I miss Color EIR film

[keithwms]

Ah-ha, thanks holmgurgers, that was exactly what I was looking for! Now, what infrared film is closest to the curve of the cyan layer...

I would go with Rollei Superpan and use an rm72 filter or a #87 if the subject permits long exposures. I have also had excellent success with Rollei IR.

I have had decent success with the Efke IR films but I have also had spurious quality control issues. The Efke IR probably has the deepest IR sensitivity on the market right now, and if you like halation they have the version without the AH layer.

One slight mark against the Efke for colour sep work (which will require several good negatives) is that it scratches more easily than the Rollei. Of course, you could simply be more careful with it...

For me though, superpan is tops.

 

[happyjam64]

Hmm, thanks for the suggestions! I think I'll probably go for the Rollei IR in 4x5 and bi-pack it with ortho film. I can't wait to see what comes out!

Edit: Just had another thought. What if we used infrared imagesetting film? As far as I know, imagesetting film has a much narrower band of sensitivity. The only problem is that imagesetting film is naturally high contrast, but I'm sure it could be toned down with the right developer combination.

 

[keithwms]

I don't know anything about the spectral sensitivity of imagesetting film. Anyway, you probably want to use a film that can handle the blue, green, red and IR separations equally well. Then you just swap out filters and shoot the different frames in series on the same roll of film, develop them all together...

 

[happyjam64]

Haha, that would be a lot easier! Now I just need to order some wratten filters...

 

[holmburgers]

happyjapm64, although I think it's a cool idea I'm not sure if this bipack method will work.

First, how do you intend to match the speeds of the two films? Is there an ortho film that is slow enough and a IR film that is fast enough to make for the same exposure times w/ this bipack? The IR has to go thru the ortho film and a red filter, meanwhile the ortho film is right on top w/ no filtration.

And also, since the ortho would be, as you said, a record of the green & blue, it's not a true color separation by any means. Same goes for the IR layer which thru only a red filter won't be 100% IR.

So false color it surely will be, but Color EIR it certainly can't resemble (why am I talking like Yoda?). That being said though, it could still be very interesting.

The best method would be a one-shot camera (not practical... prohibitively expensive IMO) or just using filters and taking three individual shots. However, I do like the idea of bi/tri-packing it, but the particulars need to be ironed out.

 

[happyjam64]

yes, thats exactly what I was thinking. The ortho film would most likley be the same speed, if not slower than the infrared film, but, that could be fixed in printing with a loss of dynamic range.
I just think this is a neat experiment!

 

[keithwms]

Of course, even if you use the same film for all the component shots, you will need different exposure compensation factors for the different filters. Density versus exposure is not constant from blue to IR for any film.

To make life as easy as possible, what you want is a film that has roughly equal density per exposure at the three (or four) center wavelengths of your filters. That's why I was thinking of superpan or similar.

My guess is that if you shoot the IR separation frame with an rm72 filter then you'll need about 3 or 4 stops extra exposure time for that versus the red, green, and blue shots. For red you'll need, what, 2 stops exposure compensation typically. For green and blue you likely need a bit less compensation.

Idea: if you wanted to make life really easy, you could combine your r,g, and b filters with an ND filter of appropriate optical density. Then you'd be shooting the visible shots and the shot with the IR filter at the same exposure time.

Don't tie yourself in knots over it though, as long as you have good density in all the frames, you'll be able to handle the slight differences in density during the combination phase. I'd start by determining the optimal compensation factor for whatever IR filter you use, and then let that determine how you approach the other frames.

 

[holmburgers]

Here's some info for reference....

There are two sets of tri-color separation filters.

25 red, 58 green & 47B blue - Convenient because all filters share a filter factor of 8 (3-stops)

29 red, 61 green & 47B blue - Purer color separations, larger color gamut (the 25/58 set has over 6% overlap while this set has less than 1% overlap)

How many permutations are there for different ways to mix the colors? You've got 4 inputs, R/G/B/IR and you've got 3 outputs, R/G/B.... anyone better at math than me?

 

[holmburgers]

Another option for combining separation negatives.... on RA-4 no less!

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[holmburgers]

Dean Bennici has got 500 rolls of fresh Aerochrome film for $24.50 plus shipping from Europe. It will run out quick and believe me I'd buy it, but I've got 4 rolls stockpiled and not even an MF camera!

No need to miss it any longer.

 

[2F/2F]

What about making up your own colour separation images including a separation for IR by shooting a panchromatic/IR film with different filters? E.g. you could use r,g,b, and IR filters, shoot three or four separate frames, and then combine them as you wish to produce a colour neg or positive. It could be done in a purely analogue way. Since the IR films on the market are really edge-visible, I think I'd be tempted to shoot with g and b filters and use an IR filter for red + IR.

That is exactly what I was going to suggest. It is a PITA, but if you want to do it you can. It needs to be an IR film that also has full panchromatic sensitization, i.e. HIE would not work because it is not sensitive to the entire visible spectrum. For grain with a more intense IR effect, go with the Efke IR film, and for sharpness with less IR, go for the Rollei. It will require some testing to figure out how to expose through each filter to get the proper color balance, but you can do it. In a recent thread I posted the info from the data sheet about how the emulsions and their sensitivity are structured with EIR.

