Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,697   Posts: 1,482,544   Online: 892
      
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 62
  1. #51
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,304
    Images
    188
    Well, since you're "not really worried about the exposure issues or how not nice the images are", you're right- my post wouldn't be helpful. I thought I was posting for someone to whom those things matter...

  2. #52
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,304
    Images
    188
    And my response was a bit flippant, too. I apologize.

  3. #53
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,304
    Images
    188
    Stone- My post is based on years of experience, traveling long distances to take photographs. I spend the month of June, almost every year, on a small Caribbean island, shooting for clients. They're villa/boutique hotel owners who hang my work in the villas/hotels. I can't experiment while there. I have to be familiar with my materials and equipment. I just picked up a 4x5 lens for this year's trip. Between now and June, I'll shoot at least 40-50 sheets with it, so I know it before leaving. I've also been thinking about picking up a 6x9 rangefinder, or a pano camera before this trip. If I do, they won't make the trip unless I put at least a dozen rolls through them prior to leaving.

  4. #54
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,130
    Images
    210
    Lol yay now we can be friends!

    I quickly miss-spoke, the exposure issue is something I can work on as I learn more about IR and from this test roll I can adjust. The framing is simply not important since I wasn't shooting this to make anything spectacular, I WOULD have if I had it IN the canyon, but since I wasn't able to, this became a test roll rather than a professional take 10 minutes to expose etc. image, I just wanted to take a few images to see how it all turned out. So right now the focus is on whether the film itself has a mucky grain, or the developer is the issue, or if the focus is the issue, the IR focus shouldn't have thrown off the image that much though, there would be a focus point somewhere there would be clear, and nothing was, so trying to understand if the IR film is just not very sharp, or if there's a way to correct for that. Thanks.
    Last edited by StoneNYC; 01-19-2013 at 06:15 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Spelling

  5. #55
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,146
    Images
    62
    As an occasional user of the stuff . . .

    1) I don't think it is as sharp as some other B&W material, but another suggestion that is often recommended when wading into this stuff is to shoot a frame or two on the first roll without a filter (at ISO 400 or abouts) to provide a cross-check on the rest of the process. That's a good way to eliminate a few variables. I developed in HC110 dilution B (1+31) to establish a known base and don't recollect it being obviously grainy, but I also think the overall effect is a bit softer.

    2) In comparing with other films, you have to remember it's essentially a traditional ISO 400 B&W emulsion, not Acros or Delta 100.

    3) I'm not convinced the IR focus adjustment is necessary, or at least don't think it needs to be as large as 'in the olde days' because the film is not picking up much beyond the visible spectrum.

    4) At the risk of being repetitious and redundant, there is much to gain by doing a test or three in familiar territory, near the darkroom so you can assess and adjust between rolls to build a "knowledge base." My own experience leads me to think many adjustments that may be intuitive working with normal pan films fall apart in the spectrum where our eyes don't work so well. Even though I was working within a 25 mile radius of home I went through about three tanks worth of gas running back and forth to process and evaluate results.

    5) And I still think I need to re-evaluate my whole process next time out!

    E.g., Next time it will be better!

  6. #56
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,130
    Images
    210

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    As an occasional user of the stuff . . .

    1) I don't think it is as sharp as some other B&W material, but another suggestion that is often recommended when wading into this stuff is to shoot a frame or two on the first roll without a filter (at ISO 400 or abouts) to provide a cross-check on the rest of the process. That's a good way to eliminate a few variables. I developed in HC110 dilution B (1+31) to establish a known base and don't recollect it being obviously grainy, but I also think the overall effect is a bit softer.

    2) In comparing with other films, you have to remember it's essentially a traditional ISO 400 B&W emulsion, not Acros or Delta 100.

    3) I'm not convinced the IR focus adjustment is necessary, or at least don't think it needs to be as large as 'in the olde days' because the film is not picking up much beyond the visible spectrum.

    4) At the risk of being repetitious and redundant, there is much to gain by doing a test or three in familiar territory, near the darkroom so you can assess and adjust between rolls to build a "knowledge base." My own experience leads me to think many adjustments that may be intuitive working with normal pan films fall apart in the spectrum where our eyes don't work so well. Even though I was working within a 25 mile radius of home I went through about three tanks worth of gas running back and forth to process and evaluate results.

    5) And I still think I need to re-evaluate my whole process next time out!

    E.g., Next time it will be better!
    Thanks! I like the idea of doing a few non IR shots DUH! Can't believe I didn't think of that.

    I think "soft" is the proper word as I don't SEE grain pixels but still looks "blurred" at the edges.

    Thanks again.


    ~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. #57
    mooseontheloose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kyoto, Japan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,606
    Images
    36
    Stone, I'm not an IR expert at all, and I've never shot the Rollei film (just HIE and Efke), but I think one of the differences you need to account for in your images is how the sun is lighting your subject. In the first instance it looks to be behind (or to the side) of the tree, and I think you want to avoid any backlighting with the sun in the frame. The tree and bushes look underexposed (for IR) which would could be the problem with the mushy grain (again, speaking from experience with other films, not this one). The "one from the car" is clearly front/side-lit from the sun and the grain looks nice and clean.

    I've seen IR photos taken in tombs and underground locations, foggy weather, etc. -- as long as there is some source of infrared light, you can get an IR shot -- and although it will be grainy, that can lend itself to the atmosphere of the photo -- just depends on the subject. If and when you test your film, remember to do it in a variety of lighting conditions, and preferably at different times of day, so can see what you prefer in your IR shots.
    Rachelle

    My favorite thing is to go where I've never been. D. Arbus

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    oh and the car window one... Attachment 62907

    The actual "nice" images will be for the subscribers in my gallery
    FWIW, I rather like the tonality of this image.
    Last edited by ME Super; 01-19-2013 at 08:34 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    ME Super

    Shoot more film.
    There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.

  9. #59
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,130
    Images
    210

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    Quote Originally Posted by mooseontheloose View Post
    Stone, I'm not an IR expert at all, and I've never shot the Rollei film (just HIE and Efke), but I think one of the differences you need to account for in your images is how the sun is lighting your subject. In the first instance it looks to be behind (or to the side) of the tree, and I think you want to avoid any backlighting with the sun in the frame. The tree and bushes look underexposed (for IR) which would could be the problem with the mushy grain (again, speaking from experience with other films, not this one). The "one from the car" is clearly front/side-lit from the sun and the grain looks nice and clean.

    I've seen IR photos taken in tombs and underground locations, foggy weather, etc. -- as long as there is some source of infrared light, you can get an IR shot -- and although it will be grainy, that can lend itself to the atmosphere of the photo -- just depends on the subject. If and when you test your film, remember to do it in a variety of lighting conditions, and preferably at different times of day, so can see what you prefer in your IR shots.
    I just happened to pick this one for the crop, all of the images have the same blobs, all within 3 hours of each other on the same day with different sun behind or on front or on the side, didn't change the blobby grain.

    The other images can be seen in my Gallery.

    Good idea though, but that didn't seem to change the "soft" and fast drop off of the images at 1:1 that is bothering me.


    ~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

  10. #60
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,130
    Images
    210

    HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

    Quote Originally Posted by ME Super View Post
    FWIW, I rather like the tonality of this image.
    Thanks, I do too, now I wish I had thrown on a different lens and gotten out of the car to frame it better, oh well, haha


    ~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 6 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