Advice for first time near-IR

[Truzi]

There is enough on APUG to get a fair idea of the technicalities, and I've read a lot of it. I want my first try with (near) IR to be not so subtle. Any suggestions on how to get me hooked on this? Things like best time of day, good subjects to photograph, etc., all geared to make a good first experience.

I have Rollei Retro 400s in 35mm, an Hoya R72, and a tripod.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

If my memory serves me is that ISO is reduced between 3 and 12 with a very dark IR filter. I'm not sure about the R72. With the tripod use a cable release. Expect very slow shutter speeds. Go for trees, with old buildings and the like. Best time of the day between 10am and 3pm during late spring and summer. Use a meter.

Jeff

 

[MattKing]

If you have a rangefinder or a TLR, it is a lot easier to use than an SLR.

The R72 is the filter I used with the Rollei near IR film a few years ago.

The procedure is as follows:

1) most scenes are illuminated by a wide spectrum of light. We can see the light in the visible part of the spectrum, while the film is sensitive to that light, light into the UV end of the spectrum, and some light that is in the near IR part of the spectrum;
2) our meters aren't really sensitive in the near IR part of the spectrum;
3) the film is a lot more sensitive to visible and UV light than it is to the near IR light;
4) the R72 blocks out most of the visible and UV, while it passes the near IR;
5) the reason that the meters assist us is that there is a rough correlation between the amount of visible light and the near IR light in the scene. The recommendations to take readings using EIs of 3 or 6 arise from the fact that the near IR light is about 6 or 7 stops less intense then the visual light that accompanies it;
6) that correlation is strongest near noon, and when you are photographing things like foliage, which tend to reflect a fair amount of near IR light;
7) you cannot really see how your shots are going to turn out until you get some experience with trying it;
8) don't forget to take into account subject movement .

Here are a few of my first experiments (note the movement of the water surface).

 

[Dr Croubie]

I'm also curious and have some rolls of SFX to use, so I'll be watching this thread.
The one thing I do know is about focussing, get a lens that has an 'IR' mark, focus normally without the filter, refocus whatever is at the infinity mark to the IR mark, then stop down a lot to cover any mistakes anyway.

My biggest confusion source is the ei rating and whether it accounts for filters etc.

So SFX is rated at ei200 in daylight. I put on a filter (in my case, Polaroid IR720). 6 stops below ei200 is ei3. So just meter and set shutter speeds for ei3? Or rate at ei3 because there's 6-stops less IR light and then subtract the filter-factor again?

 

[MattKing]

I'm also curious and have some rolls of SFX to use, so I'll be watching this thread.
The one thing I do know is about focussing, get a lens that has an 'IR' mark, focus normally without the filter, refocus whatever is at the infinity mark to the IR mark, then stop down a lot to cover any mistakes anyway.

My biggest confusion source is the ei rating and whether it accounts for filters etc.

So SFX is rated at ei200 in daylight. I put on a filter (in my case, Polaroid IR720). 6 stops below ei200 is ei3. So just meter and set shutter speeds for ei3? Or rate at ei3 because there's 6-stops less IR light and then subtract the filter-factor again?

The currently available near IR sensitive films have aren't sensitive to the parts of the IR spectrum which make it necessary to use the IR mark on the lens - that was for the old Kodak HIE and, to a certain extent, the Efke 820 films. The wavelengths that the current films are sensitive to are essentially the wavelengths of visible light, so you need to focus normally. Of course, as you probably know, you cannot see well enough through the filter to be able to compose or focus. Thus my earlier recommendation of a rangefinder or TLR.

The recommendation to meter using an EI of 3 or 6 takes into account the filter. So you meter without the filter using that low setting.
Do not try to meter through the filter - you will just end up being frustrated.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

There is enough on APUG to get a fair idea of the technicalities, and I've read a lot of it. I want my first try with (near) IR to be not so subtle. Any suggestions on how to get me hooked on this? Things like best time of day, good subjects to photograph, etc., all geared to make a good first experience.

I have Rollei Retro 400s in 35mm, an Hoya R72, and a tripod.

