EIR film speed with filters...

NeoThermic

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
2
Format
35mm
The other day I picked up a roll of Kodak Ektachrome EIR for a pound (1.3 USD/ 1.07 EUR). It's a rather expired roll (09 / 2005), but for that little I thought I'd give it a go in my Nikon FM. If it turns out then yay, if not oh well, I burned a pound.

Here's where I'm stuck; I've done lots of reading on the fact you'll need a filter (I have to hand a Cokin 003 (which is about a Wratten 25)), and that you'll have to bracket, but I'm unsure as to what my initial setting of the film speed should be. Searching the forums didn't appear to reap any results (I tried a few phrases and key words).

The Kodak documents talk of using a #12 filter (I'm to assume this is actually yellow?) and what setting to use depending on how I process it (AR-5 and #12 = ISO 100). However, I've been unable to track down how to translate this down to a #25. Searching around only shows results for HIR (#25 with HIR makes ISO 50), so I guess I have just a few questions:

  • What ISO should I be using with EIR and a #25?
  • Is a #25 the correct filter to use with EIR? If not, what is and is there a Cokin equiv?
  • Will such expired film actually work?

Sorry for the use of parenthesis. Sub-sentences for the win. Hope you can help!

NeoThermic
 

Stan160

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
475
Location
Frimley, Surrey
Format
35mm
A yellow filter is colour correction to counteract the blue tendency of EIR, red is more extreme. Have a search on www.flickr.com, I just tried "eir yellow filter" and "eir red filter" (without the quotes around all three terms) and found plenty of results. The ones in my IR set http://www.flickr.com/photos/nord_modular/sets/72157607606277497/ are shot with medium yellow.

I shot a roll in September with an expiry of 12/2006 and it looked to have just the same colour balance as the roll I shot a year previously which had just expired at the time. All of mine is stored in a freezer, and was bought from a dealer who presumably also stored it correctly. If yours hasn't been frozen, it's likely to have lost IR sensitivity to some extent.

I find setting the ISO at 250 on my Nikon FE gives good results on sunny summer or autumn days in the UK. As you only have one roll I would just go with that, otherwise I would suggest bracketing to give you a better idea for your local conditions.

Ian
 

nickandre

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
1,918
Location
Seattle WA
Format
Medium Format
That film looks awesome. So it was a unique product which has been pulled? Lovely...
 
OP
OP

NeoThermic

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
2
Format
35mm
Stan160 said:
A yellow filter is colour correction to counteract the blue tendency of EIR, red is more extreme.
Click to expand...

Ouch, I'm not too fond of the results with a red filter. I take it a Cokin 001 yellow is about what I'd need?

Stan160 said:
If yours hasn't been frozen, it's likely to have lost IR sensitivity to some extent.
Click to expand...

I doubt mine was frozen. Refrigerated if I was lucky but when I purchased it it was not in a fridge. I put it into the freezer when I got it back though.

Do you know of where one would obtain refrigerated/frozen EIR?

I guess I should set to about 200 or 160 since I'd have lost IR sensitivity...

NeoThermic
 

Toffle

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
1,930
Location
Point Pelee,
Format
Multi Format
I shot a roll of EIR in August, in Chigago using a Hoya "G" gold filter, at ISO 200. (I think) The results were pretty good, given that it was my only experience using this film and I had no opportunity to experiment and adjust my practices. One thing I learned is that though the scenes I was shooting were often quite colourful, the false-colour effect was most pronounced with foliage, flowers and fabrics. (the three "Fs"?) Concrete, steel and painted surfaces simply do not render the same vibrant colour palette. (I only wish I had a supply of this film now to practice what I have learned.)

There is a pronounced blue shift to the film, even with the gold filter. I've looked at the Flicker stream using the #25 red filter and I agree that it does look rather extreme. It might be ok for a few shots, but I don't think I'd shoot my only roll with it.

Good luck with this film, and let us know how everything works out for you.

Cheers,
 

Stan160

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
475
Location
Frimley, Surrey
Format
35mm
I am thinking of selling some of my EIR. I just don't have time to do justice to the quantity I have left :-(

PM me if you are interested, Neothermic (or anyone else!)

