The Big Exposure Table for IR Films - enter your data here!

[cmo]

IR photography is difficult - well, finding the right exposure is. It's a matter of experience and costly bracketing. By now, everyone is fiddling around on its own, but now as we have this wonderful thing called World Wide Web we can just collect our data and share them with others so that we can all benefit. Good idea, and overdue, right?

Welcome to the big exposure table for IR films, please enter data of your successful shots like this:

Film - Development - Filter - epic description of location, daytime and season

You can also show the resulting photo, of course...

This thread is also mirrored with this one to make sure many people can contribute:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/68975634@N00/discuss/72157621969093142/

 

[Andy K]

There are so many variables. Type of red filter used, type of IR film, film format, with anti-halation layer or without, strength of sunlight, angle of sunlight, type of reflective surface, amount of foliage, type of foliage, proximity to reflective surface.

Bracketing is pretty much the only way to go because shooting IR is not as easily predictable as ordinary bw or colour film.

 

[cmo]

Sure. It is always just a starting point, but the better... the better. And the more detailed the better.

That's why I asked for:

Film (type of IR film, film format, with anti-halation layer or without) - Development - Filter (Type of red filter used) - epic description of location, daytime and season (strength of sunlight, angle of sunlight, type of reflective surface, amount of foliage, type of foliage, proximity to reflective surface)

 

[DutchShooter]

Rollei IR 400 - 720nm IR filter - HC-110H 20min (presoak of 5 min due to anti-halation layer) - Summer (July) in The Netherlands (N52° 23.1585', E005° 13.3157')

I did some bracketing with shots at 3 different times of the day (time between brackets). Metering was done using a regular averaging reflective light meter (sixtomat), setting the light meter between ISO 6 and 50. Correct looking exposures:

1. Hazy sun, trees (time: 3pm) - EI giving the best results was 12

2. Full sun, trees in direct sun, with sun light in my back (time 4pm) - EI giving the best results was 25; example:

3. Shade, limited light on foilage, lots of shadow (time 8am) - EI giving the best results was 6-12

Actually, setting the ISO to 400 and use TTL with my OM-2n, metering through my 720nm filter, has given me quite good results up till now, with EC+1 for hazy/cloudy situations and EC+2 for lots of shadows on the foilage.

 

[2F/2F]

Rollei IR 400 - 720nm IR filter - HC-110H 20min (presoak of 5 min due to anti-halation layer) - Summer (July)

Did some bracketing with shots at 3 different times of the day. Correct looking exposures:

1. Full sun, trees, indirect light (15.00) - EI 12
2. Full sun, trees in direct sun light sun in my back (16.00) - EI 25; example:
3. Shade, limited light on foilage, lots of shadow (8.00) - EI 6-12

Actually, setting the ISO to 400 and use TTL with my OM-2n has given me quite good results up till now, with EC+1 for indirect sun light.

I don't really fully understand what the notes you wrote mean. I am guessing the numbers within parentheses are metered EVs. However, I don't get the descriptions. Perhaps complete sentences would explain it better without it seeming so cryptic.

For one thing, I don't see how something could be "full sun", yet also be "indirect light".

As for the last sentence, are you using the R72 filter, metering through it at EI 400, and adding a stop for "indirect sunlight"?

How do you define indirect sunlight? Is that what we sometimes call "cloudy-bright"?

What metering method are you using to determine the EVs you listed? It must be a reflected method, as I have never once metered any higher than EV 15-1/3 using an incident meter, and that was at White Sands.

I assume the pix were shot in the Netherlands, but I could be wrong.

Without a highly detailed, strictly structured standardized form being enforced in replies, the information in this post is bound to be confusing. It could be an interesting and helpful "database" if we bother do it well.

 

[cmo]

Without a highly detailed, strictly structured standardized form being enforced in replies, the information in this post is bound to be confusing. It could be an interesting and helpful "database" if we bother do it well.

Well, you are somewhat right. I thought of this as the "sunny 16" for infrared photography, not as a very precise tool but as a "better than nothing" table.

There are two ways how we can do that:

- We just start like this to collect some data and ask questions later maybe.

- We create a huge form that everyone can fill. Of course, that is better, and it would be a great idea to print that form and use it as a way of taking notes during the shooting.

 

[2F/2F]

I really like idea #2, personally. Doesn't need to be a HUGE form...as long as the same info is there from everyone, and it is expressed in the same basic terminology.

