Extended red sensitivity

[Ricardo Miranda]

Fomapan 200

It isn't mine, but it is a very nice picture: https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/lanarus-foto/album/64743/view/354330

 

[ME Super]

In (there was a url link here which no longer exists) are some photos I took on Rollei IR400S, which is considered to be an extended red film. Sensitivity ends at about 820nm. Once we get leaves on trees again I'm going to try shooting some more, but with something over the lens (thinking sheer pantyhose might work) to give a blooming effect. Trying to replicate HIE. So far I think I'm close except for the blooming in the highlights.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Extended red sensitivity can be unflattering for people. It makes the skin appear waxen. In fact for photos of male subjects an orthochromatic film or an anti-red filter is recommended. Many of the great Hollywood stuudio photos were taken on orthochromatic film.

 

[Athiril]

You're welcome, I'm glad they've been helpful. Your shots look great! I ditched Foma 400 altogether because I shoot mainly portraits, but maybe I should give it another whirl for my panoramic landscape shots, your examples are really good.



They were just meant to show the difference in skin tones The lighting was really flat in the second one: not the best, but not horrible either. I think it's just a pretty bad film for portraits.



I think you're on your own here. The lighter skin looks pasty and pretty horrible to my eyes. I much prefer the tones of tri-x.
There weren't any filters used in these shots. I purposely chose two photos of the same person taken without filters on different films, otherwise the comparison wouldn't have made any sense whatsoever.

This is another picture of him taken on ortho film

This is another bad picture on foma 400 (notice the horrible skin tone)

These are two pictures on Tri-x, one with a red filter and one with a green filter, to see the difference (the red filter one is closer to the look of Foma without any filter, while the green filter makes it look orthochromatic)

I think the green filtered one would look great with increased exposure

 

[Xmas]

I thoroughly dislike fomapan's 400 red sensitivity. It ruined many portraits that I would have loved.

I have a trix320 framed 20x20 portrait of my older son and another fomapan 20x20 of my younger. The tri-x is amazing. The foma is apaling. No lips, funny eyelids. Man, what a waste.

The data sheet is quite clear that it is a near IR film, when you select an apple from the fruit bowl does it matter if it is orange and has an acid taste?

 

[moltogordo]

Digital Negs, the large and small, and "loser" films

I originally made this post on a photo forum to post my first digital negative work, and complain about computer screens and how they punish medium and large format work. But I think the post is just as relevant for this thread on red sensitivity and Foma 400, and two "loser" or maligned films, and how wonderful they can be under certain conditions.

I'm speaking of Fomapan 400 and Kentmere 400. These two orphans are rapidly becoming favorites of mine. Here was the post:


"I just don't have darkroom time right now, so I've spent what time I have free to learn about making digital negatives. After processing the film, I put my negatives in a negative carrier from my darkroom, and taped it against the frosted glass of a lightbox. Then I photograph them with my K10 and 35mm Pentax macro limited, which goes to life size.

The resultant jpg or RAW files get processed, reversed and done up in GIMP. Voila. It's not quite as good as scanning a silver print, but I can do that later. Get to see and post my pics a lot quicker.

I mostly work with medium format, but I also do subminiature and 4x5. Computer screens punish medium/large format photography quite a bit . . . the screen only resolves about 1.5 megapixels. So here you have a demonstration of what I'm talking about. The first shot is a 6x9 negative, the second shot is a 35mm half-frame. The advantages of large format are not really apparent here.

Picture 1: Sinkut River, near Vanderhoof. Linhof Kardan 4x5, with a 6x9 Horsman rollfilm back. Fomapan 400 in Xtol, 90mm Schneider f5.6 Symmar. An 11x14 enlargement of this negative would knock your socks off."

"Picture 2 and 3: Telachick Creek, near Prince George, Olympus Pen FT, 38mm Zuiko lens, Kentmere 400 in Rodinal, 1/60th at f8. An 11x14 enlargement of these negatives would not impress you one little bit. They'd be good at 5x7."

Thanks for looking in!!!

 

[moltogordo]

The data sheet is quite clear that it is a near IR film, when you select an apple from the fruit bowl does it matter if it is orange and has an acid taste?

Love your quote. Mind if I use it???

 

[Xmas]

Love your quote. Mind if I use it???

No stick it in your sig line if you want, I'd not want any copyright to it. To acid for my taste.
I do like your photos BTW.

 

[moltogordo]

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

You have this right, Ricardo.

I have a beautiful Chinese violin student who wants a portrait done for her graduation. I have a shot in mind in which Fomapan 400 would be the best film to use.

I used to paint a lot, and sometimes used acryllic or gouache rather than oil - it depends on subject and circumstance. Kentmere 400 is another Rodney Dangerfield that doesn't get enough respect. It's NOT HP5 lite. It's a very different film, with a "whump" in Rodinal that, in 35mm, is exceptional.