Ektachrome IR continued as E4 long after E6 became the standard. There were only a couple of places that could still process it. Eventually an E6 version came out.
Reply From HARMAN technology Limited Re True IR Film.
-
A
- Thread starter Simon R Galley
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Mamiya ProSD 6x7 120 Roll Film Holder
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Me either. Almost bought some of the last E6 from that guy who was slitting it down and re-spooling to 120 but I didn't.
Something tells me you would have been 19 or 20 in '76, depending on the exact date...
I was aware of the different spectral responses and am impressed you did your own experiments.
And impressed you understand my stilted English.
I did not mean to suggest you could have done any thing merely that you might have been aware.
Today you could write to Adox though probably better if you had done it last year.
Because commercial film manufacture is a volume batch process as the volume drops the selection will reduce.
SFX is probably very low volume already. Only one of my brick shop retailer's stocks SFX or Delta3200, not a good sign, the other will order it.
Eventually reducing to two 400 ISO monochromes say or C41 in 35mm only. Might take decades.
The films are like going up stairs the top step IR film. The IR was probably a military contract where the development was funded 100% by the customer with a long term production contract following, the commercial sales merely some jam on bread. This is what permitted the final step ( to IR) and spectral performance. Ditto for Kodak.
The process chemicals are a risk they can be forbidden after a given date so you need to find a substitute and do a prototype coat and alter the datasheet.
The rescent restriction is on a bromoil chemical now only available to education establishments, ... etc. the EC is using a Procustean schema. I don't think I can get around it (legally) even by changing the articles of my company.
Anything like that could kill a film type, but a fault in the volume coating machine was a kissogram from Judas.
Ilford had a fault with their 220 finisher that finished 220 (as an Ilford product).
I was using CHS100 in 135 as a backup for the cine or survelliance film - I load into velvet less cassettes. Most of the film I use is PET base anyway so the handling was not special.
I really liked the signature.
Adox say one of the CHS typeI chemicals was no longer available so they had to start from bottom step for typeII.
I dont think it was your (ie IR users) fault that their margins were too small as lots of the problem was Agfa's post bankrupty coatings of APX depressing conventional film margins. I don't think this was vindictive merely an artifice of receivers. It would have been better if Agfa's coater had broken.
This is free market...
SFX is reassuringly expensive.
Fuji are selling rebadged 200 ISO c41 very cheap. I don't use it but it must be hurting KA's sales.
Last edited by a moderator:
My helicopter must have flown over Toms head
Yes actually shot a roll of it in Maine and sent it to Praus to develop, it came back blank, I asked him and he said often the transparencies that are very old just don't work, sadly, tonight as a matter of fact, I went to grab that roll for re-rolling and realized it was E-4.... DOH!! neither of us caught that sadly.... I saw ektachrome and just assumed E-6, and you know what they about assuming...
Wish I could have seen how it came out, the base is clean and clear, no fog.
Well it could have been prehardened and then crossed in C41 or cold processed in C41.
Old transparency is risky...
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,651
- Format
- Multi Format
I think the "Impossible sales model" of alpha- and beta-level products is a workable idea. However, I don't think I'd want that from Ilford, and I don't think Ilford would either. They would not want to knowingly release an inferior product; and who could blame them? Their reputation is on the line.
The only way for Ilford to do it is the "right" way, and that is cost prohibitive at this time.
A "new" company with no reputation to hurt/live up to may be a different story.
I don't know if I agree that SFX could/should be dropped in favor of a deeper IR film. I've not used SFX much, and only as a regular B&W film, but there is something about it - especially how it renders skin tones - that I find very compelling.
My terse comments are a pale echo of Simon's full answer to the question. It is not going to be made.
Also, unfortunately, digital cameras take rather credible IR photos in B&W and color. I say credible because they are in use by the military and spy organizations using special sensors which we do not have. Our cameras can do it though. I have some quite nice digital IR done just fooling around in the back yard. So, the feeling of many is "ho hum, I don't need a film". Actually, for best results, they do!
