# Infrared



## christopher (Apr 1, 2004)

So, the inept person at saneal camera opened my canister of kodak hie film.  I can't believe that.. I'm hoping my film isn't ruined. anyways.  I was wondering if you had any tips for developing infrared.  should I keep the dev tank in a light proof bag? or is it ok just shut?
I also have ilfosol and was wondering what dev time at 20' i would need. the massive dev chart and the film box doesn't have it. i'm giong to look some more, but recently no luck.


----------



## schussey (Apr 1, 2004)

i'm pretty sure you do not have to keep the dev. tank in a lightproof bag....


----------



## christopher (Apr 1, 2004)

thanks
I just developed them, and they are stunning!
I shot indoor, daylight fills studio black background with a model
the skin is amazing!
i can't wait to scan these, anyways. if anyone needs to know

ilfosol X 
20'c
dev 8 minutes, aggitate every 1 minute for 30 seconds

ohmanohman, these are awesome. I can't wait to get the E6 back!


----------



## motcon (Apr 1, 2004)

no reason at all to keep the dev tank in a changing bag. it's ultra conservative, but if that is your thing, rock on.


been developing hie in plastic tanks with no changing bag for 9 years. not a single problem.


----------



## GerryDavid (Apr 2, 2004)

motcon said:
			
		

> no reason at all to keep the dev tank in a changing bag. it's ultra conservative, but if that is your thing, rock on.
> 
> 
> been developing hie in plastic tanks with no changing bag for 9 years. not a single problem.



According to an article I read on this, the plastic tanks are only a problem if you leave the film in it for extended periods of times, like hours.  The usual 15 minutes or so its in there is nothing.  :0).


----------



## christopher (Apr 3, 2004)

thanks, i'll post the printed results when I get them.
I took them to get printed at saneal camera.. what a rip off, 1.00$ a 4x6 print.  ended up costing 38.00$, I really should have shopped around.  
Nowhere does on site processing anymore it seems, or i'm just hoity toity with my slide film and infrared. heh.


----------



## GerryDavid (Apr 3, 2004)

christopher said:
			
		

> thanks, i'll post the printed results when I get them.
> I took them to get printed at saneal camera.. what a rip off, 1.00$ a 4x6 print.  ended up costing 38.00$, I really should have shopped around.
> Nowhere does on site processing anymore it seems, or i'm just hoity toity with my slide film and infrared. heh.



Ouch, that is a rip off.  And from what I understand, its not the printing the pictures that costs them money, its the developing.  They have to send it away to get it developed.  But once they have hte negatives they can use thier existing equipment.  Which is what I understand.  So I say develop it yourself, and give them the negative sto print @ $0.10 each or what ever the rate is.  :0).


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 3, 2004)

GerryDavid said:
			
		

> According to an article I read on this, the plastic tanks are only a problem if you leave the film in it for extended periods of times, like hours.  The usual 15 minutes or so its in there is nothing.  :0).



There are many myths about IR photography; you can find lot's of articles by "experts" with all sorts of ideas.  One reason for this is that the part of the spectrum refered to as infrared is very different at one end from the other.  As far as IR photography goes you are dealing with that part of the spectrum that's just a smidge beyond visible light.  The IR we are dealing with cannot seep through plastic containers, or the walls of a darkroom.  It cannot bend around corners.  Almost all of the IR emitted by hot objects is beyond the wavelengths IR film is sensitive to.  IR photography is about reflected IR wavelengths that are just past the visible red part of the spectrum.    

The reasons you have to be careful with it are:

1) you cannot see infrared, so you have no way of knowing whether you are being bathed in it, or are in an area free of IR.  Obviously you can tell if the darkroom is full of visible light, but IR detection is a bit trickier.

2) no anti-halation layer on the film.  Almost all other film has an anti-halation layer which would prevent light entering through a faulty felt trap on the film cannister from fogging the entire roll.  Since IR film usually doesn't have this light proof layer, it's possible for a small light leak to fog the entire roll.


----------



## havoc (Apr 4, 2004)

I researched IR film alittle bit, Kodak HIE has no anti-halation layer, which will produce a slight Halo effect as light passes thru the film and reflects against the camera back. I find this to be an interesting trait in this film. I usually like it. Macrophen and Konica IR film do have anti-halation layers and don't get as much of a halo effect. 

The differences in IR film are also interesting, Kodaks HIE is a more "true" IR film in that it picks up more of the IR range then the other two films. I have experimented with HIE and enjoyed my results. However i haven't tried the other brads as i have not had access to them yet. I plan on trying both out to see the differences for myself. Unfortunatly its an expensive endevour.


----------