Of course, you are limited to static subjects with this method, and it is tons of work.

If you are into alternative options, you can figure out what to do on the computer by looking at the data sheet for EIR. It tells you what colors in reality are rendered as what colors on the film, and you can monkey around and do that on the computer. To talk about that option in depth, try DPUG.

 

[holmburgers]

I think it's a really cool idea. S. Frizza posted an example above in post #16 with this idea. It'd be really easy to do in a dye-transfer or other assembly method.

And I think that for landscapes it might be worth the effort to make 3 exposures. Neater yet, get a hold of a 'repeating back' from days of yore.

 

[2F/2F]

I just had a thought that it would be interesting to do the R-G-B separations on a very sharp and fine grained film, and to do the IR separation with the Aura film, and/or slightly out of focus.

As for the person who said this is not possible, it is actually how color photos were shot until color film was invented. And even after color film was invented and the capturing of images started to take place in one exposure, several photo printing processes relied on darkroom separation from the in-camera positive. It is also the way that litho printing, screen printing, etc. has been done and is still done to this day, though computers are used 99 percent of the time now to do the separations. I am sure you have heard the term CMYK. Well, that is the same thing Keith is talking about, basically.

You make a filtered shot for each primary color of light, onto black and white film. Then you print each of these in register onto the printing material. This is actually the most accurate and controllable way to make color prints, as one can control the density and contrast of each layer individually.

When going back to a positive, you can assign whatever color you want to each separation neg; it doesn't have to be C for the R-filtered shot, Y for the B-filtered shot, and M for the G-filtered shot. Not being so is how EIR worked the way it did. It was called a "false color" film because of this.

So, using a different process, one should be able to get close to the effect of EIR, using only black and white films. You just have to know exactly how EIR rendered false color in order to do it, so you can assign the "right wrong" color to each separation.

Another option for the OP would be to shoot one shot on transparency film, and one on IR film in camera. Then do the R-G-B separations from the transparency in the darkroom. Of course, you lose a lot of the contrast control through exposure and development that is available with b/w films. But your object does not have to be as still this way (only still enough for two exposure, not four), and the shooting routine doesn't involve as much monkeying around.

 

[holmburgers]

From individually taken separation negatives, you could even make a 4-color print using R, G, B and IR, which isn't feasible with integral film. One could make all kinds of different false color images.

 

[2F/2F]

From individually taken separation negatives, you could even make a 4-color print using R, G, B and IR, which isn't feasible with integral film. One could make all kinds of different false color images.

That is the best for replicating EIR, I think. Though the film used blue sensitization on all of three layers, that could be taken care of with the additional B-filtered separation shot.

Shooting them is not the hardest part. Registration on printing is. And what printing process will be used? Gum bichromate? A whole other learning curve. RA4 paper with registered enlarged contact negs? It might be the most feasible, but would definitely take more than your standard contact printing frame. You'd have to build (or purchase) a registration punch and easel that is designed specifically for contact printing. Registering in-camera film to an easel with your standard enlarger and neg carrier is going to be a bear. Registration marks on the film lined up with marks on a registration easel, perhaps...but it is registration by eye/hand, which is bound to introduce lots of human error.

My question would be, what did you do with your EIR transparencies? Did you scan them to print them? If so, then staying 100 percent analog makes no difference anyhow. Just go the Photoshop route (on DPUG).

 

[holmburgers]

I've only got a handful of EIR transparencies, and so far I've only scanned them. In fact, I'm not even setup for color printing, but I'm making progress on a dye-transfer scheme.

A 2-hole punch can work for registration, and you can find pins at the hardware store to hold the pieces together, but it's much easier w/ large format negs. 35mm would be a bear indeed. Historically though, hand-eye registration has worked and worked well. I guess it's a question of how patient are you?

But projecting onto RA-4 would most certainly require a pin registered carrier or some ingenious scheme. I shudder at the thought...

The color transparencey plus b&w IR film is a good idea. That'd be really easy to manipulate in post.

 

[John Shriver]

Another totally different approach. Custom CCD sensor. Instead of the R/G/G/B Bayer matrix, make one with R/G/B/IR. The CCD sensors have inherent IR sensitivity, so you just need one of each four locations to have an IR-only filter. We know the CCD vendors can do this, since all the film scanners with an IR channel have the same thing.

Then it's just a matter of how to map those colors into the part of the spectrum we humans can see.

There are vendors who remove the IR filters from digital cameras, but that just causes all IR to map into the red channel, rather than be a distinct channel.

The custom CCD is probably less capital cost (given a minimum order for CCDs with custom filters) than paying Kodak to bring up EIR production again. (Remember that the US DoD had deep pockets to pay for production runs of EIR.)

But, like Kodak's short-lived attempt at a true monochrome digital camera (no Bayer filter at all), I suspect that an R/G/B/IR camera is too much a niche market to be produced in a consumer product.

