You entirely miss the point that a polarizer does not bring out the Wood effect.
I agree with Andrew, use a R29 or R72 instead.
If you combine a 25A filter and a polarizer, you still get a lot of deep red/IR effect. And you will likely be able to compose through the finder.
Try it. It’s a look I’m (also) very fond of.
A hint of Woods effect and dark skies. But less contrast.
When using wide optics, be aware of corner vignetting when stacking filters... I avoid it by using the PL with a red gel filter.
You entirely miss the point that a polarizer does not bring out the Wood effect.
I agree with Andrew, use a R29 or R72 instead.
Did what I wrote imply that?
In fact it’s not entirely true. Some “variable IR” employ a pol and 29 filter to (badly) approximate a variable IR filter. And it works sort of.
Any filter attenuated will tend towards its cutoff.
What you get with a 25A and a polarizer is the very beginning of Woods. AKA slight brightening of chlorophyll.
"sort of" is like "faken it, but not maken it" which does not work for sex or photography.
When using wide optics, be aware of corner vignetting when stacking filters... I avoid it by using the PL with a red gel filter.
Tell that to the Adox people, selling red gels as IR filters.
But it’s a look. And it’s nice. But real IR it’s not. That happens above 700nm.
Yes, I have problems with that when using my Hasselblad SWC and the 45mm for my Pentax 6X7. A polarizing filter is about as thick as I can go on either camera. I'm going out this afternoon and take some shots of an old coal tower used for steam locomotives. I'll use my Hasselblad SWC and the 500C for the test. I'll try to post the results either tonight or tomorrow sometime.
Using a polarizing filter on a very wide angle lens can cause varying darknesses in the sky, which is why I have learned to be very careful with them and have grown to not use them if I can avoid them.
Now you see my point, it is not real IR.
Quite frankly, I've only ever really used a PL filter to reduce glare/reflections on windows, water, etc... As you say, when the sky is in the image, especially a very large chunk of the sky, you have to watch out for an uneven rendering of tone.
So what?
Why waste IR film for non IR photography?
Why waste color film, especially larger formats on a monochromatic scene when there are great black & white films available?
... and then post comments on the high cost of film?
Well of course it doesn't matter, if that is what you want. If you don't want it, one must be aware and cautious. A PL filter can exaggerate it, which often I find annoying, especially with wide optics.
I personally love a good polarizing filter, and it's probably one of my most used filters after a UV filter, since it can be used for both color and B&W. Getting an even toned sky requires shooting in a certain direction at certain times of the day. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Living in Michigan I get to soot around water often and a polarizer makes a world of difference it surface water's rendering. The only thing I don't like about a polarizing filter is sacrificing all those stops just to cut glare.
My shooting of the old coal tower was postponed due to a downpour of 3/4" of rain and lingering clouds when that letup. We'll see how it goes tomorrow morning. If your lawn or garden is drying up, all you have to do is plan on going out and taking some pictures. Seems to work every time for me.
I ended up buying a Urth R72 IR filter off the big auction site, since I'll get it quicker than if I wait until I go back home to get my Hoya. JohnW
Great minds think alike! I ordered same filter and should be arriving this week.
Rollei 400 and Ilford SFX and similar near IR films = no need to re-focus.
I disagree with this as a general statement. I once shot an entire roll of IR400 on the Hasselblad with an R72 filter whilst forgetting to compensate using the IR index, and the focus was *very* noticeably off in all the frames. Results from the same camera after performing the focus adjustment are consistently perfect. Granted, if he's going to be shooting at f22+ it will probably be unnecessary, but at wider apertures it will make a difference.
If the R72 filter is the equivalent of the Wratten 89B, then I would rate Rollei IR 400 film @ ISO 6 and bracket +/- 1/2 stop.
I use a Mamiya C camera so no IR setting on the lenses. I close the aperture below F11 and never had trouble with unsharp negatives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?