Chamonix 45n bellows not infrared proof?

[wildbill]

I've got the standard bellows on my 45N. I recently started shooting efke infrared with this camera and the sheets mostly had zero detail as if they were very overexposed. I've never had these issues when using my other cameras. So today I was testing some expired 4x5 kodak HSI indoors at the window looking out. No direct light on the camera. Same results so I pulled the dark slide for a bit and left the shutter closed. The processed sheet is fogged everywhere except the rebate area.
Just to be sure, I set up the same shot with the same lens using my 8x10 and a reducing back with the same film holder as before. I exposed and processed the film to find zero fog or funky density issues.

I'm going to try wrapping the bellows with my dark cloth but that's not always feasible in windy conditions.
I'm guessing HSI is more prone to this issue than efke ir820. Anyone else having this issue?

 

[archphoto]

And with standard B&W no problems ?
I would contact Chamonix about it and see what they have to say......
Never worked with IR before on 4x5" .

Peter

 

[wildbill]

And with standard B&W no problems ?
I would contact Chamonix about it and see what they have to say......
Never worked with IR before on 4x5" .

Peter

No fogging with any regular B+W or E-6 films. Unfortunately there's no way to contact the manufacturer directly. Their email goes directly to Hugo, an importer. I have contacted him but I doubt they are going to re-design their bellows (if that's the issue) for the few of us shooting these films.

 

[Jarvman]

I've shot very limited amounts of efke infrared with my chamonix 45n, rollfilm and sheet and haven't had problems so far. Not sure what the problem might be

 

[JLP]

Maybe this is the problem on my Chamonix 8x10, i have a 5x7 back for mine and shot a few sheets Efke IR last summer. Non of the sheets were printable and had lots of fog. I imagine the bellows are made of the same material no matter what format.

 

[archphoto]

This might be an item for the Large format Forum .
There is an owners group of Chamonix, maybe they have an answer.

Hopefully this helps.....
Peter

 

[wildbill]

I've never had this issue with my other cameras. I just tried another sheet with my dark cloth wrapped around the camera as best I could and it helped but the fog is still pretty bad.

 

[glarsson]

I'll be very interested in the outcome of this. I'm seriously considering the Chamonix 45N and one of my requirements is shooting with Efke IR820. Google found a photographer on Flickr with several Efke IR images made with a Chamonix 45N, such as this one, so at least one person has used this combination successfully:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9785954@N05/2741701515/

 

[wildbill]

This might be an item for the Large format Forum .
There is an owners group of Chamonix, maybe they have an answer.

Hopefully this helps.....
Peter

There are certain moderators here who get angry when a member posts a thread on more than one photo site. Since I pay subscriber fees here, I posted it here first. Thanks though.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Vinny, I've used EFKE 820 IR in my Chamonix and the two sheets I used came out fine souped in Rodinal 1:50. I rated the film at ISO-2

I've not done anymore testing than that though and although I was shooting from a shaded and cool location, the subject was in full sun.

Andy

 

[Vaughn]

Wrap the bellows in a layer of tinfoil?

You can make a hat out of the stuff, too.

Vaughn

 

[wildbill]

Well, Hugo is looking into it. Meanwhile, I put my 6x12 back on that had a roll of konica 750 in it. I attached it to the back and pulled the darklide (done indoors, overcast) for 3 minutes with the lens caps on. Same results, very dense negs all the way through except one shot I had done a few weeks back indoors near the window. I'll post the usable shot when it's dry.

 

[Marco B]

Don't you simply have a very small light leak in your bellows? Since the Efke film needs to be rated at very low ISO, say 1-6, you will always have long exposure times, and hence probably also considerably longer times with the dark slide open compared to "normal" film shots. You may therefor not have noticed the fogging with normal film... Have you tried leaving a normal piece of film for some time in the camera with the dark slide open and see if it gets fogged?

Or better, put some LED light in the camera and take the camera into a completely dark room and see if there are leaks anywhere.

 

[Jeremy]

Wrap the bellows in a layer of tinfoil?

You can make a hat out of the stuff, too.

Vaughn

That was my thought, just wrap the bellows in aluminum foil and redo your test (though I also know this stuff is expensive and you probably don't want to be doing too much testing!).

