HELP ASAP! IR question before I fly out!

[eddie]

Well, since you're "not really worried about the exposure issues or how not nice the images are", you're right- my post wouldn't be helpful. I thought I was posting for someone to whom those things matter...

 

[eddie]

And my response was a bit flippant, too. I apologize.

 

[eddie]

Stone- My post is based on years of experience, traveling long distances to take photographs. I spend the month of June, almost every year, on a small Caribbean island, shooting for clients. They're villa/boutique hotel owners who hang my work in the villas/hotels. I can't experiment while there. I have to be familiar with my materials and equipment. I just picked up a 4x5 lens for this year's trip. Between now and June, I'll shoot at least 40-50 sheets with it, so I know it before leaving. I've also been thinking about picking up a 6x9 rangefinder, or a pano camera before this trip. If I do, they won't make the trip unless I put at least a dozen rolls through them prior to leaving.

 

[StoneNYC]

Lol yay now we can be friends!

I quickly miss-spoke, the exposure issue is something I can work on as I learn more about IR and from this test roll I can adjust. The framing is simply not important since I wasn't shooting this to make anything spectacular, I WOULD have if I had it IN the canyon, but since I wasn't able to, this became a test roll rather than a professional take 10 minutes to expose etc. image, I just wanted to take a few images to see how it all turned out. So right now the focus is on whether the film itself has a mucky grain, or the developer is the issue, or if the focus is the issue, the IR focus shouldn't have thrown off the image that much though, there would be a focus point somewhere there would be clear, and nothing was, so trying to understand if the IR film is just not very sharp, or if there's a way to correct for that. Thanks.

 

[DWThomas]

As an occasional user of the stuff . . .

1) I don't think it is as sharp as some other B&W material, but another suggestion that is often recommended when wading into this stuff is to shoot a frame or two on the first roll without a filter (at ISO 400 or abouts) to provide a cross-check on the rest of the process. That's a good way to eliminate a few variables. I developed in HC110 dilution B (1+31) to establish a known base and don't recollect it being obviously grainy, but I also think the overall effect is a bit softer.

2) In comparing with other films, you have to remember it's essentially a traditional ISO 400 B&W emulsion, not Acros or Delta 100.

3) I'm not convinced the IR focus adjustment is necessary, or at least don't think it needs to be as large as 'in the olde days' because the film is not picking up much beyond the visible spectrum.

4) At the risk of being repetitious and redundant, there is much to gain by doing a test or three in familiar territory, near the darkroom so you can assess and adjust between rolls to build a "knowledge base." My own experience leads me to think many adjustments that may be intuitive working with normal pan films fall apart in the spectrum where our eyes don't work so well. Even though I was working within a 25 mile radius of home I went through about three tanks worth of gas running back and forth to process and evaluate results.

5) And I still think I need to re-evaluate my whole process next time out!

E.g., Next time it will be better!

 

[StoneNYC]

As an occasional user of the stuff . . .

1) I don't think it is as sharp as some other B&W material, but another suggestion that is often recommended when wading into this stuff is to shoot a frame or two on the first roll without a filter (at ISO 400 or abouts) to provide a cross-check on the rest of the process. That's a good way to eliminate a few variables. I developed in HC110 dilution B (1+31) to establish a known base and don't recollect it being obviously grainy, but I also think the overall effect is a bit softer.

2) In comparing with other films, you have to remember it's essentially a traditional ISO 400 B&W emulsion, not Acros or Delta 100.

3) I'm not convinced the IR focus adjustment is necessary, or at least don't think it needs to be as large as 'in the olde days' because the film is not picking up much beyond the visible spectrum.

4) At the risk of being repetitious and redundant, there is much to gain by doing a test or three in familiar territory, near the darkroom so you can assess and adjust between rolls to build a "knowledge base." My own experience leads me to think many adjustments that may be intuitive working with normal pan films fall apart in the spectrum where our eyes don't work so well. Even though I was working within a 25 mile radius of home I went through about three tanks worth of gas running back and forth to process and evaluate results.

