What do you think, is it worth a shot to try?
No. What you could do is use a 680nm filter and obtain a totally red image, but it won't be anything resembling a false color 'IR' photograph. The red exposure will only create cyan dye, so there will only be one color in the final image. It will not be much different than any other color film (negative or positive) shot through a deep red filter.Theoretically, with about a 680nm filter or something like a ZWB3 filter, would it be possible to take false color infrared photos with this film stock?
Unless I'm completely messing up the color model in my head, it should shift folliage towards a more yellow hue.
If you shoot through a red filter, what part of the film is going to create yellow or magenta dye? Or do you mean a regular exposure without filter followed by one through a deep red filter?
Given the reference to trichrome, I think a strict reading of @khh's suggestion is to take three photos with three filters: blue, green, and IR.
I had a similar idea, but @khh's is more interesting. --- My idea was to have blue, green, red, and IR filters and then do digital post-processing to shift the wavelengths. But then I said to myself "What's the point? You can do that with plain IR-sensitive B&W film".
@khh's idea, if I understood it correctly, doesn't require digitally shifting colors. It just deletes red and replaces it with IR.
No. What you could do is use a 680nm filter and obtain a totally red image, but it won't be anything resembling a false color 'IR' photograph. The red exposure will only create cyan dye, so there will only be one color in the final image. It will not be much different than any other color film (negative or positive) shot through a deep red filter.
For false color IR you need wavelength shifting; so longer wavelength captured light needs to be converted into a color that corresponds to a different wavelength in the spectrum. That's what e.g. Kodak HIE did. Basically, it would capture IR and show it as red, capture red and show it as green etc. That's a bit of a simplistic way to put it, but it's the basic principle of how the stuff worked. It relies on the fact that the sensitizing dye (which determines the layer's spectral sensitivity) and the dye coupler (which controls the color of the dye generated during processing) are distinct aspects of the emulsion and can be chosen in separation from each other. Harman Phoenix is no different from any other regular color negative film in this regard.
Ok, I guess it wouldn’t work like digital infrared photography?
If you have a camera that can take double exposures, you can do a poor man's aerochrome with a 100% analog process. Take one exposure with a cyan filter and another, much longer exposure with an IR filter.
My camera cannot do double exposures, nor do I have the right filters, but I'd love to see someone try this.
I was never into Ektachrome Infrared back in the day. It had one use: military. I twas made for aerial jungle photography to separate the enemy camouflage in the jungle from actual live growth. Wherever there was a red patch in a jungle photo, they knew where the guerillas were hiding. Surplus was marketed to the public, but has no aestheic or pictorial use, then or now. On the other hand, we still have near-infrared black and white film available.
FWIW, although there were military uses for EIR, its largest application was related to monitoring forests from the skies - both with respect to their health, and the mix of types of tree cover.
As for the aesthetic and pictorial use - there is some spectacularly compelling work out there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?