I.R in 4x5

[BobNewYork]

Been thinking about trying some IR for a few years now and just never got around to it. I've admired those images that it works for - and detested those where the IR effect is just plain gimmicky.

I use a Zone VI field camera and was thinking of getting me a box of EFKE and a Lee 87C filter. Anyone have any advice or know of any pitfalls I should be aware of before I embark on the quest?

 

[accozzaglia]

Hi. There appears to be an eBay auction for 2 cared-for boxes of Kodak HIE IR 4x5 on the block slated to end later today. It doesn't answer your question, but if you're shooting 4x5, the price still seems fairly affordable for what it is. Given that I've only shot IR in 35mm so far (and soon, I'll try out the Efke 820 in 120), the only advice I can give is IR-proof as best as possible wherever you handle your film. Fogging sucks.

Also, in the 35mm/roll film sense, it is recommended to bracket every shot. Doing this with sheets seems to be a bit costly, even painful (to the wallet). I'm not sure what advice to offer.

I'd say, "Life is short. Give it a shot."

 

[BobNewYork]

Thanks for the response. Yes, I saw the e-bay offer. Problem with IR is if it's not carefully stored it's ruined - and you've got to try a few sheets just to find out. NO returning that!!

Hear you - Life is Short! Got nothing to lose but my self respect and at my age that's LONG GONE!!!

 

[JBrunner]

Hi guys,

With 4x5, if you have the exposure pretty down, it is easier to change development. Not quit the same as bracketing, of course, but there is still a pretty good ability to add or reduce density and contrast. What I do is shoot both sides of a holder on the same shot, so each holder has two versions of the same shot. When I process, I run one side of each holder. After evaluation, I can then change the development for the other sheet if need be. The ability to process sheets individually this way has eliminated almost any need for bracketing the way I do with roll film. (unless I'm shooting transparencies)

I'll be giving the Efke IR film a whirl pretty soon, so please tell how you like it.

 

[BobNewYork]

Thanks - will do. BTW are the regular 4x5 holders OK for IR? I know in 35 many of the plastic-bodied cameras just fog the film.

Bob

 

[JBrunner]

Thanks - will do. BTW are the regular 4x5 holders OK for IR? I know in 35 many of the plastic-bodied cameras just fog the film.

Bob

Not all holders, and not all bellows are IR proof.

Here's a thread:

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

 

[BobNewYork]

Thanks a lot.

 

[keithwms]

I use the Rollei IR in 4x5 with a #87- very satisfied. Just bear in mind that you're looking at longish exposures, a couple seconds on a typical LF lens at f/8 in decent light. So I started using apo process lenses because (a) there's negligible refocus; and (b) who needs a shutter when the capture is a couple seconds; and, (c) because of (a) you can shoot wide open with impunity.

With a good apo lens you can start to play with tilts and swings in the same way you might in the visible. More creative flexibility.

 

[PhotoJim]

Thanks - will do. BTW are the regular 4x5 holders OK for IR? I know in 35 many of the plastic-bodied cameras just fog the film.

They don't fog the film because they're plastic bodies. They fog the film because they have infrared-based film transport systems.

Plastic-bodied cameras like the Nikon F601/N6006 work just fine because they use a mechanical film transport system.

 

[DarkroomExperimente]

They don't fog the film because they're plastic bodies. They fog the film because they have infrared-based film transport systems.

Plastic-bodied cameras like the Nikon F601/N6006 work just fine because they use a mechanical film transport system.

those evil windows that show what type of film you're using don't help either

 

[Ole]

I'm more than a little sceptical as to the improvement with APO process lenses vs. "ordinary" lenses.

First of all the wavelengths that available (not HIE) IR films are sensitive to are so close to visible red light that even a non-achromat would have negligible focus shift.

Second, "APO" process lenses are corrected for blue, green and red light when used at 1:1. That is no guarantee that they will be reasonably well corrected for IR, or at other ratios.

I'll try when the sunlight returns - with 150mm APO-Lanthar, Germinar-W, Symmar, Tessar, and a (non-achromat) 14cm Ernemann Doppel-Objektiv which arrived yesterday. I doubt there will be visible differences in sharpness, except with the Ernemann.

 

[keithwms]

Ole, a couple of quick points.

First of all, I tried near focus and I tried far focus with the Rollei IR film. Notice I did not say that no refocus is necessary, what I said is that I find it to be negligible. It was noticeably less of an issue than with other lenses that I have used... various schneiders and nikkors.

Second, the film I mentioned, Rollei IR, is a near-IR film... really what you might call edge red or extended red. I did not claim that there will be no refocus with a deeper IR film such as HIE or digital IR. But as you know, the basic issue here is n as a function of lambda, and in an APO lens, you don't have n(lambda)=constant across the visible range and then suddenly, drastically, it goes to crap as soon as you get to 800nm. Again one has to bear in mind what lambda range one is talking about. With HIE and digital you are seeing out to about a micron or more. Not so with Rollei IR and SFX and all that.

I use apo process lenses for near UV and near IR stuff and have had good success, even working wide open, even using swings and tilts. People should simply try for themselves.

Couple examples where I was shooting a 360mm apo-nikkor wide open with liberal swings to test...

