Infra-red other than landscapes

[lesd]

I have just bought some Kodak HIE IR film but since I put it in the camera on the sun has not put in an appearance for 4 days and the long range weather forecast suggests that we are not going to see much of it for the next few days at least (I live in the NE of England).

I could just wait to take pics of parks and gardens in Newcastle and Gateshead, which was my initial aim, but this delay has got me thinking about other subjects for Kodak infra-red e.g. still life, macro. I wonder if anyone has tried 'unusual' IR work i.e. other than the usual sunny landscapes/architectures?

Les

 

[ben-s]

I've tried Kodak EIR for portraits.
It produces a rather spooky effect, with skin tending to turn a light greenish yellow colour.

I haven't used HIE for anything other than landscapes.

 

[Steve Smith]

You could experiment using flash. There is a bit of information and a guide table for exposure in the Kodak data sheet: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f13/f13.jhtml

It's towards the bottom of the page.

I have just started experimenting with Ilford SFX but I am going to restrict myself to daylight on bright sunny days at the moment.


Steve.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

HIE works well with a wide range of subjects - if you want to try it with still-life, most flood lamps put out plenty of IR. You can also use it with human subjects - although the infrared nude has been about done to death, it's certainly a distinctive look.

 

[wirehead]

IR is the new black.

 

[Dave Miller]

Snip- "although the infrared nude has been about done to death".

Fried or grilled?:confused:

 

[25asa]

IR is the new black.

Only on the negative - which makes it the new white.

 

[Videbaek]

IR film is particularly interesting for long-exposure night pictures, I think. Sometimes heavy over-exposure can give a graphically interesting dissolvingness about street lamps and low light sources that you don't particularly notice at the time. I particularly like how HIE renders movement --gives a different appearance to traffic, for example, that's wispy and just plain interesting. Interesting for still-life set-ups as well, sometimes. It's an interesting film in the palette, but should be used in a way that somehow sidesteps the instant recognition of the trademark IR appearance. IR negatives in lith can be very interesting, though no panacea. Portraits.... yes, sometimes, perfect for those goth bands! WeeGee's "cinema flash" pictures, made with IR film, are magnificent. Cool film, it can sometimes really hit the spot.

 

[steven_e007]

I did a series of portraits with Konica 750nm IR film. It gives lovely skin tones but the eyes come out black (well, the iris and pupil does) which can look very striking, but a bit unnatural!

I used flash and it worked really well once I got the exposure right. I've tried portraits with Kodak but found the gritty grain and halation on top of the much more severe IR effect to be altogether a bit much. As mentioned, good for album covers, maybe...

Point is, IR film of all types works well with tungsten light and flash and has the huge advantage that once you get the exposure right you can reproduce it each time and don't need to bracket, or keep your fingers crossed, as when you are outdoors

Steve

 

[DaveOttawa]

Studio IR

There are a couple of non-landscape HIE shots in my gallery, I find HIE interesting for still lifes and urban scenes & architecture as well as the more common subject matter. It is hard to predict how tones will record so you just have to try it.
FYI I have found electronic flash to be a very similar light source to daylight for HIE film.

 

[David Lingham]

I've used a lot of HIE throughout the year here in the uk. I like it for the more less obvious IR image. Soft lighting is ok, buildings, stonework etc. Have a look at my website. Good luck.

 

[SAShruby]

Any scene that have different surface heat will be a good candidate for your pictures. With relation to lanscapes trees or any photosynthesis acting plant will generate heat, that is why you see it white.

You need to use your own imagination to find items for still life pictures as long as they can generate the heat.

Cheers.

 

[Dave Miller]

Any scene that have different surface heat will be a good candidate for your pictures. With relation to lanscapes trees or any photosynthesis acting plant will generate heat, that is why you see it white.

You need to use your own imagination to find items for still life pictures as long as they can generate the heat.

Cheers.

I feel sure that heat is not a requirement for infrared film. I've not come across a hot leaf yet; although I accept that there's still time - at least I hope there is!

I was privileged to view many infrared images last night at the EMMG by Barry Freeman, and was most impressed by his building interiors shot on this medium.