Ian
 

timbo10ca

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
590
Location
Winnipeg, MB
Format
Multi Format

I wouldn't increase exposure just because it may have "lost IR sensitivity" due to storage-Keep in mind that this is slide film with IR *sensitivity*, causing a color shift. You expose based on the rating of the film. you may just lose some of the color shift craziness due to lack of sensitivity. Being long expired though, *that* may require a bit more exposure. Definetley bracket this one, as you have 2 things going against you in an already tricky film.

Personally, I rate it at 200 for "bright" days with some light haze and 320 for "blazing bright days with lots of reflection (sand, white, etc) and no cloud" at sea level, around the 53 parallel N, middle of summer. This was based on what I found in Begleiter's book, who is in the USA so it probably depends more on equipment than geographical location. I use the Cokin #'s 1 and 2, depending on the look or effect I'm after. I posted samples in another EIR thread here somewhere. I approach FF for HIE and EIR the same as I do for non IR films- meter through the filter with your ISO set. I don't add a Hutching's Factor for HIE though and I do for non-IR, but that's totally OT. It works fine for the EIR as long as you meter carefully (I blew a roll by being lazy and going "sunny 16", regardless of the sun's direction over the course of an afternoon and I underexposed everything by about a stop. Mind you, this was at high elevation in Utah and weird things happen there ). The #1 is about 0-1/2 stop and the #2 is about 2/3 - 1 stop added exposure in my hands.

Tim
 

accozzaglia

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
560
Location
T
Format
Multi Format
More about filters, fluorescent lighting, exposure speeds.


I'm picking back up this thread with some questions, because I'm not clear about a couple of points.

I just shot and had processed my first EIR roll today. Overall, I'm intrigued by the results, and think it's a really cool emulsion. I shot it at 160 and had them process it like it was 160. I used the Hoya "G" orange filter, and hue-wise, it was exactly what I'd hoped for. I would have intuitively thought that by dealing with brighter circumstances, one would actually want to go with the suggested EI100 with perhaps an underexposure of 1/3 or 2/3rd stop (or the equivalent of 125 or 160). What I found was that with paler skin tones, I used both spot and centre-weighted metering and shot based on that. The outcome was the faces were often washed out (using a bounced speedlight was a bigger problem I'll deal with separately).

Knowing in advance that it's an unforgiving film in terms of emulsion, would it make more sense to just underexpose by the 1/3rd-2/3rd stop at EI100, EI 160, or even EI 200 instead treating it as a high-speed film (e.g., 320?). Also, on the topic of filters, I shot three images under fluorescent tube lighting (basically, in an office). Those turned out with an exceptionally blue cast, even cerulean. Would I want to couple the Hoya G orange with, say, an FL-D filter, aware that that nixes at least about 2 stops, possibly more? Or would that be counterproductive and result in something with something even crazier? Or because the orange G should have cut out the blue sensitization generally, then perhaps I need to be looking at another filter entirely, like a #25 red? I ruled out that it's ultraviolet lighting, since the lens coating would have more or less cut that out.

(I'll have some of these scanned by the weekend if anyone needs visual reference.)

Cheers.
 

colrehogan

Member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
2,011
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format Pan
There is a book by Stephen Begleiter titled, The Art of Color Infrared Photography. I found this book to be highly useful - along with copious notes on a single roll where I tried various filters. Note, the red filter did not look good at all. Yellow and orange gave cool effects.

This is one film effect that I have yet to see reproduced faithfully in digital. The color IR effects I have seen look nothing like what you can get with EIR. IMO.

Kodak recommends the Wratten 12 (and maybe even a CC50 filter). I think that I have either rated the film at 200 or on occasion 400. I do recall that Stephen Begleiter's book does recommend the CC50 filter for various applications, but I'd have to go back and look. I did buy one of these filters, but have yet to try it on this film. Guess that's something I'll have to try soon.

Okay, I just looked at the film spec sheet and it lists the ISO for E6 process as being 200. It lists ISO 100 for the AR-5 process. It is ti2323 on the Kodak site. I put a link to that page and you should be able to scroll down to the EIR listing. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/databanks/filmDatabankColorRev.jhtml

It also lists several CC (color correcting) filters for use with tungsten lighting, namely a CC20C, and a CC50C. I have tried several other CC filters in daylight with decent looking results.