Of course, someone is making R/G/B/IR CCD sensors for the spy satellites, and for the current digital camera in the U-2 spy planes. You don't think they lack an IR channel, do you? You want to be able to use the IR channel to spot camouflage.

I suppose if you had total software control over a flatbed scanner with IR-based ICE, you could use it as a scanning back on a view camera without any hardware development. But an Epson V750 would make a very heavy back on an 8x10 view camera...

(Of course, this is a digital solution, so I suppose it's off-topic on APUG.)

 

[holmburgers]

Dean Bennici has a new batch of color infrared film in 120 format!

http://www.bennici.net/

bennici@tarquinius.de


Hello Everyone,

I just acquired a new supply of Aerochrome Color Infrared Film. I now have a few hundred rolls in 120 format. The material is all dated 2011 as its coming from the last production run.

I do expect to get a few hundred more rolls in the next 2 months, but I can’t yet see beyond that.

USD $25.00 per roll
USD $8.00 shipping

Thanks for all the support and interest so far. There have been so many amazing results over the past year!

 

[Roger Cole]

Dean Bennici has a new batch of color infrared film in 120 format!

http://www.bennici.net/

bennici@tarquinius.de


Hello Everyone,

I just acquired a new supply of Aerochrome Color Infrared Film. I now have a few hundred rolls in 120 format. The material is all dated 2011 as its coming from the last production run.

I do expect to get a few hundred more rolls in the next 2 months, but I can’t yet see beyond that.

USD $25.00 per roll
USD $8.00 shipping

Thanks for all the support and interest so far. There have been so many amazing results over the past year!

I couldn't find that information on his (Flash = evil) web site and gave up. I could write directly of course and might.

But question - I remember at one time color infrared was still process E4 when that was long obsolete and E6 was the standard. If I get some of this stuff is it E6 process? I can get that done by anyone who does E6 and doesn't use a machine with infrared positioning LEDs or just do it myself in the Jobo.

 

[EdSawyer]

I think AR-6 is the official processing but e-6 should work too. It could probably also be cross-processed in C-41 to create some crazy looking negs.

 

[holmburgers]

I think it might be AR-5 actually... but that's splitting hairs and going off memory. At any rate, E6 produces very nice results and some people are indeed doing C-41.

If you're interested, I would email him asap; he could already be bought out.

 

[frobozz]

AR-5 is indeed the official one, but apparently E-6 works well enough (it's just that the false colors are no longer scientifically accurate if you were trying to use it for its original aerial mapping purposes...) And C-41 cross processing is officially supported.

Kodak's data sheet on it:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/7b/0900688a802b097b/EN_ti2562.pdf

Duncan

 

[holmburgers]

I like to act as the conduit for Dean Bennici's emails on Aerochrome stock:

Hi Everyone,

I’m getting many mails about Aerochrome film sensitivity to heat and transport. The most often asked question is about the film being a long time in the post.

Some of my photos just went through the ultimate test. I took fresh 2011 film out to Death Valley for a 5 day shoot at temperatures as high as 90° F (33°C). The film went the entire time without cooling. The film then spent a further 3 days without cooling in transport.

I then sent the film from Los Angeles to Munich, Germany. It got lost in the post for nearly two months! I finally developed the film and it looks fine! See attachments.

It is recommended to keep film cool when you can. Still, I found that Aerochrome is much more robust than originally thought. It seems that it can handle transport time in the post and leaving the film out for a few days is also not a real problem. Older stock may react differently, but all my current film is fresh 2011 and I keep it frozen from time of manufacturing until time of shipping.

Best,

Dean Bennici




But one aside.... is 90°F supposed to be hot??

 

[polyglot]

I've done separations like this as a hybrid process: shoot E6, change backs and add R72, shoot IR820. Obviously only good for static subjects.

Doing the registration manually is pretty hard even digitally (you have to tweak rotation AND position, hopefully not scale/shear due to a non-flat scanner carrier), though there are pano stitching tools that can make a high-quality automated job of it. And choice of colour is interesting too, I didn't want crazy colouration so I put the IR equally into all three channels, i.e. as white, so it looks like like the usual snowy greyscale IR image showing through a colour scene with no artificial-looking hues. You can also use the IR layer as a multiplier, which means you get black skies again, foliage and concrete/brick appear but a few other things go dark; contrast is insane with that approach because the image is effectively a quadratic of the illumination unless you do a lot of curves-mangling.

Once I get RA-4 working (don't hold your breath; my home darkroom doesn't have a bench or sink yet!), I'd like to print pin-registered C-41 and IR separations onto the same print but I'm not yet sure how that will work. If you print through both negs in the carrier, you get the quadratic effect and super-high contrast. If you make two exposures (assuming you can get a neutral exposure onto RA-4 without a mask; maybe I'll have to shoot through some blank Portra or whatever), you'll sum the density instead of summing the light, which is the opposite approach to what I want, which is a reversal paper. Might look good anyway...

 

[hpulley]

Is a #12 filter required or will a #15 do? I know #12 is the recommended minus blue filter but happen to have a #15. I found at least one report that #15 works; any disagreement?

Anyone cross processing in C-41? That's my plan since I don't project much anymore but love making wet optical RA-4 prints.