Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,745   Posts: 1,515,652   Online: 749
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 62
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,206
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    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).
    I've done it once or twice. It didn't really look any different from the sun in visible light; just a big blown-out highlight. If you have a composition where the sun in the frame would work well in visible light, it should work well in IR, and vice versa.

    -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. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Stone, I use this film all the time and in every case, ISO 6 with an R72 has proven to be dead on. I have even used it with my iPhone app called Lightmeter which is essentially a spot meter and it looks great. I would not bracket the under side of ISO 6, there is no point. Unless you are ducking into thick cover, don't do three frame brackets, one at metered value and one at 1 stop over will be fine.

    I soup my IR400 in HC-110 / B and it looks great. Xtol looks good too but you need to overdevelop it a bit as well as the Ilford SFX stuff. Also, the Rollie stuff does well with a couple minutes of tempered pre-wet as it seems to be prone to streaking, FYI.....

  3. #33
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,908
    Images
    222

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    Stone, I use this film all the time and in every case, ISO 6 with an R72 has proven to be dead on. I have even used it with my iPhone app called Lightmeter which is essentially a spot meter and it looks great. I would not bracket the under side of ISO 6, there is no point. Unless you are ducking into thick cover, don't do three frame brackets, one at metered value and one at 1 stop over will be fine.

    I soup my IR400 in HC-110 / B and it looks great. Xtol looks good too but you need to overdevelop it a bit as well as the Ilford SFX stuff. Also, the Rollie stuff does well with a couple minutes of tempered pre-wet as it seems to be prone to streaking, FYI.....
    Thanks the notes! Yea not bracketing that much is better if possible so good to know.

    And know anything about Ilfsol 3 or DD-X with that? I can purchase some HC-110 B if I need to of course but is that significantly better of a choice?


    ~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

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    I have no experience with Ilfosol or DDX but HC-110 is nearly as economical as Rodinal in that you mix only what you need each run. So for example, in dillution B it is 1+31 or 16ml of concentrate per 484ml of water to come up with the 500ml for a roll of 120, about .40 cents.

    I find IR-400 in HC-110 to be a bit tamer in grain and contrast compared to Rodinal 1+50 but still punchy enough for striking IR effect at grade 2 and for a scan that you simply have to set black and maybe do a touch of highlight burn.

    And I know some people complain about the syrupy nature of HC-110 but I simply overcome that by pouring the majority of the measured concentrate out of my small 50ml graduate into my larger 1L dedicated developer graduate first. I then have the tempered and measured amount of water in another 1L container and I just keep pouring it into the small 50ml graduate that the concentrate was in and then pour that into the developer graduate until I have gone through all the measured water. It pretty much rinses all the HC-110 into the mix by the time I have ran all the water into it, no waste, no want....

    Even though I have plenty of stock of developers like D76, 1D-II and Rodinal, I have pretty much standardized with Xtol and HC-110 which work great for both tank and reel and rotary processing...
    Last edited by PKM-25; 01-06-2013 at 04:21 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #35
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,908
    Images
    222

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    I have no experience with Ilfosol or DDX but HC-110 is nearly as economical as Rodinal in that you mix only what you need each run. So for example, in dillution B it is 1+31 or 16ml of concentrate per 484ml of water to come up with the 500ml for a roll of 120, about .40 cents.

    I find IR-400 in HC-110 to be a bit tamer in grain and contrast compared to Rodinal 1+50 but still punchy enough for striking IR effect at grade 2 and for a scan that you simply have to set black and maybe do a touch of highlight burn.

    And I know some people complain about the syrupy nature of HC-110 but I simply overcome that by pouring the majority of the measured concentrate out of my small 50ml graduate into my larger 1L dedicated developer graduate first. I then have the tempered and measured amount of water in another 1L container and I just keep pouring it into the small 50ml graduate that the concentrate was in and then pour that into the developer graduate until I have gone through all the measured water. It pretty much rinses all the HC-110 into the mix by the time I have ran all the water into it, no waste, no want....

    Even though I have plenty of stock of developers like D76, 1D-II and Rodinal, I have pretty much standardized with Xtol and HC-110 which work great for both tank and reel and rotary processing...
    Gotcha, thanks ill give it a try.


    ~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. #36
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,908
    Images
    222

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    Ok guys thanks! Headed out!



    This will be me again in about 2 days! (Taken during my Kodachrome trip in December 2010 on a tripod and timer)

    Thanks for all the help! Will post results after the 15th


    ~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. #37
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    Godspeed!
    Andy

  8. #38
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Good luck!

    (And if the vegitation is like those grasses and shrubs, forget the IR "false-wood" effect. Won't happen.)

  9. #39
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,011
    Images
    60
    Stone:

    This may be too late, but just in case it isn't ...

    Your question about the effect of temperature indicates to me that there is something about (near) IR film that you are misunderstanding.

    None of us use a meter that will tell us how much film sensitive radiation there is in the scenes we photograph.

    All of our calculations are based on:

    1) we know that the light we see reflected off our subject is accompanied by at least some IR that our film is sensitive too; and
    2) we have or gain experience as we go about what the percentage is of IR light reflecting from the subject.

    As an example, we learn from experience that in certain weather conditions, at certain times of day there is a relatively high percentage of ambient IR in the total ambient light available. We also learn that certain types of vegetation reflect more of that IR than other types do.

    If we didn't use something like a very dense R72 filter, we would never see any IR effect on the film, because the film is much more sensitive to visible light then it is to IR.

    We have no way to meter the IR. We do, however, have a way to meter the visible light, and through experience we learn how much IR is around when a certain amount of visible light around, so we do have a way of approaching the problem.

    First, we put something like an R72 filter on the camera, which blocks out almost all the visible light, but transmits the IR. We do not meter through that filter - use a separate hand-held meter.

    Next, based on our experience that indicates that for any level of illumination we see, there are about 6 stops less intense IR present as well, we measure the visible light, and extrapolate the IR by assuming there are 6 stops less available. We accomplish that extrapolation by metering at EI 6, which is 6 stops less than EI 400.

    Finally, we expose the film through the filter, and bracket around that 6 stops less estimate, because it isn't nearly as accurate as our usual metering technology.

    Hope this helps.
    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

  10. #40
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,011
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    Good luck!

    (And if the vegitation is like those grasses and shrubs, forget the IR "false-wood" effect. Won't happen.)
    Brian:

    Your observation is correct, but as wikipedia states:

    "The ("Wood") effect is named after the infrared photography pioneer Robert W. Wood, and not after the material wood, which does not strongly reflect infrared"
    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

Page 4 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