IR film / sources / RF focusing

[ampguy]

Yesterday I read a couple of books about IR film, and am interested to try it. Can I use it with an RF? I don't know if any of my RF lenses have the special focusing mark for IR film.

Where can one get IR film, and processing done? I think I want to try the Konica rather than the Kodak. I liked the Konica images better.

 

[RML]

Don't know about film as I use my R-D1 but yes, you can very easily do IR photography with an rf camera. It's even easier with an rf camera than an slr as the rf isn't hampered by any dulling of the vf.

IR photography usually requires 4-5 stops over normal film so be prepared for relatively long exposures. Again, here's where an rf camera beats shooting with an slr.

On photo.net, try to find member Vivek Iyer. I've met him not long ago when he asked me if he could test run my R-D1 for IR and UV photography. Since then I've been hooked a bit on it. 🙂

Also, check out http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html . A good place to start your hunt for information. 🙂

See some of my experiments and results here...
http://shardsofphotography2.blogspot.com/2006/08/ir-results.html
http://shardsofphotography2.blogspot.com/2006/08/paw-31-2006.html
http://shardsofphotography2.blogspot.com/2006/07/paw-30-2006.html

...and on my blog.

 

[Chaser]

Your 40mm should have the ir mark. Konica is no longer making film so finding some of the 720 ir is going to be more difficult. http://www.jandcphoto.com has the new Rollei IR...I haven't used it but it has potential from what I have seen.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks RML

Thanks RML

I should have specified, I am interested in experimenting with IR film. Though many of your digicam pics with IR (I presume?) filters are very cool.

Don't know about film as I use my R-D1 but yes, you can very easily do IR photography with an rf camera. It's even easier with an rf camera than an slr as the rf isn't hampered by any dulling of the vf.

IR photography usually requires 4-5 stops over normal film so be prepared for relatively long exposures. Again, here's where an rf camera beats shooting with an slr.

On photo.net, try to find member Vivek Iyer. I've met him not long ago when he asked me if he could test run my R-D1 for IR and UV photography. Since then I've been hooked a bit on it. 🙂

Also, check out http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html . A good place to start your hunt for information. 🙂

See some of my experiments and results here...
http://shardsofphotography2.blogspot.com/2006/08/ir-results.html
http://shardsofphotography2.blogspot.com/2006/08/paw-31-2006.html
http://shardsofphotography2.blogspot.com/2006/07/paw-30-2006.html

...and on my blog.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks!

Thanks!

$9/roll for 36 exp. is not bad. Where do I get it developed? Thanks.

Your 40mm should have the ir mark. Konica is no longer making film so finding some of the 720 ir is going to be more difficult. http://www.jandcphoto.com has the new Rollei IR...I haven't used it but it has potential from what I have seen.

 

[Chaser]

anywhere that can do traditional black and white should be able to do it.

 

[kaiyen]

The Konica IR 750 is discontinued and very expensive when found on ebay. If you want an IR film without the halation (which is the major visible difference between the Kodak and other film stocks), then indeed the Rollei is pretty good, though its response is quite low - it's rated at 820, but it's pretty steep at that wavelength.

allan

 

[Dracotype]

The Konica IR 750 is discontinued and very expensive when found on ebay. If you want an IR film without the halation (which is the major visible difference between the Kodak and other film stocks), then indeed the Rollei is pretty good, though its response is quite low - it's rated at 820, but it's pretty steep at that wavelength.

allan

Kodak HIE is what they call a "true" infrared film. It has sensitivity up to 900 or so nanometers. I have tried HIE, but not the Rollei infrared film. Why in particular do you not want to use Kodak?

Drew

 

[kaiyen]

Drew,
Well, you can't really call it a "true" IR film if it only goes into near IR 🙂. 900nm isn't that far into it, but compared to 750 or the maco and rollei 820's, it is far more sensitive. As I mentioned, the maco and rollei stuff goes to 820, but not much beyond that so it's not a really intense IR effect.

I presume you were asking the original poster why he didn't want to use the Kodak stuff. The only logical presumption is that he didn't like the halation in the Kodak stuff, and perhaps that he found the whiteness of the vegetation or blackness of the skies and/or water too intense.

Konica is a nice middle ground. After tried it for only 6 rolls I love it. But that's the only 6 I'll ever have...

allan

 

[egpj]

I have had a roll of IR film sitting in my bag (with filter) for months now without trying it out. I have read various threads on shooting with IR film and still feel a little uncertain about things. For instance, getting the proper exposure and focusing. Does the Sunny 16 rule still apply with IR film? Hopefully I can shoot this roll in the Boston Commons later this week.

 

[kaiyen]

Glenn,
Which film is it? The Kodak? If it's been hot at all it's possible the film is fogged like mad, but who knows.

Sunny 16 does work...kinda. For instance, Kodak HIE is roughly EI 400. So mid-day, good sun should be 1/500 @ f16. Put a red 25 on there and you are at 1/500 @ f5.6 (3 stops). Put a Hoya r72 or some other opaque filter on there and you're at 1/500 @ f4 (4 stops).

But...the sunny 16 is based on an average scene for traditional film. An average scene for traditional film might not be an average scene for IR film. For instance, IR film is very sensitive to green vegetation. So if you are shooting a scene in a garden, imagine it's actually like 3 stops brighter than you think. Or sunny 45 🙂

I personally choose to adjust the EI per scene.

allan

 

[egpj]

I have the Ilford SFX200 stuff. SFX200 for NIR film ranges somewhere in the 700-740nm. Not all that good when it comes to "NIR". Something around 800nm would be much better. I have some Kodak color IR film in the fridge but have not bought the necessary filter for this. Also, you have to load and unload the film in a darkroom or changing bag. Very difficult stuff to work with. I have loaded the large (9.5inch) format cassetts for some old style aerial mapping images in the past. Glad all that is digital now.

