HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

[StoneNYC]

So I have a bunch if Rolllei IR film. I haven't been able to afford an IR Dark Red filter.

I have 2 regular red filters, one is B+W the other is Hoya, can I stack them to get a better IR effect and if so which should be inner and which outer?

Any other suggestions? I'm going to the Grand Canyon and want to take advantage if them of possible...

Thanks!


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

OH and what EI should I be shooting at? I saw EI 25 somewhere for IR film rated at 400 ASA is that correct?


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ntenny]

Stacking might help a little, depending on exactly what the transmission curves of the filters are. The order doesn't matter, and without some testing I don't think you can really determine how well it'll work or what speed you should shoot at with them stacked.

Are they plain red or "deep red"? There's a comparison of red (#25) with IR (R72) at http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/rollei_ir_400_first_impressions; the red one doesn't show much of an IR effect, but the text notes that he didn't try a deep red filter.

Interestingly, you can produce a reasonable IR filter by stacking certain types of red filters with other primary colors, but the right combinations may only be available as gels rather than screw-on filters.

I suppose you could get an R72 filter overnighted to you at wherever you're staying. Good luck in any case, and remember, the place is spectacular even in plain ol' visible light!

-NT

 

[Brian C. Miller]

Stacking the filters will not help! Either you have a proper filter, or you don't. If you have two regular red (25A) filters, don't bother with IR. You need #29 (B+W 091) or B+W 092. Or the Hoya R72. The Hoya R72 and B+W 092 are so dark you can barely see through them. The Cokin filter for Ilford has the same properties.

The only film that worked with 25A was Kodak HIE/HIR. Do not bother with any other film with that filter, because it just isn't that sensitive. Also, the speed of the IR response has nothing to do with the film's rating, and it varies between manufacturers.

Another problem is that the IR light reflected varies based on the vegitation. Deciduous trees and lawn grass reflect the most, and conifers and shrubs vary. Once again, Kodak had the best, and it's never been matched. Your results will vary, and will be useless without the right filter.

I have used between 3 and 12 for my IR. I bracket, starting at N, +/-1, +/-2. So five shots per scene.

Recommendation: this isn't the time to use IR. You need to experiment first and find out what works for you. The trees around the Grand Canyon will not be deciduous, and I doubt that you will get good results.

Oh, yeah: the tail end (black part) of E6 can be used as an IR filter. I've done it with Kodak, but I never tried it with the others. It might work. If you have some lying around, go ahead and try it, but you may need long exposure times.

 

[Bill Burk]

Trees may not be deciduous, but you WILL cut haze.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

I have never done a haze test. I have, however, using either Ilford or Konica, photographed a scene with a mountain about fifty or sixty miles away with the B+W 092 filter. Everything was crystal clear. With a red 25A filter, I don't know if the film needs to be IR sensitive. That red has already cut out a lot of blue haze.

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks guys! Ugh! Anyone want to overnight me their 77, 67, or 58mm IR filter to borrow? Lol, send it general delivery to the Grand Canyon post office

I'll be there Tuesday to pick it up. Half kidding.

I don't have enough money left to buy one, and I suppose B&H will be open tomorrow but its like $150-$180 for the B+W dark red IR filter in 77mm which is what I would be buying...

Well the IR film is already packed and shipped now, wish I had that filter, I have a yellow filter, 2 reds and a yellow won't cut it huh? What if I add a polarizer hahaha


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wildbill]

it's called homework, and you didn't do it.

 

[StoneNYC]

it's called homework, and you didn't do it.

Actually I did, I knew about the Dark Red filter, the IR film has been in my freezer for months waiting for me to buy the filter, but I decided I wanted to throw a couple rolls in my shipping box and try it then figured it would help to know if the red stacking thing would work.

It's just such an expensive filter and I don't trust any other filters as I've had lots of issues with other brands ESPECIALLY Hoya in any humid conditions they fog up its the worst!

Anyway thanks guys...maybe I'll stack the Polarizer and Red Anyway and take my chances, the Pola will certainly cut some of the normal spectrum light... Who knows, oh well.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PKM-25]

Stone, I have had zero issues with the Hoya R72, used it today in 15F, FYI...

 

[HowardDvorin]

Look into the Cokin filter line. I use them with success. They re lot cheaper than the ones you mentioned.

Howard

 

[zsas]

Stone, you seem legit, I will send out Monday my 67mm Hoya R72. I can flat rate small box it to your motel/hotel/post ofc or whatnot (shd be $7 w insur) you cover ship to and return with same (flat rate insur). Pm me if you wish. I need it back, no later tan 3/1/13, for when the spring begins here...

This what you looking for (see bottom left)?

