Shooting B&W Infrared in Winter

[EricTheReddish]

Hello... I'm new here... be kind...

I shot B&W infrared film many decades ago in summer, with very nice results. But I was wondering if it makes sense to shoot IR in winter? In summer, you get the dramatic results on trees, grass and other warm things, as well as the sky. But in winter, where things are generally cold (around here anyway), what kind of results is one likely to get? Is it worth a try, or are the results likely to be "meh?"

Thanks!

-Eric

 

[MattKing]

I don't have much experience with using it at the coldest part of winter, but it certainly doesn't require the heat of summer.
October, in the Pacific Northwest, using Ilford SFX:

And on the same roll, from the same day, a Triptych comparing the results from three different exposure/filter options:

 

[EricTheReddish]

Nice! Thanks!

 

[Dave Ludwig]

My Avatar photo is IR taken in winter, a little snow on the ground. Shot with Red#25 and PL. I attach the print.

 

[JensH]

Hmm, newer tried it, but snow plus blue sky should look nice in IR.

 

[EricTheReddish]

My Avatar photo is IR taken in winter, a little snow on the ground. Shot with Red#25 and PL. I attach the print. View attachment 385714

Looks awesome! Seems like I'm going to have to try it! Thanks!

 

[Ivo Stunga]

IR works in winter too - my metering even doesn't change as it's just a part of EM spectrum to be captured. A tad of halation + extra dark skies + crunchy contrast is what I like about IR at winter.


Zaķusalas TV tornis infrasarkanajā


Iekuram


IR Winter


IR Winter


R100 + RG715 by Ivo Stunga, on Flickr

 

[reddesert]

The near-infrared light that IR film is sensitive to (even Kodak HIE) is much shorter wavelength / higher energy than the radiation that we associate with heat as in temperature. So, objects that reflect a lot of near-IR light, such as vegetation, are brighter in the IR because of their chemical content, not because they are warm.

Of course in the winter there are fewer leaves around (except for evergreens/conifers), but the up side is that the air humidity is usually drier in winter, which means bluer skies that are more likely to render as dark on IR film, and to give the sense of depth that you can get in IR landscapes due to the lessened scattering from haze.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Yup.
In an attempt to repeat popular science points:

The IR part of the spectra can be further divided into wavelengths based on properties if they'd be much of use to us - just like visible light (to humans) where all our vision resides into mere 320nm space that is neatly divided by us into sweet primary colors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Commonly_used_subdivision_scheme

The designation of "Infrared" meanwhile takes about 999250nm space of EM spectrum (750nm up to 1mm) and isn't being micromanaged further much due to human perception/sensing tool development bias.

In IR film photography and with current films we care only about very narrow range of just about 50nm: between 700 and 750nm where red drops into void and Infrared doesn't even begin to be classified as Near Infrared. So - we're interested in near-Near Infrared if you will and the task is to take red out or leave it enough there (via filters) to contribute to picture. Visible light must be filtered out as it's more energetic and overpowers any near-near IR response.


With today's "IR" films and their sensitivity profile (up to 750nm) - no much use for an IR-passthrough filter past 750nm as you'd be already outside the provided sensitivity. Choose therefore IR passthough filters from 695 to 720nm.


In essence and pedantism - no IR films are available today. But yesteryear we had some NIR films... that I missed out on due to my fault at being born too late.

 

[EricTheReddish]

IR works in winter too - my metering even doesn't change as it's just a part of EM spectrum to be captured. A tad of halation + extra dark skies + crunchy contrast is what I like about IR at winter.


Zaķusalas TV tornis infrasarkanajā


Iekuram


IR Winter


IR Winter


R100 + RG715 by Ivo Stunga, on Flickr

Very nice! Thanks!

 

[EricTheReddish]

The near-infrared light that IR film is sensitive to (even Kodak HIE) is much shorter wavelength / higher energy than the radiation that we associate with heat as in temperature. So, objects that reflect a lot of near-IR light, such as vegetation, are brighter in the IR because of their chemical content, not because they are warm.

Of course in the winter there are fewer leaves around (except for evergreens/conifers), but the up side is that the air humidity is usually drier in winter, which means bluer skies that are more likely to render as dark on IR film, and to give the sense of depth that you can get in IR landscapes due to the lessened scattering from haze.

Good to know details... thanks!

