I'll post the results (if any appear) in about ... 20 days or so.

    ~Stone

  3. #23
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    OK, it looks like you bought a 092. That's the correct filter, and it will work fine with all of the current IR films.

    Filters cut off at a point, and let in light beyond that.
    Films are sensitive up to a point.

    So a film is sensitive up to 820nm. A filter at 900nm would be too much (80nm over), but a filter at 720nm would be fine, since it would let in light at 720nm and above.

    The B+W 092 is what I use with Konica, Ilford, Efke, and Rollei.
    The B+W 091 is what I used with Kodak, since I could still see through a SLR lens.

  4. #24
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,657
    Images
    60
    This is the Rollei shot through a Hoya R72 - I metered the ambient light as indicated using EI 3: http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showima...imageuser=6479
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #25
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,504
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    OK, it looks like you bought a 092. That's the correct filter, and it will work fine with all of the current IR films.

    Filters cut off at a point, and let in light beyond that.
    Films are sensitive up to a point.

    So a film is sensitive up to 820nm. A filter at 900nm would be too much (80nm over), but a filter at 720nm would be fine, since it would let in light at 720nm and above.

    The B+W 092 is what I use with Konica, Ilford, Efke, and Rollei.
    The B+W 091 is what I used with Kodak, since I could still see through a SLR lens.
    Thanks, and yes I got the right one few!!

    The way some of the films read it seems they "start" at Xnm and give no indication of the cut off where they STOP, so it's a little confusing/deceiving, it also may be the distributors description being off. Either way glad I have APUG to clear it up

  6. #26
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,504
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    This is the Rollei shot through a Hoya R72 - I metered the ambient light as indicated using EI 3: http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showima...imageuser=6479

    That's a really beautiful shot. Now do you know how IR reacts to TEMPERATURE? I'll be in the grand canyon so I'll be in wide open spaces, so I was thinking unlike your EI3 shot perhaps I should do EI6 since there is more sun beating down... but it's also sort of a HEAT thing, and it's cold there, like 30 degrees to 5 degrees Fahrenheit... will that affect the shot?

    Also, where did you meter? the leaves, the sky, the river? etc. Thanks!!

  7. #27
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,971

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    You should have bought an eBay ir filter from china. Just a few dollars isn't a big deal if you end up not liking it. I have one and it works for those few times I do shoot ir. I guess if you are really committing to it $200 bucks may be worth it but that's a steep curve to jump onto just starting out.

  8. #28
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,504
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Newt_on_Swings View Post
    You should have bought an eBay ir filter from china. Just a few dollars isn't a big deal if you end up not liking it. I have one and it works for those few times I do shoot ir. I guess if you are really committing to it $200 bucks may be worth it but that's a steep curve to jump onto just starting out.
    For the kind of timeframe I have, eBay wouldn't work, and I've bought a filter or two from there, always dissatisfied, the Hoya I bought as I mentioned earlier came from eBay and then I went to shoot with it and any moisture had this weird bubling effect as if the surface had water bubbles underneath like when paint bubbles, and it left my images with distortion, but the B+W filter I had on the same day, and that didn't do that, so that's when I decided no eBay and no Hoya, It's well worth the extra money if you take into account the cost of the flight to the Grand Canyon and hotel, permit, time, energy, to come home to bad shots, thats more costly. I'm LESS penny wise, pound foolish than I used to be...LESS... hehe

  9. #29
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Temperature has no effect on photographic IR film. The IR that constitutes hot/cold is way out of the range of photographic film.

    I have seen IR shots of conifers in the snow, and it was really nifty to see white foliage with white snow. That was done with Kodak, though. Usually when I do it with a 092 filter and Efke or Ilford, the conifers will be a light grey. One time when I was underneath conifers, in the deep shade and the sunlight couldn't filter, the IR made things look like a white fairy land. You might want to look for settings like that. Remember to bracket N, +/-1, +/-2, and you should be good, especially for your first trip with it.

  10. #30
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,504
    Images
    225

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    Temperature has no effect on photographic IR film. The IR that constitutes hot/cold is way out of the range of photographic film.

    I have seen IR shots of conifers in the snow, and it was really nifty to see white foliage with white snow. That was done with Kodak, though. Usually when I do it with a 092 filter and Efke or Ilford, the conifers will be a light grey. One time when I was underneath conifers, in the deep shade and the sunlight couldn't filter, the IR made things look like a white fairy land. You might want to look for settings like that. Remember to bracket N, +/-1, +/-2, and you should be good, especially for your first trip with it.
    I hesitate to bracket +/- 2 as well as 1 because I'm shooting 120, that means only 2 images per roll!

    Now this is a case for providing 220 that no one can argue "too much film" at lol

    Hmm so, what about the sun, I've never seen an IR shot where the image was aimed at the sun...

    Is this possible? Was thinking of shooting a shot where the sun is in the sky overlooking the canyon (something to do while I wait for golden hour).


    ~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

Page 3 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