5) And I still think I need to re-evaluate my whole process next time out!

E.g., Next time it will be better!

Thanks! I like the idea of doing a few non IR shots DUH! Can't believe I didn't think of that.

I think "soft" is the proper word as I don't SEE grain pixels but still looks "blurred" at the edges.

Thanks again.


~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

 

[mooseontheloose]

Stone, I'm not an IR expert at all, and I've never shot the Rollei film (just HIE and Efke), but I think one of the differences you need to account for in your images is how the sun is lighting your subject. In the first instance it looks to be behind (or to the side) of the tree, and I think you want to avoid any backlighting with the sun in the frame. The tree and bushes look underexposed (for IR) which would could be the problem with the mushy grain (again, speaking from experience with other films, not this one). The "one from the car" is clearly front/side-lit from the sun and the grain looks nice and clean.

I've seen IR photos taken in tombs and underground locations, foggy weather, etc. -- as long as there is some source of infrared light, you can get an IR shot -- and although it will be grainy, that can lend itself to the atmosphere of the photo -- just depends on the subject. If and when you test your film, remember to do it in a variety of lighting conditions, and preferably at different times of day, so can see what you prefer in your IR shots.

 

[ME Super]

oh and the car window one... View attachment 62907

The actual "nice" images will be for the subscribers in my gallery

FWIW, I rather like the tonality of this image.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I'm not an IR expert at all, and I've never shot the Rollei film (just HIE and Efke), but I think one of the differences you need to account for in your images is how the sun is lighting your subject. In the first instance it looks to be behind (or to the side) of the tree, and I think you want to avoid any backlighting with the sun in the frame. The tree and bushes look underexposed (for IR) which would could be the problem with the mushy grain (again, speaking from experience with other films, not this one). The "one from the car" is clearly front/side-lit from the sun and the grain looks nice and clean.

I've seen IR photos taken in tombs and underground locations, foggy weather, etc. -- as long as there is some source of infrared light, you can get an IR shot -- and although it will be grainy, that can lend itself to the atmosphere of the photo -- just depends on the subject. If and when you test your film, remember to do it in a variety of lighting conditions, and preferably at different times of day, so can see what you prefer in your IR shots.

I just happened to pick this one for the crop, all of the images have the same blobs, all within 3 hours of each other on the same day with different sun behind or on front or on the side, didn't change the blobby grain.

The other images can be seen in my Gallery.

Good idea though, but that didn't seem to change the "soft" and fast drop off of the images at 1:1 that is bothering me.


~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]

FWIW, I rather like the tonality of this image.

Thanks, I do too, now I wish I had thrown on a different lens and gotten out of the car to frame it better, oh well, haha


~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]

Ilford SFX has big grain, close to Delta 3200. The only time that you don't "see" grain is when the film is 4x5, and that's just a factor of enlargement. You could try a couple of different developers, and see if something works better for you. However, if you like the IR effect, then 10 rolls is the minimum learning curve. When I started out with Kodak HIE, I roasted at least five rolls before I knew that my changing bag wasn't IR tight. (I didn't have any dark space, and I loaded my film onto reels inside a changing tent.)

I mostly use Xtol, and some D-76 or Ilfosol. I haven't tried pyro yet with that film.

 

[StoneNYC]

Ilford SFX has big grain, close to Delta 3200. The only time that you don't "see" grain is when the film is 4x5, and that's just a factor of enlargement. You could try a couple of different developers, and see if something works better for you. However, if you like the IR effect, then 10 rolls is the minimum learning curve. When I started out with Kodak HIE, I roasted at least five rolls before I knew that my changing bag wasn't IR tight. (I didn't have any dark space, and I loaded my film onto reels inside a changing tent.)

I mostly use Xtol, and some D-76 or Ilfosol. I haven't tried pyro yet with that film.

Thanks for the advice, I can tell its an interesting film, I like the look just wish I had learned more about it a long time ago.


~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