 

[DutchShooter]

I made an effort to change my original post to makes things clear (now I know why I make notes )
If there comes an empty format by someone else, I would be happy to rewrite my post to fit in the format. That would indeed make it easier to go through later on.

 

[DutchShooter]

Something like

Film:
Filter:
Metering type (TTL/separate meter):
Exposure index:
Developing conditions:
Location:
Date:
Time:
Sun light (amount & direction):
Subject:

 

[Steve Smith]

Andy is absolutely correct about there being a lot of variables. However, a table of actual settings used by people is what I was looking for (and couldn't find) the first time I tried IR film.

Such a list would be a very good staring point for experimentation.

Even in it's simplest form such as: When using Filter XXX with Film YYY, treat as an ISO 12 film when metered without the filter would be a good starting point.


Steve.

 

[cmo]

Even in it's simplest form such as: When using Filter XXX with Film YYY, treat as an ISO 12 film when metered without the filter would be a good starting point.

Many forums are full of those questions and answers. We just never collected them and put them into one table. So, we are talking about "a better starting point".

 

[cmo]

Something like

Film:
Filter:
Metering type (TTL/separate meter):
Exposure index:
Developing conditions:
Location:
Date:
Time:
Sun light (amount & direction):
Subject:

I think the metering could be an option, many people don't use a lightmeter with IR film.

So I suggest:


Film (mandatory):
Filter (mandatory):
Metering type (TTL/separate meter):
Exposure index:
Aperture (important but not mandatory):
Exposure time (important but not mandatory):
Developing conditions (important but not mandatory):
Location (important but not mandatory):
Date (important but not mandatory):
Time (important but not mandatory):
Sun light (amount & direction) (important but not mandatory):
Subject:

The "(important but not mandatory):" is important, but of course many people will not remember all details after years or did not take all notes because they did not have such a wonderful form.

Everyone feels okay about this proposal? Detailed enough to be useful? Not too detailed to be bureaucratic?

 

[2F/2F]

I think the metering could be an option, many people don't use a lightmeter with IR film.

So I suggest:


Film (mandatory):
Filter (mandatory):
Metering type (TTL/separate meter):
Exposure index:
Aperture (important but not mandatory):
Exposure time (important but not mandatory):
Developing conditions (important but not mandatory):
Location (important but not mandatory):
Date (important but not mandatory):
Time (important but not mandatory):
Sun light (amount & direction) (important but not mandatory):
Subject:

The "(important but not mandatory):" is important, but of course many people will not remember all details after years or did not take all notes because they did not have such a wonderful form.

Everyone feels okay about this proposal? Detailed enough to be useful? Not too detailed to be bureaucratic?

Sounds good.

One thing I really might consider is having a bank of words from which to choose for each answer, to ensure a certain level of standardization of terminology.

For instance, "Sand/Snow/Clear/Bright", "Sand/Snow/Overcast", "Clear/Bright (sunny 16 conditions - approx EV 15 incident)", "Cloudy/Bright", "Patchy", "Stormy", "Hazy", "Smoggy", "Overcast", "Deep Shade", Open Shade", "Golden Hour (please specify Evening or Morning)", "Dusk", "Electronic Flash", "Photoflood", "Household Tungsten Lamp", "Fluorescent", "Moonlight", "Mixed City Lights", "Other (please elaborate)".

These banks could be built and/or modified over time as we see what sorts of answers people are giving.

I think an optional area for negative analysis (densities, for instance) and/or printing information might be helpful...at the very least a "contrast grade" area, for those who have actually printed and not only scanned the film.

Another question for ourselves: Do we make the showing of the image mandatory? It makes sense to me, as we want to have a record of the conditions that led to a specific "successful" image, and to be able to see the results directly, not just have a summary of what works best in general.

The word "successful" brings up yet another question: Do we want to see peoples' "failures" as well as their "successes"?

 

[cmo]

Sounds good.

One thing I really might consider is having a bank of words from which to choose for each answer, to ensure a certain level of standardization of terminology.

For instance, "Beach/Snow/Clear/Bright", "Clear/Bright", "Cloudy/Bright", "Overcast", Open Shade", "Electronic Flash", "Photoflood", etc.

These banks could be built and/or modified over time as we see what sorts of answers people are giving.

