# My IR results. Explain the lab's post processing please. (lots of images warning)



## Garbz (Oct 20, 2005)

Hi all especially terri since she's the expert on all things IR  Here are the results of my first roll of Kodak HIE using a Hoya A25 red filter.  With each image is the ISO speed, the exposure adjustment, and the markings on the back of the photograph which I believe were the exposure settings for the print.  Can someone please explain what they mean and recomend a new exposure for each image.






ISO 336 +0,  N N N-1 06 (Looks Great)





ISO 336 +0,  N N N N 21 (This one too)





ISO 336 -1,  N N N+2-43





ISO 336 -1,  N N N N-21





ISO 336 -1,  N N N N 02 (This one looks perfect)





ISO 336 -1,  N N N-1 24





ISO 266 -1,  N N N N-06 (This one looks good too)





ISO 336 -1,  N N N+3-14





ISO 336 -1,  N N N N-20

Except for 2 the rest look pretty overexposed. However I can't really judge by how much since the lab obviously did some post processing on the images. Can anyone here help me decipher the NNNNs My camera unfortunatly only has 2 settings between 200 and 400 which is the reason for the strange values.

Also I posted the images unchanged this time, so you can see my scanner in all it's CRAP glory. They aren't as dull as they look.


----------



## terri (Oct 20, 2005)

You had a lab develop the film and make these prints for you? I can't say I'd complain with these, then. With HIE it's more about the negative than the print, because even a dense negative can still get you a good print, though you might have to fight with it to get there.  

You have a great range to play with, looks like. Some are a bit overexposed, some look a bit contrasty - but all look workable. You're saying you shot your roll with the film rated 336, and, after metering TTL with the #25 filter on, used your exposure compensating wheel to bracket up or down, correct? :thumbup: Good job. Some exposures will be spot on and some will not, of course. I can't recommend different exposures for each shot since I think you got overall decent results, and the prints could be tweaked in the darkroom. 

Just continue to shoot the stuff and keep notes of all your exposures, including time of day. The other notes I can't explain, as developing notes. But I would be pretty happy with the lab. Your negatives look good, then? As in, no scratches or pinholes? That's the best you can hope for, letting an outside lab develop this stuff. 

I like your images, as well. Personally, I am beginning to enjoy HIE less for the foliage effects (we've all seen the white trees) and more for barren landscapes, cityscapes and architectural shots. The unique IR glow it imparts makes the images so special - note the glow on your picket fence shot, and the glow/halo effect from the radiation bouncing off the buildings in #s 5 and 6. 

#6, especially, your convenience store shot - is great!!! A little contrasty, but I just love it.  

You will enjoy HIE much more if you can develop the film yourself and make your own prints. You have SO much more control, and with this film in particular, control over the entire process is what it's all about.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 20, 2005)

I have less contrasty shots of the convieniecne store too. I bracked +1 0 and -1 for each picture so I still have the 0 and 1s too.

The fact that so often the -1 looked better then all the others leads me to believe I'll try backeting from ISO400 next time.

The film is in perfect condition with only one negative scratched. Mind you it was over exposed anyway  . The lab did charge a pretty high fee ($7 for non-C41 handling then $10 for normal development and printing) but as you can see from the Ns they were touched up. I believe a film that was untouched should say N N N N on the back or NNN0 or something like that.  I'm not sure what the number after the Ns is. Anyone here work at a lab?

Anyway i'm pretty happy with my first roll. I'll order another roll when exams are done and head out to the graveyard late in the afternoon, and prehapse through the city centre. There's also a house next to a friend's place which should come up spooky since it looks haunted even in colour


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 20, 2005)

It's been years since I used a lab printing machine, but the "NNNN" usually stands for density (lightness/darkness), red, green, and blue, although not necessarily in that order.  I can't remember what the numbers before and after mean.  Why don't you ask the lab?

You can probably go back in when you get reprints, and include the photos you have as guides, and say print this one lighter, darker, etc...  Keep in mind that they are probably already printing them as they think the prints look best.


----------



## terri (Oct 20, 2005)

I thought it was something like that, Matt. Just never been in that environment.  


> The fact that so often the -1 looked better then all the others leads me to believe I'll try backeting from ISO400 next time.


 Sounds good! I tend to stick with an ISO of 360, and bracket from that. I like having the speed with that red filter. 

Congrats on the success of your first roll!


----------



## photogoddess (Oct 21, 2005)

If I remember correctly it's Y C M then density. N being normal, + or - having added or subtracted. I'm not sure why there are 5 spots though since it's been years since I've done machine printing so you'll definitely want to check with the lab as ksmattfish said.


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 21, 2005)

photogoddess said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly it's Y C M then density.



Yeah, I couldn't remember if it was RGB or CYM.  

Ask the lab.  They're probably going to sigh, and put your name on the potential trouble list, but they should tell you.    It's nice to know what those corrections mean, but don't go in and ask to have those numbers adjusted certain ways; that just annoys the lab tech.  Take a print in and describe the adjustments you want in relation to that guide print.  "Can I get a print, but make it lighter/darker/whatever than this print?"


----------



## priceless (Nov 2, 2005)

Hiya,

This is my first post here, been reading this forum for ages but have never actually signed up so here I go! 

Firstly, great prints! I especially love No. 7! 

Okay, well I work in a lab so I _should_ know what the Ns stand for. Obviously one N corresponds to adjusting the cyan, magenta and yellow but I'm not sure what order they're in however I've just had a look at the backprints of one of my prints that I did myself and I know that I added a yellow and took out a cyan.  Hmmm... I think that the last N stands for yellow and the first is cyan which leaves the middle N as magenta. Oh yeah, forgot to mention... the last N is always the density. I'm not sure if it varies with different printers though? You'll probably be best off asking the lab. 

Sorry I can't be of any more help!


----------



## escondrillas (Nov 2, 2005)

beatifull colors


----------



## Garbz (Nov 6, 2005)

beautiful colours? Was this the right thread ? 
Yeah 7 was definitly the shot that made it all worth while. Pity it cost $80 to take including red filter 

I got a mesage back from the lab, but forgot to post here. I completely forgot about this thread. Stupid exams. Anyway

C M Y K densities are the Ns. The final number is something meaning less to the prints themsevles. It has to do with the scanning of the negatives, and the process the machine applies for scratch removal touchups, auto colour adjustments etc. Apparently the number is generally meaningless, and isn't even if it's higher then more adjustments were made.

So anyway chapter 1, or technically the preface to Infra Red is finished for me. I'm going to finish the roll of B&W film I have loaded now and then during the holidays get working more infrared.


----------



## ShaCow (Nov 18, 2005)

The first one is very nice. looks like something from a movie.. well done


----------



## Garbz (Nov 21, 2005)

I never looked at it that way but since you mention it I do get a bit of a suburbia American Dream picket fence vibe from it.


----------



## BernieSC (Dec 11, 2005)

Nice shots, thats the beauty of IR you can shoot anything and it looks artfully great.  The corrections don't look major that they used.  The only number that escapes me is the far right number ie -43,-21 Don't remember what those numbers represent.  They are large numbers for a printer but the other numbers color and density correction doesn't look like they made any major corrections.


----------