 

[DWThomas]

I've used a Bower IR72 off ePrey ($47 for a 77mm in 2010) with Rollei IR400 quite successfully. Take an ISO 400 reading, add 6 stops and bracket, bracket, bracket! I agree tests ahead of time are to be highly recommended. Since our eyes don't see IR, we are denied a chance to do a lot of intuitive adjustments.

Most recently I used a Wratten 89B (~695 nm) which was OK, but not quite as good as the 720 nm filter in the infrared effects, and I would expect a 25A to be even less good. I think the more ordinary red filters worked with the old Kodak stuff because it had a very wide sensitivity outside the visible spectrum, a sort of 'area under the curve' biased in that direction.

 

[ntenny]

Stacking the filters will not help! Either you have a proper filter, or you don't.

Well, the transmission curve of the stack is going to be the product of the transmission curves of the components. B+W claims that their 091 transmits essentially 100% from about 660 or 670 nm upward---two of them should produce a *very* sharp cutoff slightly below that, which would be a kind of "very deep red" filter that passed IR freely, similar to a Schott RG665. I don't know if it would show any IR effects, but looking at the curve I think it's possible. Two 090s (is that the 25A equivalent?) would pass from about 580 nm and probably wouldn't work.

Another problem is that the IR light reflected varies based on the vegitation. Deciduous trees and lawn grass reflect the most, and conifers and shrubs vary. Once again, Kodak had the best, and it's never been matched. Your results will vary, and will be useless without the right filter.

*And* the compensation varies with the time of day, because the ratio of IR to visible changes (highest in late afternoon, lowest at high noon, generally). I never understood why so many people insisted that you needed to use EI 3 or less for IR film when I was getting decent shots at 6 or 12---well, I was doing all my shooting after getting home from work, when the visible light was dim and the IR relatively high. I suppose there could be variance with altitude too. Cripes, why doesn't anyone make an IR light meter?

Oh, yeah: the tail end (black part) of E6 can be used as an IR filter. I've done it with Kodak, but I never tried it with the others. It might work. If you have some lying around, go ahead and try it, but you may need long exposure times.

I've never tried it, but I remember reading that it only worked with HIE and was similar in transmission to one of the far-IR filters. The Rollei film doesn't go very far out of the visible range, IIRC.

-NT

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, you seem legit, I will send out Monday my 67mm Hoya R72. I can flat rate small box it to your motel/hotel/post ofc or whatnot (shd be $7 w insur) you cover ship to and return with same (flat rate insur). Pm me if you wish. I need it back, no later tan 3/1/13, for when the spring begins here...

This what you looking for (see bottom left)?

Thanks! PM sent


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I have had zero issues with the Hoya R72, used it today in 15F, FYI...

That's good, I was told some of the older Hoya MRC filters were not coated properly and perhaps I had picked up one of those and that was the problem, all I know is B+W is all I use except for my Circ Pol which is Nikon even though I'm a Canon guy I found those to be even nicer than the B+W circ pol's

Except the circ pol of the Mamiya 7 which is made by Mamiya themselves since its special for rangefinders.

I assume the Hoya 72 and the B+W 90's dark red are the same thing with different number designations?


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

I've used a Bower IR72 off ePrey ($47 for a 77mm in 2010) with Rollei IR400 quite successfully. Take an ISO 400 reading, add 6 stops and bracket, bracket, bracket! I agree tests ahead of time are to be highly recommended. Since our eyes don't see IR, we are denied a chance to do a lot of intuitive adjustments.

Most recently I used a Wratten 89B (~695 nm) which was OK, but not quite as good as the 720 nm filter in the infrared effects, and I would expect a 25A to be even less good. I think the more ordinary red filters worked with the old Kodak stuff because it had a very wide sensitivity outside the visible spectrum, a sort of 'area under the curve' biased in that direction.

6 stops down you mean? So 400 would be 8? Why not just make my ISO reading an 8? My meter goes to ISO3

And bracket 2 rolls of 120? That's about 4-6 shots total, I guess I could do that... Oh lots of choices, myGF is going to be thrilled at the amount of time I spend with my tripod and meter... Lol


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brian C. Miller]

Yes, Nathan, I also start out at EI 12, but the bracketing does cover 3 and 50. I could shoot Kodak just at straight 400 with no problems, but Konica, Efke, Ilford, and (I'm currently trying) Rollei, they don't have the same great response. Of course, I'm really glad just to have anything at all these days.

Also, when I'm out photographing in IR, I've done stuff at the break of dawn, in deep forest, and at the last fading rays. So yeah, the bracketing needs to cover all that. Such is life with IR. I do know that some people have modified their light meters, and have removed the IR filter. The problem is that what I'd need is a spot meter, because some of the conifers don't reflect any IR in the lower spectrums where the current crop of films is sensitive to it. I have a few shots where some trees reflect it modestly, and others don't reflect anything at all.