IR
http://keithwilliamsphoto.net/Photography with Invisible Light/Jacob Apo Infrared.html

UV
http://keithwilliamsphoto.net/Photography with Invisible Light/Jacob in Ultraviolet.html

In both cases the optimal focus was predicted by my ground glass to be dead center and then I made a line of good focus across each frame with a swing...

 

[Robert Hall]

Some plastic holders are not IR opaque. They can allow some IR light to come in from the plastic holding them together. I have not had fogging from the slides, but the edges have been horribly fogged in the past. I have never had issues with wood holders.

One of the challenges with IR film is getting enough shadow detail. As with normal film, one can easily get enough exposure for the highlights, but if there is not enough exposure for the shadows, no amount of development can bring it back.

I have had a wide range of ISO's from IR films. As fast as 200 ASA from Kodak's film to as slow as 1/2 ASA with the Maco film. It takes some testing.

Best of luck

 

[BobNewYork]

Thanks a lot. Guess I'd better get two boxes - one for testing and one for shooting!

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Ekfe IR film is very slow. If I remember rightly, I expose it at EI 6 with a Hoya RM72 filter.

 

[David William White]

IR in 4x5

I've just picked up a box of Efke 4x5 after running out of HIE 35mm.

I can report there is NO problem in handling the holders outdoors. No problem with my bellows either -- although holders and bellows are only a couple of years old. If you are worried, waste a sheet by leaving the holder outside for half an hour -- I think you'll probably be okay. Daylight is UV heavy.

I'm using a Lee 87 filter, but, my god, the ISO seems to be about 1 for me. I've blown about 10 sheets so far and still haven't anything with enough density to print properly. I'm into reciprocity failure adjustment on every exposure.

I'm switching to deep red filter to nail that first and then I'll get back to the Lee filter.

D.

 

[walter23]

I wish I could get more 4x5 HIE. I still haven't gotten comfortable with the efke stuff (though I've only shot a few sheets so far). It sure does need a pretty low sensitivity rating to get the shadow detail up, which of course means clouds & trees and stuff move more than you might want. With HIE, even stopped down and with a deep red on, you can get < 1 second exposures pretty easily.

 

[JBrunner]

I've just picked up a box of Efke 4x5 after running out of HIE 35mm.

I can report there is NO problem in handling the holders outdoors. No problem with my bellows either -- although holders and bellows are only a couple of years old. If you are worried, waste a sheet by leaving the holder outside for half an hour -- I think you'll probably be okay. Daylight is UV heavy.

I'm using a Lee 87 filter, but, my god, the ISO seems to be about 1 for me. I've blown about 10 sheets so far and still haven't anything with enough density to print properly. I'm into reciprocity failure adjustment on every exposure.

I'm switching to deep red filter to nail that first and then I'll get back to the Lee filter.

D.

It depends on the holders, slides and bellows. For sure the 5 bump fidelity holders are ok. Best to test rather than ruin allot of film. Concerning bellows for example, I have been told that the sheepskin on my Tachihara isn't IR safe. I will check it, of course to be sure.

Curious how the UV in daylight relates, regarding IR?

 

[Black Dog]

Fidelity holders were fine for me also.

 

[Robert Hall]

He probably mis-spoke there, Jason.

It's a certainty that some holders are not as safe as others. To that end I would always recommend a test of the holders you plan on using. Better safe than sorry.

 

[msage]

It depends on the holders, slides and bellows. For sure the 5 bump fidelity holders are ok. Best to test rather than ruin allot of film. Concerning bellows for example, I have been told that the sheepskin on my Tachihara isn't IR safe. I will check it, of course to be sure.

Curious how the UV in daylight relates, regarding IR?

Hi Jason
The bellows of my Linhof VI is safe for Efke 820, but not safe for HIE. I guess the extended sensitivity of the HIE is the difference. My older Wista is safe for both films.
Michael

 

[David William White]

UV sensitivity in IR film

Curious how the UV in daylight relates, regarding IR?

Looking at the Efke/Maco poop sheet, IR film has same sensitivity curve as ordinary film, but with extended IR response. Daylight is doesn't contain a lot of IR (3 or 4 stops below visible and UV), so my guess is that IR
films aren't any more prone to fogging in film holders than normal film, with the exception of metal darkslides exposed to heat.

Does that make sense?

 

[BobNewYork]

I get you David. I guess the IR effect arises principally out of those parts of the scene that emit IR - rather than the IR content of the illuminating light. And I will be sure to take my darkslides out of the oven in plenty of time before loading the holders!!!

Thanks David

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Actually, the IR effect has nothing to do with emitted light, but rather reflected light. To see how this works, try taking a photograph of the same subject under tungsten illumination and fluorescent illumination, using an 87 IR filter, where both light sources provide an identical light meter reading at the subject location. Tungsten lights are rich in infrared; fluorescent is lacking in IR. Your subject will look quite different under the two light sources; the fluorescent-lit shot will appear significantly underexposed, if it records an image at all.

This is why leaves of deciduous trees turn white, but the needles of conifers remain dark. Deciduous leaves are rich in chlorophyll which is a great reflector of IR. Pine needles have much less chlorophyll in them, so they do not show nearly as much IR effect.

 

[herb]

Ir film

I guess grafmatics are pretty safe, huh? Very interesting the point about pine needles and deciduous leaves.

I find Efke IR in sheet at asa numero uno with an IR filter have not done any development tests, which of course is the only way to be certain. That is next on the schedule.