Good idea. Apart from these words, can you provide more? Of course, we must keep it simple.

It might look like this now:

Mandatory:
Film (size and type):
Filter:
Aperture, for example "f/8":
Exposure time, for example "2 sec.":

Important but not mandatory:
Developing conditions:
Location, for example "Sydney":
Date and Time, for example "early August, ca. 2 pm":
Light, for example "Beach/Snow/Clear/Bright", "Clear/Bright", "Cloudy/Bright", "Overcast", Open Shade", "Electronic Flash", "Photoflood":
Light direction , for example "backlighting", "side light from 3 o'clock" etc.:
Metering type (TTL/separate meter):
Exposure index:
Subject:

The more we structure it the more it becomes a potential database, something like "the massive IR exposure chart". Good name, isn't it? Reminds me of something...

 

[2F/2F]

Some stuff to consider:

Films: Kodak HIE, Kodak EIR, Kodak Aerochrome, Kodak Ektachrome Infrared (an E-4 predecessor to EIR), Efke/Maco IR820C, Ekfe/Maco IR820C Aura, Rollei Infrared 400, Ilford SFX 200 (old/new? - Were there any changes made at all while it was on hiatus?), Konica (was there a name for it beyond "Konica Infrared"?), Maco IR 750C, Maco Cube 400C...more?

Filters: Yikes! There are a lot. We should also publish a list of IR filters and their cutoff wavelengths, so people can see what wavelengths are being allowed to reach the film in each picture.

Developers: Brand and product name (or homebrew formula), dilution, temperature, time, processing method (hand inversion tank, deep tank, rotary processor, etc.), and whether or not you deliberately over or underdeveloped. For color, list process used and any deviations from the normal version of this process. For instance, E-6, AR-5, C-41, E-4, C-22, push 1, push 2, skip bleach, ENR, or other silver retention methods, etc.

Location: Detailed enough so we can get a good idea of its latitude (meaning its distance and direction from the equator, not exposure latitude). For instance, please list a more specific location than a whole country or continent.

Time of year: To the month, if possible.

Season: The local season at the time.

Time of day: to the nearest hour, if possible. If not, estimate or give a time range.

Weather/light source: all that stuff listed up above

Light direction: Approx. 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, or 3 o' clock lateral position? To the front, the side, or the back of the camera?

Meter used, if any: in-camera reflected, handheld reflected averaging, spot (hand held or in-camera), incident, flash, grey card/reflected meter

Metering methods used: grey card, shadow or highlight placement, averaging, incident, judgment/experience/educated guess, blind guess, exposure chart or database (such as this one)

Exposure index used at the scene of exposure: 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 25, 32, 40, 50, 64, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400

Pluses or minuses for the posted shot: EC and/or bracketing, either automatic or manual?

Net exposure index: The EI you ended up using for the posted shot. This is the EI used at the scene adjusted for any pluses or minuses from EC and/or bracketing. For instance, if you used EI 12 when you were shooting, and your best exposure was on your +2 bracketed shot, then put EI 3 as your net EI

Additional negative information: Was the neg thin, normal, dense, bulletproof? Density readings, if you have them?

Contrast grade used for print: filter used, or paper grade used, or alternative process used

Additional print information: standard manipulations such as dodging/burning, special treatments such as bleaching or compensating paper development, toning, hand coloring, alt. printing processes such as lith, bromoil, etc.

Actual (real life) colors of the objects that appear within the composition: if anyone feels like listing some

 

[Andy K]

As a reference for someone who has never used IR this may be of some use. The thing is, it also needs to be simple enough to use in the field. You can't take a computer out with you every time. Also every scene is different. Bracketing was how I shot my first roll of IR, it worked and I got very good results. Remember, K.I.S.S.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Collecting all the variables so that the data can be properly processed it a critical and necessary start. Anything less would be a random collection of data that could not be reasonably correlated.

Steve

 

[GrantR]

The Konica Infrared's only other name designation was "750nm"

 

[2F/2F]

To me, this is not intended to be a reference guide, field guide, or a definitive guide. it would be something akin to a lighting diagram and technical information next to a photo in a book. We do not learn to light by looking at lighting diagrams alone, but they can be informative and inspirational. If nothing else, it would be a curiosity.

 

[cmo]

Remember, K.I.S.S.