 

[EricTheReddish]

Yup.
In an attempt to repeat popular science points:

The IR part of the spectra can be further divided into wavelengths based on properties if they'd be much of use to us - just like visible light (to humans) where all our vision resides into mere 320nm space that is neatly divided by us into sweet primary colors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Commonly_used_subdivision_scheme

The designation of "Infrared" meanwhile takes about 999250nm space of EM spectrum (750nm up to 1mm) and isn't being micromanaged further much due to human perception/sensing tool development bias.

In IR film photography and with current films we care only about very narrow range of just about 50nm: between 700 and 750nm where red drops into void and Infrared doesn't even begin to be classified as Near Infrared. So - we're interested in near-Near Infrared if you will and the task is to take red out or leave it enough there (via filters) to contribute to picture. Visible light must be filtered out as it's more energetic and overpowers any near-near IR response.


With today's "IR" films and their sensitivity profile (up to 750nm) - no much use for an IR-passthrough filter past 750nm as you'd be already outside the provided sensitivity. Choose therefore IR passthough filters from 695 to 720nm.


In essence and pedantism - no IR films are available today. But yesteryear we had some NIR films... that I missed out on due to my fault at being born too late.

I guess I'm stuck with the current more "pseudo" IR films then. I did use what was probably NIR film way back when, so at least i had a chance. I'm eager to see what I get with current films! Thanks1

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hello... I'm new here... be kind...

I shot B&W infrared film many decades ago in summer, with very nice results. But I was wondering if it makes sense to shoot IR in winter? In summer, you get the dramatic results on trees, grass and other warm things, as well as the sky. But in winter, where things are generally cold (around here anyway), what kind of results is one likely to get? Is it worth a try, or are the results likely to be "meh?"

Thanks!

-Eric

As long as there is vegetation, leaves and grass, one should be able to get the Wood effect. Are you specifically asking about snow and snow scenes?

 

[EricTheReddish]

As long as there is vegetation, leaves and grass, one should be able to get the Wood effect. Are you specifically asking about snow and snow scenes?

Not specifically, but they would be included in the general category of winter shooting: Few or no leaves, maybe some vegetation, maybe snow. As others have pointed out, it looks like you can get some "IR effect" even when it's not the greens of summer. Thanks1

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I guess I'm stuck with the current more "pseudo" IR films then. I did use what was probably NIR film way back when, so at least i had a chance. I'm eager to see what I get with current films! Thanks1

There's nothing "pseudo" about them and I love me some IR/Wood effect - I shoot IR films (Aviphot) almost exclusively. It just falls where it falls

 

[jim appleyard]

I guess I'm stuck with the current more "pseudo" IR films then. I did use what was probably NIR film way back when, so at least i had a chance. I'm eager to see what I get with current films! Thanks1

I'm a big fan of Ilford's SFX films. It has enough IR for me, but can be camera loaded in daylight which the old Kodak IR couldn't be.

 

[Sirius Glass]

After HIE was no longer available, I started using Rollei IR 400 shot at ISO 400 and then set the f/stop wider based of the red filter including the 720.

 

[EricTheReddish]

I'm a big fan of Ilford's SFX films. It has enough IR for me, but can be camera loaded in daylight which the old Kodak IR couldn't be.

I remember that was the case. In fact, I recently found a 35mm film canister that had "Only open in complete darkness" on it. I suspect that was from the Kodak IR film.

 

[Paul Manuell]

I don't have much experience with using it at the coldest part of winter, but it certainly doesn't require the heat of summer.
October, in the Pacific Northwest, using Ilford SFX:
View attachment 385690

And on the same roll, from the same day, a Triptych comparing the results from three different exposure/filter options:

View attachment 385691

Don't you think telling us the exposure/filter options you used might be helpful?

 

[MattKing]

Don't you think telling us the exposure/filter options you used might be helpful?

I have shared it in other threads - it is actually part of a longer article.
I'll see if I can find the earlier threads, and link to them. The article itself is too large to be an attachment.

 

[MattKing]

Surprisingly, I was able to find it quickly. This is from a post in 2010:

From a presentation I put together a few years ago, using Ilford SFX as an example:
View attachment 385907

 

[Jojje]

Here's one on EfKe 820. Ther were a couple of swans in this picture but they swam too quickly, maybe 30 seconds exposure.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't you think telling us the exposure/filter options you used might be helpful?

Depending on the desired IR intensity I use, in increase Wood Effect and darker skies, Red23, Red25, Red27, Red29 and 720 [aka 72] filters.