 

[walter23]

Any scene that have different surface heat will be a good candidate for your pictures. With relation to lanscapes trees or any photosynthesis acting plant will generate heat, that is why you see it white.

You need to use your own imagination to find items for still life pictures as long as they can generate the heat.

Cheers.

You're not really seeing the thermal IR part of the spectrum in your kodak HIE images. Thermal infrared involves much longer wavelengths (far IR) that this film simply isn't sensitive to. I think HIE drops off in sensitivity somewhere in the mid 900nm range, which is in the near-IR range. In the grand scheme of EM radiation it's practically visible light.

What you're seeing is infrared radiation (and a bit of visible, depending on your filter) sent out by the sun and reflected by objects - just like regular old visible light in your regular film images. Leaves glow the way they do because they happen to reflect a lot of IR, which we normally can't see. They don't reflect as much in the visible range because they use light in those wavelengths for photosynthesis; they suck it up, so to speak, and use the energy to make sugar for themselves. The useless infrared just bounces off, unhindered by photosynthetic pigments.

 

[ben-s]

Dave and Walter are correct.
One common use of IR film was to survey large areas of forest from the air.
The images will show healthy live areas as white, and dead or diseased areas as grey or black.
This stuff is mainly done digitally now.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

HIE

HIE has alot of visual response. With no filter or a red filter it looks in a VERY general sense like common b/w film. (I can't compare to anything specific).

Data sheet
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f13/f13.pdf
confirms response up to about 900 nm.

I just figured it was a waste to use it for other than its unique properties like Wood Effect.

I had read somewhere that some effect is visible if items are 'illuminated' with a pair of clothes irons (no steam!) at close range, but that just sound like too much nuisance to me, as well as fire hazard. (No tripod mount on the irons :O) )

 

[Sirius Glass]

You're not really seeing the thermal IR part of the spectrum in your kodak HIE images. Thermal infrared involves much longer wavelengths (far IR) that this film simply isn't sensitive to. I think HIE drops off in sensitivity somewhere in the mid 900nm range, which is in the near-IR range. In the grand scheme of EM radiation it's practically visible light.

The human body heat shows up around the 10 to 15 micron range [10,000nm to 15,000nm] well beyond the range of IR film.

Steve

 

[Photo Engineer]

Try cross processing EIR and then printing it. Or print it using the Sabattier effect. Spooky.

PE

 

[AgX]

I had read somewhere that some effect is visible if items are 'illuminated' with a pair of clothes irons (no steam!) at close range, but that just sound like too much nuisance to me, as well as fire hazard. (No tripod mount on the irons :O) )

This story of the heated cloth iron, even without cloth, is so old that it already in literature from the seventies was stated as a tale.

Walter already hinted at that infrared photography based on halide materials is mainly about recording differences in IR-reflection. Not about recording of differences of IR-radiance due to temperature differences.

Objects with a temperature higher than 525°C have a visually different appearance (glow). Objects with temperatures below 250°C would have to be exposed unfeasibly long on IR-films. (By the way, the maximum temperature of a cloth iron is something of 230°C...). I have seen a photograph of a heated solding iron, but still exposed extremely long.

The Wood effect (R.W. Wood) is nothing but a vast overexposure of leaves combined with a blocking of the rest of the object by means of an IR-filter. That overexposure is due to the reflection of IR-radition (typically from the sun) of the leaves. The lowerside of leaves is highly reflective (like snow etc.) but is covered with clorophyll with a high absorbtion in the visible spectrum (bands at 450 and 670nm), thus acting as an IR- filter. This reflection is dependend on the sort, the vegetation period, but also on the health of a tree. (Also think of autumn colours.)

Fields of scientic/commercial use are/were agriculture, medicine, forensic, history of arts.

Concerning aero survey: there are a lot of very small businesses in that field who are not likely to change to a camera system based on digitally recording due to the inherent investments. Those will remain using film.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

OK . the tale is put to rest. Thank you.

 

[AgX]

In my post above I wrote about `bands´ of chlorophyll absorbtion. I took this term from literature; it is misleading. You better read it as `peaks´ though.