Testing IR film
Testing IR film
Looks like testing IR film may be a long road .
Two test on a very bright day.
Deep shadows and the bright blue sky are a couple of problems.
f16 exposure 1/60 .. the IR film was exposed for 5 mins processed in Diafine 4+4
Camera info focal length 88m pinhole size 500micron I was did use a 400micron on the first test I have been thinking why not try a larger aperture and use shorter exposure times. I have also run some test for sharpness .
First couple of images of the Old Albany Mill/Cottage
and how it look taken with my Sony DSLR.
Sharpness test with 500micron pinhole
NOT IR film Foma 100 was use for this test
Wasn't the best choice of subject or distance, the brick wall looks like I'm on the right track.
Both IR shots look great to me... Were you disappointed the composition on the metal gate suffered where it disappeared against the black sky? Still it looks great but that is about the only thing I see "wrong". You can fix that next time with a little awareness of what's going to happen based on your results here.
Sharpness isn't one of the things I look for in IR. I love the crisp black water and skies and white plantlife - looks like you got that.
The exposure on the IR shots looks pretty good to me. The blue sky will always come out essentially black, and shadows are *very* IR-poor as a rule---I don't think you'll find that those dark areas can be realistically addressed through exposure changes. That's just how the world looks in IR.
Which film was this? Efke? You got a pretty strong Wood effect.
Looks good to me. I always like IR images.
What is the problem with your images, softness? Keep in mind the longer wavelengths (~800nm vs ~400nm) of IR, which results in twice as much diffraction. You will want to recalibrate your idea of what is the optimum size pinhole for a given format and/or use a lens!
I shall have to disagree vehemently with Sirius on the matter of backlit infrared shots.
Er, I dunno there's much to explain. Certainly the majority of my IR shots are with the sun mostly-behind the camera, my point was just that you can't really make a generalisation like "Do not bother to work with the subject back-lit by the Sun" because in some situations, it looks pretty cool. I find that most leaves have a good glow when backlit with IR, just like they do with visible-band. In some ways it's better than visual-band backlighting where you would generally get blown-out sky but with IR and blue sky, it's well-controlled as per my first post with the kiwi vines.
Same goes for side-lighting, it can give nice structural definition in the same way that it does with visible light. No drawbacks that I can see. If you don't like those photos or that style, that's cool, but it's probably my favourite way to shoot landscapes.
For non-translucent subjects (buildings, etc), sure, totally-backlit IR might be a bit crap.