# infrared film photography



## earthmanbuck

Hi everyone, I've been reading up on infrared photography lately and am intrigued, but I have a few questions I would like to double check on before I buy anything.

1) I know there are a few places making B&W Infrared 35mm (Ilford, Efke, I think Rollei has something out too)...any experience with these? Which should I go with? I also thought I read somewhere that the Ilford stuff isn't 'real' infrared, but I'm not entirely sure what that means. 

2) I understand the exposure time is ridiculous when shooting infrared, so I'm going to need a tripod, right? And it just occurred to mecan I even get one of those attachable shutter-triggering things for my Pentax K1000, so I don't have to manually hold down the shutter the whole time? (What are those things called anyway??)

3) What kind of filter do I need? I know there are the opaque ones you can't see through, but I thought I read something about red IR filters you can continue to focus and see through when using a film SLR. Is there any reason to get an opaque one over one of the red ones? Obviously I'd prefer to see what I'm doing.


----------



## dxqcanada

You should get the data sheet for the film ... and look at the spectral sensitivity.

SFX 200 has a peak red sensitivity at 720nm and extended red sensitivity up to 740nm.
So yes, it is not really infrared sensitive film.

One of the best IF films was Kodak HIE ... it had sensitivity to 900nm !!
The near infrared spectrum is about 750-900nm.

Because of the Infrared filter ... the amount of light hitting the film will be low, so yes a tripod would be good ... but not required.
I handheld shooting Kodak HIE.
I have not used any of the current films.

You mean Shutter Release Cable ?

I used to use a very dark red filter with Kodak HIE and with satisfactory results ... the real IR filters were too expensive at the time.
IR filters (theoretically, remove visible light) though you should not be able to see any image ... the red does allow some visible light through.


----------



## compur

earthmanbuck said:


> Hi everyone, I've been reading up on infrared photography lately and am intrigued, but I have a few questions I would like to double check on before I buy anything.
> 
> 1) I know there are a few places making B&W Infrared 35mm (Ilford, Efke, I think Rollei has something out too)...any experience with these? Which should I go with? I also thought I read somewhere that the Ilford stuff isn't 'real' infrared, but I'm not entirely sure what that means.



There's some good comparisons here:
Digitaltruth Photo
... though the Kodak and Konica films are no longer manufactured.

I've used the Ilford SFX and the Kodak HIE films.  The Ilford film has very little IR effect.  It's really meant to be a general purpose film that can give a little IR effect if you work at it.  Ilford used to make a special filter for it but I've never seen, much less used one.  From what I've seen the Efke and Rollei films seem pretty good but nothing compares completely with the Kodak HIE which, if you can find some, should be loaded in total darkness.  Wearing gloves while loading is a good idea too as body heat can affect it. 



> 2) I understand the exposure time is ridiculous when shooting infrared, so I'm going to need a tripod, right? And it just occurred to me&#8212;can I even get one of those attachable shutter-triggering things for my Pentax K1000, so I don't have to manually hold down the shutter the whole time? (What are those things called anyway??)



IR film is not that slow.  You can usually hand hold it if you are shooting outdoors in daylight (unless you are using a true IR filter on an SLR - see below) though a tripod is always a good idea for any film shooting. But, if you are shooting indoors or at night, that's a different story.




> 3) What kind of filter do I need? I know there are the opaque ones you can't see through, but I thought I read something about red IR filters you can continue to focus and see through when using a film SLR. Is there any reason to get an opaque one over one of the red ones? Obviously I'd prefer to see what I'm doing.



I have usually used a #25 (red) or #29 (dark red) with the #29 being the best for my tastes.  Of course, a true IR filter will give the most IR effect but you may have trouble using it on an SLR since they don't let through visible light.  But, with a tripod you can compose without the filter and then mount the filter to shoot. Or, of course, you can use a rangefinder camera.

I've also shot Kodak IR film with a Nikon L35AF point&shoot camera and #29 filter at the beach in bright daylight which worked fine:






And, I've also used it with various SLRs and rangefinder cameras with red filters, nearly always hand-held.  Just read the data sheet that comes with whatever film you choose and follow the manufacturer's recommendations when shooting.  And bracket your shots (shoot a series of frames, varying your exposure settings for each).


----------



## akyiia

Agree with what Dxq.. and Compur wrote; I've tried the Ilford 'infrared' but I didn't like the results. I am using Efke ir820 and I am quite happy with this one although it still has few issues. Keep in mind that this film curls quite a lot. When it came to the camera settings I always shot three images of the same scene (according to the setting I also shot one underexposed and one overexposed) just to make sure one of them was correct. Also as I was told you should use metal body - manual camera as the infared senson in automatic cameras can fog your film.


----------



## earthmanbuck

Thanks folks! I appreciate the responses. I read somewhere that Canons in general were not a good fit for IR photography because they used infrared for some internal function, so my only option so far is my Pentax K1000. I've been having problems with it lately and am probably gonna need to replace it, so this IR scheme is going to have to go on the backburner for a bit.


----------



## dxqcanada

There were some film cameras that used an IR light/sensor in the motorized film winding ... not sure what camera(s) that was ... but I have never heard of that causing that much affect.

You really should get into IR film ... digital images are not the same (though usayit got some mean shots from his Leica R8).


----------