I just downloaded Ilford's pdf info for the film. They recommend the 4 stops difference between what you meter for the scene and what you shoot with the camera. I'll give it a try. The only thing that can happen is I screw up.

 

[kaiyen]

Glenn,
The Ilford recommendation is assuming you are using the Ilford SFX200 IR filter. Which is, in essence, the R72 from Hoya 🙂.

I can't seem to find the web page that lists which of the wratten filters cut off at what wavelengths. I know an 87c would give you a blank negative (it cuts off at like 790 or something). I am pretty sure an 89 still transmits quite a bit at 700, so that would be a cheaper option.

allan

 

[ampguy]

link

link

this link may be what you're looking for:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/#FILTER

I don't have any experience with this yet, I just know that I like the looks of the Konica film more than the Kodak film, from 2 different early/mid '90s IR books (I'll find the references later). The Konica images to my eyes, had less grain.

I'm thinking of getting a Hoya R72, but I can't decide if I should get a 52mm or a 55mm and use step up rings from my often used 52mm to 55 so the 55 can be used with more of my lenses. I generally don't like that step up ring size thing.

I wonder why Cokin doesn't seem to have IR filters?

Glenn,
The Ilford recommendation is assuming you are using the Ilford SFX200 IR filter. Which is, in essence, the R72 from Hoya 🙂.

I can't seem to find the web page that lists which of the wratten filters cut off at what wavelengths. I know an 87c would give you a blank negative (it cuts off at like 790 or something). I am pretty sure an 89 still transmits quite a bit at 700, so that would be a cheaper option.

allan

 

[ampguy]

These are 2 books I read over the weekend:

The art of infrared photography / Joseph Paduano 1993

Infrared photography handbook / Laurie White 1996

 

[kaiyen]

Ted,
That's not _the_ page I was thinking of, but it gets the same point across. Things to note - the entire 87 series won't give you anything at all on the Konica film, if you can find it. Its cutoff is just too high.

HIE is grainy. But developed in the right stuff it's not too bad. Part of the reason why it tends to look grainy, as well, is because of overexposure due to misjudgment of scene (as mentioned above). I have seen some almost grain-free 11x14 enlargements of HIE when the subject matter (high IR-reflecitivity vs. low-IR reflectivitiy) was sufficiently controlled.

And Cokin does make an IR filter. Go to 2filter.com and the Cokin catalog. The make an 89b, which is very useful and flexible (neither too strong nor too weak) and is affordable at about $45.

allan

 

[Dracotype]

Drew,
Well, you can't really call it a "true" IR film if it only goes into near IR 🙂. 900nm isn't that far into it, but compared to 750 or the maco and rollei 820's, it is far more sensitive. As I mentioned, the maco and rollei stuff goes to 820, but not much beyond that so it's not a really intense IR effect.

I presume you were asking the original poster why he didn't want to use the Kodak stuff. The only logical presumption is that he didn't like the halation in the Kodak stuff, and perhaps that he found the whiteness of the vegetation or blackness of the skies and/or water too intense.

Konica is a nice middle ground. After tried it for only 6 rolls I love it. But that's the only 6 I'll ever have...

allan

😀 I know

You can get some good results with HIE though, like you said. Overexposure has a lot to do with it. I have found that rating it at about EI 400 or 500 is usually a good bet with a red 25 filter.

Too bad about the Konica, I might have liked it...

Glenn, Sunny 16 really only holds for a red 25 filter. And even then, I would bracket. Once you cut off all visible light, you have to bracket even more than you do with just a regular filter. Though, once you see that results, you may begin to visualize the results and adjust accordingly. I found I could beging to visualize the results with a #25 filter. But it is not for everyone. Good luck.

Drew

 

[kaiyen]

Drew - good point. Sunny 16 is for the red 25, which is my preferred IR filter as well. But I have been using my 89b cokin for a bit now and the look is so different (even though it is not nearly as strong as other IR filters).

allan

 

[kaiyen]

The Kodak HIE isn't that hard to come by, IMO. It's just expensive. It's in stock right NOW at BH for $12 or so. So it's available. No need to kill.

But other than the Maco Aura which was ridiculously slow (EI 6 or so?) and is no longer made (I don't think), the Kodak stuff was the only one without the anti-halation backing. Extremely different look.

allan

 

[ampguy]

ok

ok

what's the difference between the cokin 87b and a hoya r72, other than having to buy a lot of plastic parts for the cokin "creative system" ? thanks.

Ted,
That's not _the_ page I was thinking of, but it gets the same point across. Things to note - the entire 87 series won't give you anything at all on the Konica film, if you can find it. Its cutoff is just too high.

HIE is grainy. But developed in the right stuff it's not too bad. Part of the reason why it tends to look grainy, as well, is because of overexposure due to misjudgment of scene (as mentioned above). I have seen some almost grain-free 11x14 enlargements of HIE when the subject matter (high IR-reflecitivity vs. low-IR reflectivitiy) was sufficiently controlled.

And Cokin does make an IR filter. Go to 2filter.com and the Cokin catalog. The make an 89b, which is very useful and flexible (neither too strong nor too weak) and is affordable at about $45.

allan