Noob questions on IR

[HiHoSilver]

About 20 min in search & it wasn't helping that much. If this is well covered ground, perhaps someone can point me to the post/article that would help a noob learn about IR or Red sensitive films (sfx ...) That's the reason for the post - shed my ignorance on the topic.

So greens are drastically whitened, skies darken. Alot of the IR I see has brilliant lighting, but is fuzzy. Is this part of IR?

Filters look expensive, but that's not unusual.

I appreciate the help.

 

[DWThomas]

I would say green foliage is lightened because it reflects a lot of IR. but not necessarily other green objects. Some IR film has no anti-halation layer which can lead to bleeds along edges, providing some fuzzies. But some of the IR films may have more grain also. And of course in theory focus is a bit off relative to the markings for visible light. I've not tested in any great detail, but I suspect the focus difference is less of a problem with today's films which are barely into the IR region.

There have been some threads, not sure how fast I can find them. There's a few shots and some comments from Yers Trooly on PBase.

 

[HiHoSilver]

'Having trouble w/ web connection, 'Hope this posts.
I appreciate your kind help, DWT. I'm sure I'll enjoy the images.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Geez, D - those are nasty good.
'Look mostly fuzzless to me. Maybe just the difference you describe in focus shift w/ the diff. light.

 

[michaelorr]

I haven't looked at the photos Dave posted in pbase, nor gone back and looked at the spectacular IR photos that have been showing up recently in gallery, nor have i ever used IR film - but i have exactly the same reaction to the images as a general impression. First, i have always stayed away from IR just because of the focus adjustment that needs to be made for the longer wavelengths through a visible light designed lens. That could be one reason why focus seems a bit soft, if the focus isn't spot on. I could never do that with my view camera and was afraid to try, investing in said expensive IR filter, on my 35mm. Secondly, just think about IR, which is basically heat. Is does radiate off those bright areas in a diffuse, glowing way - i always imagined the mirage inducing heat shimmer off distant flat surfaces blurring the visibility above the reflecting surface. In IR, it does seem to produce a rather attractive glow on film. Glow is not sharp. It is more penumbra, not sharp mackie line kind of stuff, to me. Just three cents from the uninformed peanut gallery.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Hey Michael. The photos are in the upper end of what we've seen in the gallery. 'Really good.

I'm mostly in that camp of afraid to try, partially out of cost. Budget says run what ya brung, but I'm trying to get smarter about it. Toning is the other thing I'm reading up on.

'Hope all is very well your way.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Dave has excellent advice and photos to show to it!
However, if I may try, here are a few basics to remember:

• infrared film captures reflected infrared light, so yes, foliage of any kind will show up white (wood effect) but only if it is in direct sunlight. In shade or overcast conditions the effect will be much more muted (grey). If you have an infrared filter, you can see this effect if you put it up to your eye (but don't look at the sun!)
• shooting infrared is not just about the wood effect, it also has really beautiful gradations in the highlights, and some subjects, like old wood, absolutely sing in infrared.
• I've shot HIE, Konica IR, Maco IR, Efke, Ilford SFX, and am now experimenting the Rollei infrared. I did do tests to check for focus issues and found none, so I don't bother with any of these films, no matter what filter I use. That said, I don't do close up photography with infrared and usually have pretty healthy depth of field.
• Rollei 400s/80s are infrared sensitive (400s is possibly the same film as Rollei Infrared, which is slightly more expensive). I like the fact that I can shoot both regular black and white and infrared on the same roll of film - I suppose that was possible with the other films, but as they are mostly gone and/or very expensive, I prefer to use the whole roll for infrared.
• The most expensive thing you'll invest in is the filter, probably, although with the Rollei you can get some mild infrared effects with a red filter.

I have quite a few images in my gallery shot on infrared. The only ones I really tone now are the HIE images, as the rolls I have left are starting to exhibit fogging which means I no longer get clean whites with them.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I was using Kodak IR film, I never used anything stronger than a #25 Wratten filter. I focused through this filter. When I work with Efke's 820 (I have about 50 sheets of 8x10 left!), I usually work with an 87C, focus, then attach the filter. I've never bothered with focusing compensation... I use quite a bit of Rollei IR. No compensation. Same with SFX, and Konika 720. So go ahead and pick up some Rollei or SFX and have some fun!

 

[Jim Jones]

The focus correction required for IR depends on how deep into the IR the film responds and on the design of the lens. Some lenses made for aerial IR photography have the correction scribed on the lens. Kodak publications many years ago gave the correction for professional lenses. A few conventional lenses require little correction. Most lenses do require correction and are not perfectly sharp outside their design range of color.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Rachelle, Thank You so much. I appreciate your kind help.

On the films you mentioned - you said you tested for focus issues & found none. Does this mean you focused normally - visually - like any other film?

I keep seeing threads about Rollei 400/80, and lately Ilford SFX 200 & 400 - maybe similar. Is it the case that I need to look at images that list what filter is used & expect similar result w/ only that film? or is there such a thing as having one filter that serves several well?

If you don't have time for the questions, I understand. I sure appreciate your help.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There are true infrared films and there are films with increased red sensitivity. The two types are not really equivalent. A true infrared film is sensitized for light outside of the visible spectrum. In order to get the "infrared look" you need an true infrared film and the proper filter.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Andrew & Jim, Thank You both a bunch!
'Looks like a #25 filter is within reach.

 

[Ashfaque]

If you're using Rollei branded films, have a look at Martin Zimelka's reviews.

For SFX 200, see Dave Butcher's ('Darkroom Dave', iirc,) tutorial. Google should get you there.

Bests,
Ashfaque

 

[MattKing]

'Looks like a #25 filter is within reach.

You may be disappointed.
Look in my APUG gallery and you will see my early experiments with Rollei film and an inexpensive R72 filter.
The focus shift issue isn't nearly as important now, because all the available films are sensitized to the visible spectrum and just barely into the IR spectrum. The focus adjustment was much more important with the older films that could see much farther into IR.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Ashfaque beat me to it! Martin Z has some good information about the Rollei films, you can check out his reviews here.

As Gerald says, there is a difference between true infrared and extended red sensitivity. AFAIK, HIE had the strongest response, so even with a red filter you could get a strong infrared effect. However, not everyone wants an in your face infrared effect, so sometimes the effect of a red filter can be enough for some people. It really depends on the look you want.


HIE @ 200, shot with a red filter:

 

[Xmas]

if you have baking hot day

Deep red filter
Super pan film eg SFX or Fomapan400
Tripod
Remote release.
Foliage

You need to be outside and bracketing in two stop intervals,

If you focus through the deep red you should be ok without an offset, with a rangefinder I'd apply the scale off set.

I'd not go wider than /5.6 with a normal lens.

Your meter won't be metering the same spectra as the film.

 

[HiHoSilver]

'Sure appreciate the help, everyone.

 

[DWThomas]

Ah yes, I left my old IR mantra out of the first note: Bracket, bracket, bracket! The film is working in a spectrum we don't see, that tosses some intuitive adjustments out the window, and there is no guarantee a meter sees the scene correctly -- for IR -- either.

In my wild younger years I shot some Kodak IR sheet film which I suspect was prior to the recently departed fast stuff. And I actually built a small meter with a silicon cell and an 89B filter on it. Being that was the early1960s, I have not even a vague recollection of if or how I calibrated it. (It's probably still in a dusty box around here somewhere.) I do have some of those shots around.

I think to get "good" IR effects you will want at least an 89B filter -- depending on where I look I see numbers around 695nm for a cutoff on that. I used 720 ("R72") pretty successfully with Rollei IR400, and a 760 worked well with the EFKE IR820 stuff. Some of the filters lingering around have cutoffs in the upper 800s and lower 900s; those I fear will act like aluminum plates in front of today's films. Just to go from a 720 filter to a 760 with the Rollei IR400 required an additional five or six stops exposure. (With an 860 filter you would need a lounge chair!) I wish I could show some A, B, C comparisons, but the three filters I have are three different sizes and either are not big enough or I lack the plumbing fittings to attach some filters to some cameras. My last efforts used my Yashica 124G with a Bay1 to Series VI, adapted up to Series 7(!) to work with the 89B. I like the TLR because one need not look through or remove the filter for composition, etc. Series 7 with a shade does put a ghostly blur across the lower quarter of the viewfinder, unfortunately. (I occasionally look through ePrey for Bay 1 IR filters, but fear if I ever do find one it will be about $100 more than I'm willing to spend.)

 

[MattKing]

By the way, it is "Wood" effect, not "wood" effect.

It has nothing to do with the stuff trees are made of.

Named after Robert W. Wood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood

 

[M Carter]

There's a lot of info on the web regarding Rollei IR's sensitivity to IR - for the real opaque IR look, you need a filter that lets in a bit more than what people consider the standard. (there's a lot of Rollei IR 400 chatter on line, I think the OP just has to poke around more). My understanding is you need a 720nm IR (equivalent to Cokin P007).

That said, I haven't used it for full-on IR - I'm like "Seen one white tree, seen 'em all". Very few people do more than gimmicky looks with IR. But I love love love it with a tri-red. Skies get dramatic, foliage lightens. It's a cool look and a film that can be used as "normal" film as well.

A lot of the glow in older IR shots (Kodak, Efke) is that the film didn't have an anti-halation layer. Others more knowledgeable than I could comment on this.

First test roll I shot of IR400, lith print:

 

[Ashfaque]

Dave,

You have some wonderful images, alond with some very helpful tips. I'll be ordering some Rollei IR 400 speed films with my next purchase (both 120 and 35mm). So thanks a lot in advance for the tips.

 

[DWThomas]

Dave,

You have some wonderful images, along with some very helpful tips. I'll be ordering some Rollei IR 400 speed films with my next purchase (both 120 and 35mm). So thanks a lot in advance for the tips.

Thank you! (Made my day ...) I'm glad the info out there has helped someone.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

One must be careful with extended red sensitivity films. Since these are not true IR films the spectral sensitivity curve for the film must match the cutoff wavelength for the filter. There must be some overlap or there will be no images. Awhile back a poster new to IR was planning one using one of the visibly opaque filters (70, 89b 87c, 72) with one of the extended red sensitivity films. Of course he would have gotten absolutely no images.

 

[Maris]

One must be careful with extended red sensitivity films. Since these are not true IR films the spectral sensitivity curve for the film must match the cutoff wavelength for the filter. There must be some overlap or there will be no images...

Yes, the overlap is critical! Here is an example using a relatively "mild" IR filter, a IR680 on Ilford SFX 200. The light loss is huge and I had an EI setting of 6 on my meter to help guess exposures.

Windblown Wreath
Gelatin-silver photograph on Fomabrom Variant 111 VC FB photographic paper, image area 16.4cm x 21.3cm, from an Ilford SFX negative exposed in a Mamiya RB 67 single lens reflex camera fitted with a 127mm lens and IR680 filter.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

By the way, it is "Wood" effect, not "wood" effect.

It has nothing to do with the stuff trees are made of.

Named after Robert W. Wood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood

Now THAT I did not know. Thanks Matt.

BTW, you can find inexpensive IR filters from our Chinese friends (via eBay) that have worked well for me in the past.