All the best in your efforts.
If you want to try another film here is a suggestion to use Fomapan 400 with the R72 filter. From the top: EI400, EI6 and EI 1.5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/15529433@N04/14565906773/

 

[Xmas]

The currently available near IR sensitive films have aren't sensitive to the parts of the IR spectrum which make it necessary to use the IR mark on the lens - that was for the old Kodak HIE and, to a certain extent, the Efke 820 films. The wavelengths that the current films are sensitive to are essentially the wavelengths of visible light, so you need to focus normally. Of course, as you probably know, you cannot see well enough through the filter to be able to compose or focus. Thus my earlier recommendation of a rangefinder or TLR.

The recommendation to meter using an EI of 3 or 6 takes into account the filter. So you meter without the filter using that low setting.
Do not try to meter through the filter - you will just end up being frustrated.

My summitar was made about '49 and looks to have an IR datum was it made in anticipation of HIE ' s introduction (in 54?) or a retro?

Most lenses are 'corrected' for bluish and orangish more extreme or intermediate colours create blur...

An apo is corrected for three visible colours for less blur but still might have an IR datum.

A real IR datum should be a mini scale 600 to 900.

If you want high definition you need to stop down a bit to reduce the blur as well as some focus compensation.

An M8 offers good IR performance...

 

[Alex Muir]

I use the Rollei IR film and agree with most of the above. EI 3-6 is definitely the way to go. I have metered through the R72 filter with a Nikon FE and the results were acceptable. I set the camera meter to 200. A safer course, however, is a seperate meter set to 3 or 6. I'm not certain about the need for focus correction. I had been ignoring it recently, but think it may be necessary with this film. Some of my recent shots have lacked sharpness. I tend to find a suitable location and then use a roll of film bracketing exposures. It means that you end up with around 12 scenes, but there is a better chance of usable negatives. You could incorporate focus correction into the sequence to see if it's necessary. One other thing. If you are among trees with lots of foliage and bright sun, you can experience overexposure. Fresh foliage is a very efficient reflector of IR.
Good luck, and I hope you enjoy IR.
Alex

 

[polyglot]

This might help.

For a simple, reliable first few photos, get out in full summer sun and use the Sunny-16 rule. For a bit more drama, full sun still but just before the beginning of the golden hour; meter at about f/11.

Don't adjust focus with SFX or Rollei IR films and modern lenses, the wavelengths aren't that long. Don't expect results quite as sharp as normal film, because the IR grains are larger, you get about twice as diffraction (800nm vs 400nm) and there will likely be subject movement because exposures are typically kind of long.

 

[Truzi]

Thanx for all the advice, and reminding me about the cable release. I'll definitely bracket a bit.
Saturday is supposed to be nice and sunny, so that's my target. I was thinking of going to a park, but we're supposed to pick blueberries - so that may work too, as long as the proprietors don't mind.

Tomorrow night I'm going to make my first attempt at photographing fireworks (in color).

 

[madgardener]

All the best in your efforts.
If you want to try another film here is a suggestion to use Fomapan 400 with the R72 filter. From the top: EI400, EI6 and EI 1.5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/15529433@N04/14565906773/

That's interesting that kind of effect can be done with a regular film. I remember a thread where someone asked a question about using a regular film as infrared and the general consensus was that the film would be blank because the filter would filter everything out.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Fomapan 400 (and it seems 200 as well) has a peak of about 680nm, shorter than the 720nm of Ilford SFX, but better than the 640nn of FP4+.

Fomapan 400: http://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400

Ilford SFX: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20129101343411444.pdf

Ilford FP4+: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf

 

[Alex Muir]

Rollei Retro 400s also works. Alex

 

[ME Super]

I've also heard that the Rollei Retro 80s works too. Contrast is really high with it though, IIRC.

 

[Truzi]

Didn't get a chance to take any pictures at the blueberry farm because we were pressed for time.

I did shoot a roll when I got home, just boring stuff of the front yard. The first frame of each bracketed set was sans filter, so I can compare if the results aren't too obvious. I'll develop it in a week or two and hope I didn't screw up too bad.

