# Infrared Film (feedback please)



## pianki (Oct 23, 2007)

A pain to shoot, but it's worth it I think.  It's the first time I've ever shot it, so to anybody who shoots infrared ever, I'd like some tips or any feedback.  Thanks.






60 @ f16





90 @ f16





30 @f16





60 @f16

NOTE: Dust and a few kinks in the pictures are due to my terrible scanner, try to look past that.


----------



## Roger (Oct 24, 2007)

well considering they are scanned with a 'crappy' scanner, not bad but you've got a lot of blown detail. There are a number of factors to consider when shooting IR film, the ISO needs to low....I think I used to shoot at 125 iso and f16 - f22, with an R72 filter. I gave up due to the obvious hassles of loading, transport and darkroom work. I had my 300D converted a couple of months ago and have seriously gotten back into shooting IR. Some examples on my link if you want to have a look.  http://mrlowlight.smugmug.com/gallery/3584339#203618316

oh the other thing to remember when shooting IR is the direction of light, it's even more critical regarding flare than either normal film or digital.


----------



## KaleyEs (Oct 24, 2007)

i actually like the blown out aspect.  i think it gives the pictures more character.  the first one is my favorite


----------



## pianki (Oct 24, 2007)

Roger said:


> well considering they are scanned with a 'crappy' scanner, not bad but you've got a lot of blown detail. There are a number of factors to consider when shooting IR film, the ISO needs to low....I think I used to shoot at 125 iso and f16 - f22, with an R72 filter. I gave up due to the obvious hassles of loading, transport and darkroom work. I had my 300D converted a couple of months ago and have seriously gotten back into shooting IR. Some examples on my link if you want to have a look.  http://mrlowlight.smugmug.com/gallery/3584339#203618316
> 
> oh the other thing to remember when shooting IR is the direction of light, it's even more critical regarding flare than either normal film or digital.



Ahh thank you!  That is what I was looking for!  I had no clue what to set the ISO at so I set it to 400.  Also with some of the leaves that look blown out and blotched together; there are some instances of that on the actual prints, but there is far more detail in them than these show.


----------



## Roger (Oct 24, 2007)

pianki I thought there would be more detail in the negs but iso 400 is way to high....I was having another think and I may have used iso 200 as a max. Good luck it sounds like your having fun and that's what it's all about.


----------



## Helen B (Oct 24, 2007)

If you are metering through the filter then EI 400 may be too low - as shown by the blown-out areas. I use EI 1600 for Kodak HIE when metering TTL through a B+W 093 filter, but the exact number depends on the filter in use and the spectral sensitivity of your meter - best thing is to bracket and see what works for you. There is a big difference in meter setting between using a separate meter and using a TTL filter.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Roger (Oct 26, 2007)

okay I had a quick look on the web, have a look at this for some sound advice
http://www.alternativephotography.com/process_infrared.html


----------



## o_milk (Oct 26, 2007)

good! i love the grain!!!!!

Fede


----------



## Helen B (Oct 26, 2007)

Roger said:


> okay I had a quick look on the web, have a look at this for some sound advice
> http://www.alternativephotography.com/process_infrared.html



From Elizabeth's excellent article:

_"Exposures and ISO Ratings
...
If I use a camera with TTL metering, I make a through                the lens exposure reading with the filter on the lens and I find                the exposures to be accurate. If I meter without my #25 red filter                on the camera, I make a two-stop exposure adjustment. I suggest                bracketing +/- a half stop until you become familiar with what your                film can do.             
Kodak HIE: Kodak does not provide an ISO rating                but I rate my film between ISO 100 and ISO 200. At ISO 100, the                negative has less contrast and I prefer to print with this type                of negative if I am going to handcolor a photograph."_

You can see how important it is to be specific about metering technique and which filter is in use when mentioning EI settings*  for infrared film. Elizabeth refers to TTL measurements made without a filter, then corrected using a filter factor. This works if the ratio between the light measured by the meter and the total radiation recorded by the film** stays pretty much the same (it doesn't) or if you are using a filter that passes a lot of light, like the #25 that Elizabeth uses. 

I am referring to measurements made through a filter that passes very little light, so the meter is responding to deep red light and infrared radiation. Therefore a variation in the proportions of light and very near infrared is less significant (Elizabeth mentions the improvement in accuracy obtained when metering through the filter), and my meter setting is very different to that used by Elizabeth. The meter itself will also have an effect on the best EI to use if you meter though the filter, because meters vary widely in their sensitivity to infrared radiation. Sensitivity to infrared is a disadvantage for light meters in most normal situations.

The good news is that the article is way out of date with respect to infrared film availability. There is more infrared film available now, including film in medium and large format.

If you are looking for a developer that gives HIE a good dynamic range then try Diafine. It is also very easy to use, and lasts forever.


*"ISO ratings" is an incorrect use of terminology. In this case, nobody who knows the difference between an EI setting and an ISO rating will be mislead, and anyone who doesn't know the difference won't care, so it is no big deal. We can use whatever we prefer to use.

 **A mix of red light and very near infrared (VNIR) radiation, with the filter in place.

Good luck,
Helen


----------



## Roger (Oct 28, 2007)

I am curious Helen which medium format films are available now? One I used to  like was Konica, but it has been unavailable for some time.


----------



## Helen B (Oct 28, 2007)

Hi Roger,

The old Maco IR820c is now available as Efke IR820. It is available in 35mm, 120, 127, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10.

Rollei Infrared is available in 35 mm, 120 and 4x5.

There is another Rollei IR film coming out with extended IR sensitivity. I do not know the full details of the formats that may be available, but I have tested it in 4x5. I assume that other formats will be available.

To give a complete round-up, there is also Kodak HIE/HSI in 35 mm, and Ilford SFX 200 'extended red' in 35 mm and 120.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Roger (Oct 29, 2007)

thanks for the info Helen,
ciao.


----------



## Stillwater (Nov 1, 2007)

Wow, I've always wanted to shoot in IR, I really like those shots, they look awesome.


----------

