Create blooming effect in highlights

[ME Super]

I've been shooting some Rollei IR400S lately, and while I like the grain and Wood effect I'm getting, I'd like to try to duplicate the blooming highlights effect that can be seen in IR shots made on Kodak HIE as well as the Efke IR820 aura. I'm wondering if the pantyhose over the lens trick might be the way to go to get the highlights to bloom like they did on HIE, or if there's another way to make highlights bloom that doesn't involve smearing stuff on my lens. Allegedly you can increase the exposure given to the IR400S to make this happen, but I've not seen it, and I've shot this film all the way down to EI3 with a #89B filter (720nm).

 

[pdeeh]

if you're shooting 35mm, you could try aluminium foil over the pressure plate to see if you can defeat any antihalation layers/coatings a bit

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Are you printing analog or digital?

 

[ME Super]

Most of my prints are printed digitally from analog sources.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

There are some techniques you can use in PS to do a pretty good job of "faking" the look of Imagon and other lenses... though not "perfectly". It's been years and my memory is failing but if you're interested I'll try to remember some moves.

 

[Xmas]

Use a single coated lens.

 

[wildbill]

The effect he's after isn't created by the lens. Have you guys used the films mentioned?
Anti-halation layer is more likely the culprit.

 

[darkosaric]

Cheapest film on the market Polypan F does not have anti-halation layer - and has problematic issues that you are looking for.

 

[pdeeh]

But polypan F isn't an IR film, which is what the OP is using, and at least in my experience PpFhas no extended red sensitivity at all.

 

[NickLimegrove]

But polypan F isn't an IR film, which is what the OP is using, and at least in my experience PpFhas no extended red sensitivity at all.

As I understand it, the OP wants to *replicate* the blooming effects that IR film is known for. If that's the case, they may consider, in addition to PpF, the Chinese ›Lucky‹ films, which lack(ed?) an anti-halation layer as well.

 

[pdeeh]

As I read it, he wants "blooming" on his IR400S shots

 

[wildbill]

As I read it, he wants "blooming" on his IR400S shots

Yes. That makes two of us that actually read before typing

 

[chrisaisenbrey]

Perhaps a crazy idea:

If the Anti-halation layer is water soluble, one could “wash” the film before exposure. But of cause it would be quite challenging to water the film, dry it and spool it in complete darkness…

 

[Xmas]

The effect he's after isn't created by the lens. Have you guys used the films mentioned?
Anti-halation layer is more likely the culprit.

The effect he has is similar to 'HIEs' but a single coated lens will provide a similar bleed out of high lights or star point on spot light with any film even a colour film... So different but similar.

You can swap a single coated lens in and out in mid film...

If you want a film effect any PET film tends to halation (e.g. poly pan or Adox CHS 100 II) more or less respectively.

 

[darkosaric]

I know OP was talking about IR films, but making additional possibilities for experimenting .

Here is one example that I made with Polypan F that has this blooming highlights:

It is Lith print, but original print is similar as well..

 

[pdeeh]

Perhaps a crazy idea:

If the Anti-halation layer is water soluble, one could “wash” the film before exposure. But of cause it would be quite challenging to water the film, dry it and spool it in complete darkness…

I've done this when messing with cheap colour film (for a different reason), & it's not as difficult as it sounds

And as I understand these things, not all AH is on the rear surface of the base where it would be easily washed off. But I might easily be talking out of my arse.

However, I'd also wonder with washing IR film before exposure what the effect might be on the IR-sensitising dyes in the emulsion?

We need PE!

 

[wildbill]

Removig the ah layer has been discussed on apug more than once, I mentioned it so that the op could search here and read up on it. Sounds like a pain in the ass and risky.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The effect he's after isn't created by the lens. Have you guys used the films mentioned?
Anti-halation layer is more likely the culprit.

Right, but that's seen primarily in the bright white areas of the image. That can be somewhat faked in PS.

 

[jeffreyg]

For the wet prints try getting two pieces (4 or 5 in x 4 or 5 in) of 1/4 in thick glass. Tape or bevel the edges so as not to cut one's self. Put some baby oil between them and "smusch" it around until you get the desired look holding it under the enlarging lens. The amount of oil and smusching is adjustable and doesn't affect your lens. For the digital consider OnOne's software as a stand alone or PS plugin. There are many effects including IR.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ He prints most of his photos digitally. Maybe you can talk him into going analog with the images he's asking about.

 

[ME Super]

Hey guys, OP here. Sorry have been offline for sleep and work. I'm wanting to emulate Kodak HIE or the Efke IR820 aura. I've got the bright white foliage nailed down, what I'm attempting to emulate is the "dreamy" glow around the highlights. Most places don't print using analog methods, they print digitally, so Old-N-Feeble is right. What I want to do is get the HIE look in-camera, and I've got it nailed pretty good with the exception of the highlight bloom. Chrisaisenbrey is right that it would be a challenge to wash the film's antihalation layer away and respool in complete darkness (since I don't have a darkroom, but do have a changing bag), and I'd be worried about washing away the sensitizers too (I wish PE would chime in here!). What I'm looking for is a way to emulate it in-camera without washing away the antihalation layer (or putting foil on the pressure plate as I do shoot a few panoramic B&W pictures on the roll, as Rollei IR400S is a decent panchromatic film too).

I know, I'm asking for the moon, right? I've got a Cokin soft focus filter, I could try that out, or do you think the pantyhose over the lens trick would work better? Did I mention I'd like this to be repeatable?

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I think removing the antihallation layer creates a possibility of the pressure plate reflecting an image of itself onto your film, such as channels and a repeating dot pattern depending on your camera. Putting foil may create double images I read, though have never tried. The easiest way is to maybe to buy a frost type filter or get a old single coated lens. This effect happens often when I use my industar 61 lens that is super super scratched up on the front.

These shots were from a few years ago on panatomic x without a lens hood. (The images are low contrast but very sharp in prints, hard to make out on a screen but on an optical print you can make out fine details like clearly defined hair strands etc) You can see it becomes very pronounced when the lighting is contrasty (like the image of the tree) and it bleeds a bit into the darker areas.

 

[pdeeh]

I have tried the foil thing, with two or three different types of film, and didn't have any problems with double images

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I have tried the foil thing, with two or three different types of film, and didn't have any problems with double images

Karen writes about a chomed pressure plate and film without antihalation backing causing double images here:

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/BolseyB2.html

I'm sure there are more articles where I have read of the same effect but this was first to pop up.

 

[Truzi]

What camera are you using?
I've no idea if a reflective pressure plate would work. However, if your camera has a back door that comes off easily, you could get a spare and modify that plate. My 35mm back door has a simple spring hinge. I'd not do it with my GS-1 unless I could get a back or insert very cheap, and only if a test showed it would work.