# Expired HIE experiment



## terri (Apr 27, 2017)

Yesterday morning I noticed two big, separate, strong beams of sunlight pouring in through this window in the upper half, around 8:30 am.    I pulled out a frozen roll of Kodak HIE, expiration 2006 and loaded it up to capture it today.

The idea was to have the figure standing behind the sunbeams and become almost obscured, but the sun didn't cooperate today.     I'm happy with the film's performance and overall, with the shot in general, but the strong sunbeams never materialized in the same way during this shoot.   (btw, the bottom shutters were closed on purpose to force the main light from the top.)


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 27, 2017)

Maybe a little smoke?


----------



## dxqcanada (Apr 27, 2017)

Too bad about the beams, that would have really added to the shot.
... though just being able to shoot HIE is just plain fun.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 27, 2017)

Nicely done!


----------



## terri (Apr 27, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> Maybe a little smoke?


hee hee, that would have been a worthy substitute to the lack of the sunbeams like the ones from the other morning.   They were like bright headlights coming into the room...just the kind of thing HIE was good at recording.    Oh, well.



dxqcanada said:


> though just being able to shoot HIE is just plain fun.


Yes, it is.   I have a few more rolls of the 2006; the rest of my stash is 2008 and 2009.   Hooray for the freezer!    I rated the roll at about 125 and used a #25 red filter.   Didn't change my usual processing: room temperature TMax developer for about 6 1/2 minutes, a single inversion every minute.   Very gentle.



tirediron said:


> Nicely done!



Thanks!


----------



## timor (Aug 19, 2017)

Picture is cool. Even without the "beam".
But wouldn't TX or TMY suffice  here ?


----------



## terri (Aug 19, 2017)

timor said:


> Picture is cool. Even without the "beam".
> But wouldn't TX or TMY suffice  here ?


Thank you.    

It was an effort to see how this would look using infrared film with strong sunbeams, so in that sense, no.   I wanted IR film; HIE was the best at picking up those light rays that aren't visible to the eye and I was hoping for something dramatic.    There are oftentimes happy, unexpected results with what gets recorded on IR film even without strong evidence of light, so I went for it.

However, the beams didn't materialize that morning the way they had the day before, so in that sense, yes.   It pretty much recorded the scene like typical panchromatic film.    A nice meditative dream-like shot, with the grain contributing to the feel.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 19, 2017)

There's always Photoshop  ... sorry the light didn't cooperate.


----------



## timor (Aug 19, 2017)

terri said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Picture is cool. Even without the "beam".
> ...


So, it was sort of an experiment. Curious thing. I thought IR film is made to register IR radiation from warm objects. Actually very warm, like heated by summer sun for half a day. Sunbeam would not have that warmth, especially that it is not even falling on the emulsion. Only the few % reflected and scattered by dust. So even with visible beam there would be just normal, sure, more enchanting with beam, but regular panchromatic image. I am not sure about the film you are using, but Ilford or EFKE IR films still require the use of IR filters {Wratten 87 to 89B.}


----------



## terri (Aug 19, 2017)

It shoots better  outdoors, warm temps, even better the further south you go - provided you handle it with caution.  But I've always shot it year round.  The human body, buildings, even snow bounces off some IR radiation that this film can capture for that unmistakable HIE glow.    HIE is no longer made by Kodak, of course, it's all expired so every time I shoot it now, it's an experiment! I'm always happy to look for a reason to play with it this far out of date. 

And I neglected to mention in the post from April of this year (not a particularly warm month where I live) that I had a #25 red filter over the lens.


----------



## terri (Aug 19, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> There's always Photoshop  ... sorry the light didn't cooperate.


Boring and soulless, from my pov.   I have always been happier working with my hands with analog processes.   Doesn't always work out, but that's okay.


----------



## timor (Aug 19, 2017)

Terri, what is tis  post title from April ?
I doesn't bounce from objects  warm objects emit IR radiation. Thus we can have night vision technology.
I think filter should be always used with IR film in order to block visible light to eliminate as much as possible this panchromatic image.
In the case, if you like so much to add this IR glow to your images, try aerial photography emulsions. They are strongly sensitised for IR. Try Roller Retro 80S. Already orange filter like wratten 21 will give you partial IR effect. I might post scan of such an image.


----------



## terri (Aug 19, 2017)

Last time I looked that film was on back order!      Was due to be available again middle of this month. 

Yes, I shot this back in April.   I saw that you had replied to several older threads today and this was one of one of them.


----------



## timor (Aug 20, 2017)

OK !


----------