 

[piu58]

> Rollei Retro 80s works too. Contrast is really high with it though, IIRC

You should adapt the development to that film. It is possible to get normal graduated negatives from it, but not with everey developer. I use Atomal 49 1+1 which works fine.

 

[rubyfalls]

Anyone have any preferred developers for infrared? I'm shooting my first rolls, too. Still trying to determine whether I need to load in total darkness or not (rollei and ilford IR films; both 120). So glad OP started this timely thread!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[polyglot]

For loading 120, you don't need total darkness. The issues arise with some 35mm films that can light-pipe in from the roll end.

IR films tend to be super-grainy so you probably want a developer with some smoothing action. D76 and Xtol (both at 1+1) are good. Rodinal works of course, but it comes out looking like 40-grit sandpaper on your print.

 

[ME Super]

I've seen a little light piping around the sprocket holes with the Rollei IR400s in 35mm. Load in dim light and you should be fine. It also makes a good panchromatic film when used without a filter. Pretty fine grained too. Here's a few shots I took with it: (there was a url link here which no longer exists). The first two are with an IR filter, the other two are with no filtration. It's no Kodak HIE, but it's definitely finer grained than HIE.

 

[Truzi]

I was thinking HC-110 (or perhaps Tmax RS), since I can draw what I need. If you think D-76 is a better idea for this, I have a few packets, so it won't be difficult.

 

[MattKing]

I was thinking HC-110 (or perhaps Tmax RS), since I can draw what I need. If you think D-76 is a better idea for this, I have a few packets, so it won't be difficult.

Mine were developed in HC-110 - dilution B in this case.

 

[polyglot]

I was thinking HC-110 (or perhaps Tmax RS), since I can draw what I need. If you think D-76 is a better idea for this, I have a few packets, so it won't be difficult.

Those developers will of course work and if you like the look of them with other films then by all means continue to use them.

 

[Truzi]

I wasn't sure if something lent itself better to the situation (though in theory it shouldn't). Plus, with my skill-level, I doubt it would matter much anyway; I can screw it up with any developer, lol.

Long-lasting concentrates are appealing to me as I tend to shoot film in spurts. I like D-76 and use it as my "benchmark" - I compare everything to it and decide if I like it more or less than D-76. I've not really decided if I prefer any particular developer yet. Plus, I tend to like variety and will try something just to try it. I know, not the best route to consistency, but my goal is to have fun.

There is a mess in the spare room that I have to clean in order to access my tanks and chemicals. Once I have it developed I'll try to post links to some (crappy) scans.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

subscribed

 

[Mick Fagan]

One thing you can do with the Hoya R72 filter, which I also have, is to take it off the lens and hold it in both hands with your long fingers wrapped around the lens to your eye, blocking out as much white light as possible to, in effect, just be looking through the filter.

In bright sunlight, swing your self around looking at potential IR shots; you will certainly see where there is IR and where there is little or none. One thing though, keep your viewings through the filter in search of IR light shortish. Your eyes certainly start to adapt to the filter, I find a quick 5 second scan gives a good indication, then I zero in on where the IR is strongest. One then works out composition, and fires away.

Bright green leaves on northern hemisphere trees in certain angled sunlight will show up as nearly white, that means there is bulk IR radiating onto them and that it is visible in the direction you are looking. This means you can shoot in that direction and if your filtering is correct, you should be able to record in or near the IR part of the spectrum and block out most but not all of the visible part of the spectrum

Water will almost always look black and high level fleecy/stringy clouds will often look very interesting looking in the right direction. Low clouds don’t look very well at all; in fact on low cloud days with IR film and filters, it’s pretty much a waste of effort and materials in my experience.

Finding IR radiation is a primary requirement, photographing the objects in that light, is the secondary requirement; both are reasonably easy to do.

IR photography with the old Kodak film really worked out very well using this pre-visualising technique.

If you are using short focal length lenses, 20mm, 24mm or 28mm, then you can usually hand hold and fire away and crop in the darkroom. Longer focal length lenses are generally a tripod job to ensure you point the camera pretty much where you want, your call.

Mick.