Testing IR film

[ColRay]

Testing IR film

Looks like testing IR film may be a long road .

Two test on a very bright day.

Deep shadows and the bright blue sky are a couple of problems.

f16 exposure 1/60 .. the IR film was exposed for 5 mins processed in Diafine 4+4

Camera info focal length 88m pinhole size 500micron I was did use a 400micron on the first test I have been thinking why not try a larger aperture and use shorter exposure times. I have also run some test for sharpness .

First couple of images of the Old Albany Mill/Cottage
and how it look taken with my Sony DSLR.











photo uploader

 

[ColRay]

Sharpness test with 500micron pinhole

NOT IR film Foma 100 was use for this test

Wasn't the best choice of subject or distance, the brick wall looks like I'm on the right track.


image upload

 

[Bill Burk]

Both IR shots look great to me... Were you disappointed the composition on the metal gate suffered where it disappeared against the black sky? Still it looks great but that is about the only thing I see "wrong". You can fix that next time with a little awareness of what's going to happen based on your results here.

Sharpness isn't one of the things I look for in IR. I love the crisp black water and skies and white plantlife - looks like you got that.

 

[ntenny]

The exposure on the IR shots looks pretty good to me. The blue sky will always come out essentially black, and shadows are *very* IR-poor as a rule---I don't think you'll find that those dark areas can be realistically addressed through exposure changes. That's just how the world looks in IR.

Which film was this? Efke? You got a pretty strong Wood effect.

-NT

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Looks good to me. I always like IR images.

Jeff

 

[Sirius Glass]

For IR film, exposures have the most impact with the Sun behind you. There is significantly less impact with the Sun from the side. Do not bother to work with the subject back-lit by the Sun. The sky will become dark or black, vegetation will become shades of light gray to white.

 

[polyglot]

What is the problem with your images, softness? Keep in mind the longer wavelengths (~800nm vs ~400nm) of IR, which results in twice as much diffraction. You will want to recalibrate your idea of what is the optimum size pinhole for a given format and/or use a lens!

I shall have to disagree vehemently with Sirius on the matter of backlit infrared shots.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I shall have to disagree vehemently with Sirius on the matter of backlit infrared shots.

Please feel free to explain. The few IR rolls that I shot backlit did not seem to be a good use of the film. I did follow the link and I do like that photograph.

 

[polyglot]

Er, I dunno there's much to explain. Certainly the majority of my IR shots are with the sun mostly-behind the camera, my point was just that you can't really make a generalisation like "Do not bother to work with the subject back-lit by the Sun" because in some situations, it looks pretty cool. I find that most leaves have a good glow when backlit with IR, just like they do with visible-band. In some ways it's better than visual-band backlighting where you would generally get blown-out sky but with IR and blue sky, it's well-controlled as per my first post with the kiwi vines.

Same goes for side-lighting, it can give nice structural definition in the same way that it does with visible light. No drawbacks that I can see. If you don't like those photos or that style, that's cool, but it's probably my favourite way to shoot landscapes.

For non-translucent subjects (buildings, etc), sure, totally-backlit IR might be a bit crap.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I should have said photograph brightly lit subjects.

 

[polyglot]

For sure, direct sunlight is the most-reliable approach to getting a good IR shot. I have only one counterexample and while most of the image is in the subtlety of the shade, there are still treetops in full sun there.

I don't generally go out with the IR film unless it's Sunny-16 conditions. I have a sneaking suspicion I should try it but I don't have an IR meter and want to get the most from my few remaining rolls of IR820 in a way that I know is reliable. Maybe once I get that 70mm roll of Rollei 400...

 

[DWThomas]

I'd say you got good results. The problem with IR (er, one of the problems) is to visualize what happens with infrared film and an IR filter. Blue (sky) comes out pretty much black; green, if maybe green paint, could go pretty black. White objects and green foliage in sunlight come out pretty white; the "Wood effect" with trees looking like cotton candy. Black still comes out black. My general impression is the effective scene brightness ratio with IR is often much wider than the visual appearance would lead one to expect. I had one scene involving a river and woods on either side where the water in the foreground acted as a total sink for IR -- I shot the scene on two different days and still even massive exposure increases produced little detail in the dark (but rippled) water.

I generally bracket a stop or two either side of my measured "optimum" and assume the percentage of "keepers" will be low!

(But it's great when it works.)