 

[John Koehrer]

I've never had this issue with my other cameras. I just tried another sheet with my dark cloth wrapped around the camera as best I could and it helped but the fog is still pretty bad.

I'd be surprised if the darkcloth was opaque to IR. Doesn't answer the OP thoug.

 

[John Koehrer]

Wrap the bellows in a layer of tinfoil?

You can make a hat out of the stuff, too.

Vaughn

It does cut down on the voices. It goes from shouting to just a murmur and I can't understand what they want me to do.

 

[wildbill]

Here's the only neg from the roll film back that wasn't fogged to death. This was late in the day with an exposure over a minute I believe. I have a leather bag bellows (shen hao brand) that I also use on this camera which I could use but that limits me to 210mm lenses. I'm sure wrapping the camera in foil wouldn't attract any attention by homeland security!

 

[freygr]

Have you checked the shutters? Or are using plastic lens boards? The plastic can be transparent to IR and opaque to visible light. If you can find a friend with an digital camera with the IR filter removed you can do a inspection with the back off the carmera.(please no heart attacks)

 

[2F/2F]

The plastic can be transparent to IR and opaque to visible light

I was always told that this is a pure bullshit photo myth. The Efke IR820 data sheet sez so, at any rate. Carry-on X-rays too. They say a hand inspection is more dangerous that having the film scanned...especially 135 format.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...They say...

If "they" say so, it must be true.

 

[2F/2F]

If "they" say so, it must be true.

"They" being Ekfe (MACO). I mentioned the data sheet in the preceding sentence, therefore "they" clearly referred to the publishers of the data sheet. The data sheet says that based on testing, exposure of 35mm cassettes to ambient light is worse than having the cassettes scanned by carry-on x-ray machines.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I was always told that this is a pure bullshit photo myth...

Emphasis added by me

"They" being Ekfe (MACO). I mentioned the data sheet in the preceding sentence, therefore "they" clearly referred to the publishers of the data sheet...

OK, but who are the others who have "always" told you?

 

[2F/2F]

Emphasis added by me

OK, but who are the others who have "always" told you?

I did not use an emphasis on "always". My phrase was "I was always told". As in "any time the issue has come up in my life"; making "I was always told" a perfectly appropriate choice of phrase to convey my meaning. This means any time I have asked an instructor to confirm it, or heard anyone ask someone whose technical knowledge I trust. (The Efke data sheet is one of these sources.)

Do you have anything to argue about besides semantics? If you think I am wrong about IR penetrating tanks, say so. Present what you know about the situation. But don't waste our time by being a pedantic troll and picking apart my every word looking for errors. I never claimed to be 100% right, and the way I phrased the question was asking for more commentary on the plastic tank issue from someone who may know more than I.

 

[k_jupiter]

There are certain moderators here who get angry when a member posts a thread on more than one photo site. Since I pay subscriber fees here, I posted it here first. Thanks though.

Perhaps if you posted on THE OTHER SITE in pig latin? Maybe the moderator won't notice. Why would you care what the moderator here thinks? They only think they are gods. *L* (I just watched '300')

I've never had an issue with this. There are two sets of subscribers to the two sites. An intersecting but not identical ven diagram.

tim in san jose

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...This means any time I have asked an instructor to confirm it, or heard anyone ask someone whose technical knowledge I trust. (The Efke data sheet is one of these sources.)...

In the past you have described yourself as a student. One of the most valuable lessons you will learn, although perhaps not right away, is to rely absolutely only on technical knowledge you've verified personally. Instructors, data sheets and all other information sources are best questioned rather than accepted as is.

...Do you have anything to argue about besides semantics?...

Semantics is the study of meaning. Posters here and on other forums participate using words. If we don't consider the meaning of what is written, very little real communication results. My posts in this thread were intended to illuminate, not to argue.

...But don't waste our time by being a pedantic troll and picking apart my every word looking for errors...

This highlights two things you may need a few more decades to learn. First, personal attacks from a defensive crouch are inappropriate, especially when the target's comments and posting behavior in no way fit the epithet used. Second, emotional reactions to constructive input can blind one to the value of what's being said. Reiterating, my posts were meant to point out the value of questioning everything. Pedagogy, not pedanticism. They weren't made, as a troll would make them, to simply pick apart your words.

Good luck as you progress on your journey through life. Really!