Let's have a look at the original proposal:

Film - Development - Filter - epic description of location, daytime and season

If we compare this with the super-detailed form we have now we have to admit that there was a change. It is so detailed now that I doubt all people will really fill the form. I would not be able to remember all that information months or years after the shot.

I think we could handle it in a very simple way.

If someone wants to contribute data to this thread, he can do it as detailed or as simple as he wants. The big form can be helpful to remember data, if not we can live with it.

Is that okay for all of you? Can we start adding data?

Here is a starting point from by Wallace Billingham's web page, a "sunny 16 rule" for IR:

Efke IR820 - Diafine - Hoya R72 - 1.5 ISO - f16
In full sun: 1 sec.
In the shade or cloudy: 4 sec.

Source: http://theplasticlandscape.com/articles/efke_ir820.htm

What this guy dows with a Holga and an IR film is just amazing.

 

[photoargus]

Yes, Wallace Billinham did realy nice things with the Efke 820.

I shot 2 Efke today but I didn't do it in this way. So, I hope to get all the light (sun) to apply the 1 s/f16 rule with 1.5 ISO with my Hoya R72. I will do it with my Mamiya and my Nikon F5. I did already 3 IR films yesterday and I wrote down all the details of each picture.
At the moment, I do have films with IR sensivity like Efke IR820, Rollei Retro 80S, Retro 400S, Superpan 200 and the real Rollei IR 820/400. So it's realy difficult to find the informations how to use thoses films.

 

[2F/2F]

Was Maco Cube 400C the same emulsion as the current Rollei Infrared 400?

 

[Klaus_H]

Was Maco Cube 400C the same emulsion as the current Rollei Infrared 400?

No. Maco Cube 400C is a product of FilmoTec GmbH (Germany). It is a traffic survilliane film (ORWO TC27).
Rollei Infrared 400 is a product of Agfa-Gevaert N.V., (Belgium). It is a film for aerial photography (AVIPHOT PAN 400S).

 

[cmo]

Here is a starting point from my last weekend. My first 3 rolls of Efke IR 820 'Aura' are ready, and here are some negative scans (made with a DSLR - forgive me...). The final prints will be toned.

It was much easier than expected. In a nutshell:

- I developed in XTol 1:1, 18min, which makes sense to push the film slightly, grain is acceptable. Some people use Diafine for this, I will try in a few days.

- The Cokin IR filter works fine and is not as expensive as the good glass filters. The effect is not too strong and not too weak for my taste.

- My light meter was set to ISO 3. One shot and one more with one f-stop more was enough. Most of the costly bracketing was really not necessary. This was the first nice surprise.

- Resulting exposures: f16, 1 second in full sun. That means there is a second nice surprise: I could use my Leica with a 2/35 Summicron and shoot at f2.8 and 1/30s without a tripod easily. Good news is I can see someting in the finder, but I don't know yet how to compensate focus, there is no IR mark on this Leica lens.

- Important: on the first frames and at the edge there was some fogging. Efke's 35mm cartridges do not have Kodak quality. I recommend to change film in the dark or get a film changing bag.

- Though I hate Polyester films this is one, I think. Or, if this is cellulose triacetate it must be from planet Krypton. In the darkroom you really need a pair of scissors to cut the film, it is almost indestructible. I am very, very careful with my camera when using such a film.

efke 820 Aura, Xtol 1:1/18min, Cokin IR (Like R72), bright, sunny, cloudless day, ca. 5pm, light from... well, look at the shadows.

f16, 1 sec.

Same:

At dawn, 8pm, overcast, dark clouds, f16, 16 sec. (I rushed home after this...)

In an old datasheet I found this table, I think it's good as a starting point:

Measured time/recommended time
1s/1-2s
2s/3-4s
4s/8s
8s/24s
15s/60s
30s/180s

In a few days I will post some more examples. I want to make the "aura" glow effect more dramatic with a diffuser. The pictures will probably look like movie scene images... screenplay: Stephen King, director: David Hamilton...

(no nudity, promise)

 

[Steve Smith]

Bracketing was how I shot my first roll of IR, it worked and I got very good results. Remember, K.I.S.S.

Bracketing is a good idea. However, if you use 6x7 format on 120 film, you are going to quicly run out of film.

Some experimental bracketing with 35mm film first may be of some help. This is what I did (except I forgot to take notes and it was so long ago that I have forgotten what I did!).


Steve.