I have also found this film to give pleasing results with evergreens in snowy scenes.
 

accozzaglia

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
560
Location
T
Format
Multi Format
Yeah. Enough sorting through things in advance taught me that red filters were off the table from the start. I'll look for that book at my university library, but I'm not sure if they're liable to have it. I'm still baffled by the serious blue of indoor, fluorescent-lit scenes (and this was with that orange filter!). It was the last thing I expected, and I've not yet seen anyone else with anything like it.

Indeed. Digital people are now trying to emulate it by tinkering with alpha channels on their IR-hacked cameras, but it's nowhere close.

Because I only have a few rolls of EIR, it isn't likely I'm going to buy a set of Wratten filters (and the equipment to use them) unless they end up in a Freecycle pile. I'll just work with what I have in terms of screw-on filters. But I'll try the next roll at 200 or maybe 250, as I worry that going 400 will make it really grainy. I typically like grainy, but for EIR I'm finding the crispness somewhat intriguing given the unique colour palette.

Also, one more thing: I shot blue skies late in the day, and the hue is a light blue, even marginally cyan. It's pleasing, but it wasn't totally expected. I've seen other EIR shots where the sky is deep blue, verging on black. Is this the use of a polariser atop the colour filtering?

Thanks for the advice!

Astrid



 

accozzaglia

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
560
Location
T
Format
Multi Format

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
Read the data sheet for the film first: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...rEuq-gpBuO04DIkXw&sig2=uk4SgxoAmQUMMdmO-1HeEg

As I remember from the data sheet form EIR's predecessor, Kodak Ektachrome Infrared Film, they say that you need a #12 or similar filter to keep the pix from going terribly blue. They say that is MUST BE used with a #12 filter for scientific and other critical applications, and to use #8, #15, #22, or no filter at all for pictorial effects. This film with a #12 filter has EI 100 listed as a starting point in daylight in process E-4.

I imagine that EIR is pretty similar. Read the data sheet and you should find what you need to know.

If in doubt, I'd use a #12 filter at the recommended starting point, guess/bracket toward overexposure, and process it as a color negative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,248
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

What! If all else fails, read the instructions? In this day of computers, digisnaps and tweeting no one knows how to read instructions anymore!

Steve
 

accozzaglia

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
560
Location
T
Format
Multi Format
skyrick said:
Here are some helpful sites:
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3113.htm
http://www.nelsontan.com/reviews/eir/eir.html

Rick
Click to expand...

I know these sites, read these sites, and always have them bookmarked. Neither ever mentioned a thing about "shooting under fluorescent light".

Don't get me wrong: I'm not devastated, disappointed, or annoyed that these turned out that way. I'm just very curious. After looking at other EIR/Aerochrome work out there, it was a first for me to see this effect.
 

accozzaglia

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
560
Location
T
Format
Multi Format
Sirius Glass said:
What! If all else fails, read the instructions? In this day of computers, digisnaps and tweeting no one knows how to read instructions anymore!

Steve
Click to expand...

OK, if you're gonna be catty, then before you RTFMing me, try actually RTFPing for me — where "P" is "posting".

1) I have read these technical guides and user experiences on teh intarnats for the last two years (from roughly the time I acquired EIR).

2) I asked about fluorescent lighting situations. Do a word search on "fluorescen[*]" in the Kodak EIR technical guide, or on the pair of URLs helpfully provided by skyrick. Let me know what you find. 2F/2F kindly gave a direct link to the technical guide, so it shouldn't put you back much.

3) Aside from "Kodak Wratten filter #12" — not made any longer, not adequately described — being a "yellow" filter (which could be everything from canary yellow to harvest gold), there isn't much else on the info, not even a reference shot of what one looks like. Other regular EIR users, if you bothered going online, are using any or several of the Hoya O (G) filter (some call this "yellow", but if this yellow, then red is the new orange), the B+W 099 Infracolor orange filter, or any variation of yellow or gold for achieving certain colour effects under daylight conditions. Some even use red filters, even though that results in harsh effects that are generally not desired (but hey, whatever gets you up in the morning). I even know what to expect with EIR under moonlit conditions.


So please, Steve: step back, go back and re-read what I asked and why I asked about shooting under fluorescent lighting. If, until and when you've decided to return without being adversarial, arrogant, sarcastic, or diminutive, and if you have something helpful, amicable, and knowledgeable to offer — photographer to photographer — then please, we're all ears here as we all stand to learn something from it.