PE
Also, unfortunately, digital cameras take rather credible IR photos in B&W and color. I say credible because they are in use by the military and spy organizations using special sensors which we do not have. Our cameras can do it though. I have some quite nice digital IR done just fooling around in the back yard. So, the feeling of many is "ho hum, I don't need a film". Actually, for best results, they do!
PE
I converted my old, digital Canon G2 to an IR-only camera by removing the blue filter and substituting a clear piece of glass of the same thickness. I've been astonished at the results, especially with B&W when using a 87C filter. I still have a few rolls of 35mm HIE in my freezer, but won't miss it when it's gone.
Jim B.
However, HIE was false color which is unobtainable with a "civilian" digital camera.
PE
PE
I'm just grateful for the films, papers, and chemicals still available to me. Rather than ask companies to produce items they've deemed unfeasible, I'm perfectly happy to see them continuing to offer the fine items I need to follow my muse. I trust their ability to assess the marketplace, as it concerns the profitability of their products.
I was told we would not have to have reasonable discussions on this BBS.
Seriously, I think this is absolutely right, and it's worth remembering that this thread was launched (two years ago) with a really outstanding explanation from Simon of why Ilford did not find a "true" IR film feasible.
On the other hand, some of his reasons, like the commitment to SFX, were specific to Ilford, and I don't think it's inappropriate or ungrateful for the ensuing discussion to explore what other alternatives might exist, especially with the demise of the unique IR820. I hope none of us are saying "pbbbtttth on Ilford for not doing it".
-NT
I may have been in international standards too long---even after looking back, nothing you said seems "stilted" compared to some of the things I'm used to decoding!
I think Mirko actually discussed the IR possibilities a little around the time CHS II 100 was being launched. My memory may be failing me a little, but it seems like Adox had the sensible plan to worry about getting one "replacement" emulsion into the market first, seeing how the reaction went (especially considering the price rise), and then evaluating further possibilities. I would assume CHS II 50 and CHS II 25 would happen before any serious thought about niche emulsions like IR.
You'd think so, but in b&w we're actually a bit spoilt for choice compared to most historical moments. Mostly that's down to Ilford's extensive portfolio, but you could actually write Ilford out entirely and still have a reasonable range of films available except at the high- and low-speed extremes.
Hell, if I'm not mistaken, even Kodak actually still offers almost as many "normal" b&w films now as they did in 1975. By my count they then had Pan-X, Verichrome Pan, Plus-X, and Tri-X, and I think that was it; their other emulsions were things like Tech Pan, ortho films, HIE, and so on.
I think we know this was true for Kodak, but Fotokemika? Operating out of the definitive non-aligned country, I'm not sure what large-scale high-tech military they would be supporting. (I guess the IR design could have come from Agfa, though.)
I'm not sure what the situation looks like in Europe, but over here it's long been unusual to see Fuji and Kodak C-41 films head to head---most consumer sources seem to stock one or the other. It seems like consumer C-41, except for disposable cameras, is on its last legs in any case.
-NT
Well, if it is going to be done, and Ilford is not the manufacturer, then Mirko will certainly be the one to do it and he will do it right! Of that I am sure.
PE
PE
By HIE I was referring to the B&W IR film Kodak once made. EIR was the false color stuff they once produced.
Jim B.
EIR is Ektachrome IR? Why is it false color? Weren't the colors based on the IR spectrum of colors? Or am I confused?
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,651
- Format
- Multi Format
Oh, oh, let me try...
If they weren't false colors, you'd not be able to see them
I'd guess the false colors were chosen to make different objects stand out from each other better.
There isn't any "color spectrum" in infrared. It's infrared. It was called false color because (I believe) there was a blue, green and infrared layer, rather than RGB. Flying over the jungle with regular EK and photgraphing, it just looked like the jungle from the air. But with Ektachrome Infrared, the guerilla camouflage stuck out from the foliage like a sore thumb, as it had no chlorophyll in it.