 

[StoneNYC]

So apparently the above poster was slightly right, I didn't do my FULL research, I didn't realize there were different transmission rates of the filters


I'm looking at the different filters on B&H's website.

The question is, if the film is sensitive to 720nm vs higher rated film at 850nm ... and one filter allows transmission beginning at the 700nm's mark where another only starts at 800 or 900nm ... will the film that BEGINS senisitivity at 720nm not pick up the higher rated filter's specturm at all, or will it just take longer to burn in since the IR sensitivity is higher up? so if I wanted even more contrast, I would choose the one that starts at 800 or 900 and expose for longer correct?

 

[DWThomas]

So apparently the above poster was slightly right, I didn't do my FULL research, I didn't realize there were different transmission rates of the filters


I'm looking at the different filters on B&H's website.

The question is, if the film is sensitive to 720nm vs higher rated film at 850nm ... and one filter allows transmission beginning at the 700nm's mark where another only starts at 800 or 900nm ... will the film that BEGINS senisitivity at 720nm not pick up the higher rated filter's specturm at all, or will it just take longer to burn in since the IR sensitivity is higher up? so if I wanted even more contrast, I would choose the one that starts at 800 or 900 and expose for longer correct?

Don't do it! A 760 nm filter on the Rollei stuff needs about 12 or 13 stops additional exposure. Bigger numbers are farther into IR, the film sensitivity is already rolling off at 720 and drops like a rock beyond that. And to your question about my statement above, guess I would have been clearer had I said increase exposure by 6 stops. You could set your meter to a lower ISO. I was using a Digisix that only goes down to 6 -- and if I used the 760 filter, I need about 0.25!

 

[StoneNYC]

Don't do it! A 760 nm filter on the Rollei stuff needs about 12 or 13 stops additional exposure. Bigger numbers are farther into IR, the film sensitivity is already rolling off at 720 and drops like a rock beyond that. And to your question about my statement above, guess I would have been clearer had I said increase exposure by 6 stops. You could set your meter to a lower ISO. I was using a Digisix that only goes down to 6 -- and if I used the 760 filter, I need about 0.25!

OK, I think I understand so the 92 filter is best as I risk not exposing the film at all with the 93 because it begins at 800nm and some of the Rollei film doesn't even reach that high. OK, and I will set the meter to around 6 ISO and then bracket +/- one stop on either side (3 ISO and 12 ISO) and hope for the best haha. I was doing something similar when I was shooting my 1947 expired Verichrome... that was also 0.75 as an estimate of the EI I would have to use based on age... haha

I like crazy films but they make me crazy too!

 

[StoneNYC]

OK everyone .... so I did it, I bit the bullet, the cost of the B&W over the Hoya was about $40 but the overnight shipping was about the same, killer, but after the price of the B+W 92 IR filter and the overnight shipping my bill was $192 ... so much for "not having the money" ... stupid credit card *grumbles* but hey hopefully I'll get some awesome images out of it that will be worth the cost.

Thanks everyone for chipping in and sending info my way.

Be well everyone and I'll post the results (if any appear) in about ... 20 days or so.

~Stone

 

[Brian C. Miller]

OK, it looks like you bought a 092. That's the correct filter, and it will work fine with all of the current IR films.

Filters cut off at a point, and let in light beyond that.
Films are sensitive up to a point.

So a film is sensitive up to 820nm. A filter at 900nm would be too much (80nm over), but a filter at 720nm would be fine, since it would let in light at 720nm and above.

The B+W 092 is what I use with Konica, Ilford, Efke, and Rollei.
The B+W 091 is what I used with Kodak, since I could still see through a SLR lens.

 

[MattKing]

This is the Rollei shot through a Hoya R72 - I metered the ambient light as indicated using EI 3: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[StoneNYC]

OK, it looks like you bought a 092. That's the correct filter, and it will work fine with all of the current IR films.

Filters cut off at a point, and let in light beyond that.
Films are sensitive up to a point.

So a film is sensitive up to 820nm. A filter at 900nm would be too much (80nm over), but a filter at 720nm would be fine, since it would let in light at 720nm and above.

The B+W 092 is what I use with Konica, Ilford, Efke, and Rollei.
The B+W 091 is what I used with Kodak, since I could still see through a SLR lens.

Thanks, and yes I got the right one few!!

The way some of the films read it seems they "start" at Xnm and give no indication of the cut off where they STOP, so it's a little confusing/deceiving, it also may be the distributors description being off. Either way glad I have APUG to clear it up