Otherwise, quit meddling like a troll would and sit on your hands next time. Thanks!
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
The reason filters don't work as normal with this film is because it is a "false color" film.

"False color" means that each layer is not physically dyed the same color as the light that exposed it, like with normal pos. film. With a #12 in place, with this film, on the final transparency, IR light is captured in red, red light is captured in green, green light is captured in blue, and blue light is not captured at all (AKA black).

Normally, a color pos. film has three layers, one sensitive to each of the primary colors of light. This film has three layers as well; the same three layers as normal: after processing, red, green, and blue. They are just sensitized to different colors of light than a normal film. One is sensitive to IR, one to red, and one to green. All three are also sensitive to blue. Thus, without a yellow filter, each layer's density is also being controlled by blue light. Therefore, the baseline "normal" for this film to act as I just described is always with "minus blue" filtration in place.

Which yellow filter you use simply controls the amount of blue light that makes it to the film. With the "baseline" #12, no blue light shows up. If you can't get the #12, I am certain that a #8 or #15 will do the trick. We aren't scientists, so it will be good enough, IMO.

To figure out how to monkey with this film in different light sources, since I hear in this thread that a #12 is no longer made or hard to find, I suggest investing in a #8, a #15, and a set of CC gels and a filter holder. You have to think about the false color characteristics I mentioned above when trying to tweak things with the CC filters. If you want less green, then you need to tweak filtration in a way that decreases green in the final transparency. What color light controls green with this film? Not green light, like with normal films, but red light. So, to decrease green, you need to decrease the amount of red light hitting the film. Thus, add cyan filtration.

Remember, with a #12 in place:

Blue light = black tone
Green light = blue layer
Red light = green layer
IR light = red layer

...and yes, the only place I learned all this is from the data sheet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

accozzaglia

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
560
Location
T
Format
Multi Format
Hi 2F/2F —

Thanks for assisting here. I grok the correlation on the black-blue skies bit. I have relied on this page for reference on blue-sky rendering based on filter selection. In his examples, the sky darkens towards the zenith, while lightens near the horizon. The only shots I made with my EIR roll with skies were near the horizon where blue mixes with diffusion from haze, prticles, and other light-scattering materials, so this makes sense.

The fluorescent lighting situation, however, remains an unsolved question.

The trio of imaging layers in EIR — and how they correspond to light wavelengths — are familiar to me and have been (hence no surprise whatsoever when a naturally ginger-headed boy with his sax came up green-skinned (versus pink), while a Mediterranean, olive-skinned woman came up more or less looking, well, "fleshy"). Thanks to the guy who shoots and sells the repackaged Aerochrome III, I also know to use light green lipstick to render lips more reddish and "natural" looking. Thus, from years before I contemplated buying a roll of EIR (aware of what it looked like for most of my life, but didn't know what it was by name until about 1998), I was cognisant of how EIR images render a false colour representation based on technical specifications. I also know how colour emulsions in general — including Kodachrome, a different beast entirely — works. I may not be a chemist or optics expert, but these are the kind of fundamentals one should get to know about their film before they shoot it. This is why I understand, for instance, how tungsten colour reversal emulsions work and love them for that reason (as you do, too!).

Understanding that fluorescent lighting tends to skew depending on which type of indoor fluorescent lighting is used ("daylight" is cool bluish, and there's also the "warm" pinkish variety), it still comes as a surprise to see the fluorescent lighting outcome. I would presume that a fluorescent filter like FL/FL-D, atop the primary orange/099/#12/etc. filter, might work, as the former is designed to cut the spikes in that emission source — which spikes in both the red and green primarily, and the blue and violet secondarily. For this reason, I doubt a yellow #12/Y48/etc. filter would be sufficient to contend with fluorescent spikes.

Care to ponder?


 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,248
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
accozzaglia said:
OK, if you're gonna be catty, then before you RTFMing me, try actually RTFPing for me — where "P" is "posting".
Click to expand...

Whoa there gal! I was kidding 2F/2F. Not everything is sirius!

Steve
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,248
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
accozzaglia said:
Oh. Hrm. It was a dead thread, with the original post made in January. I thought you were responding to my thread resurrection. Sorry about that. -A
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it.

Steve
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
I was responding 100% to the OP as well...if it makes a difference.

At least I learned the word "grok" from this thread!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…