Back in the early 70's I was enamoured with HIE135-20 and bought a Kodak publication called "Applied Infrared Photography". I didn't care for it because it did not relate to a 17 year old kid shooting barns and old houses. But it was enlightening.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's a pic taken on 35mm Kodak EIR back in the mid-1990's. I've long forgotten the specifics, but I believe I used a yellow filter.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Yes, my goof. It was EIR that was the color version. Sorry!
As for false color, the blue record was never photographed by EIR. The Green was rendered as Red and so tree leaves were Red. Everything was scrambled and at the moment, I cannot remember the color orders in the film. In digital, you get all 3 layers unscrambled, but have a superposed IR image. No false color unless designed into the sensor which is not done for consumer digital, only for "spy" purposes.
So, EIR was false color and the reason was that the IR picked up heat sources and camouflage. So, if a tree was a fake, it was not red! The forestry service used it to detect dead or dying trees or shrubs. You would see a field of red healthy foliage and a dead one would stand out by being "not-red".
You may want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography#Color_infrared_film instead of asking someone else to look it up for you!
PE
As for false color, the blue record was never photographed by EIR. The Green was rendered as Red and so tree leaves were Red. Everything was scrambled and at the moment, I cannot remember the color orders in the film. In digital, you get all 3 layers unscrambled, but have a superposed IR image. No false color unless designed into the sensor which is not done for consumer digital, only for "spy" purposes.
So, EIR was false color and the reason was that the IR picked up heat sources and camouflage. So, if a tree was a fake, it was not red! The forestry service used it to detect dead or dying trees or shrubs. You would see a field of red healthy foliage and a dead one would stand out by being "not-red".
You may want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography#Color_infrared_film instead of asking someone else to look it up for you!
PE
"False Colour" means the original colours are reproduced in the final image as other colours. May the original contain IR or not.
Yes I read about using a yellow filter with the EIR and used it for most of my shots on the roll I had, sadly it was processed incorrectly as I mentioned.
Yes, my goof. It was EIR that was the color version. Sorry!
As for false color, the blue record was never photographed by EIR. The Green was rendered as Red and so tree leaves were Red. Everything was scrambled and at the moment, I cannot remember the color orders in the film. In digital, you get all 3 layers unscrambled, but have a superposed IR image. No false color unless designed into the sensor which is not done for consumer digital, only for "spy" purposes.
So, EIR was false color and the reason was that the IR picked up heat sources and camouflage. So, if a tree was a fake, it was not red! The forestry service used it to detect dead or dying trees or shrubs. You would see a field of red healthy foliage and a dead one would stand out by being "not-red".
You may want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography#Color_infrared_film instead of asking someone else to look it up for you!
PE
Thanks, I thought you were using an in-industry term that was best asked from the source.
So then, the "Lomography" LOMOCHROME Purple (that is C-41 and that annoys me that it has chrome in the name but anyway) is also false color, so the only difference is actually just the lack of IR sensitivity?
If memory serves me correctly, EIR false color was as follows (all emulsions record blue, which is why color film has a yellow layer underneath the blue-sensitive layer, to filter out the blue light!):
"Blue" layer had yellow dye, but recorded blue+green.
"Green" layer had magenta dye, but recorded blue+red
"Red" layer had cyan dye, but recorded blue+IR
IDK if there was a yellow filter layer in this film or not, because it was usually shot with a yellow filter that filtered out blue (or was it an orange filter?). In reversal processing, green things (and the sky has a significant amount of green in it) would be recorded as blue, red things would be recorded as green, and IR (leaves and such, which reflect lots of near IR) would be recorded as red.
PE, does this sound right to you?
"Blue" layer had yellow dye, but recorded blue+green.
"Green" layer had magenta dye, but recorded blue+red
"Red" layer had cyan dye, but recorded blue+IR
IDK if there was a yellow filter layer in this film or not, because it was usually shot with a yellow filter that filtered out blue (or was it an orange filter?). In reversal processing, green things (and the sky has a significant amount of green in it) would be recorded as blue, red things would be recorded as green, and IR (leaves and such, which reflect lots of near IR) would be recorded as red.
PE, does this sound right to you?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |