italy74
Well-known
Hi guys
although I'd have liked to get an ILFORD SFX 200, kind of b/w I used sometimes in the past that likes a lot to a girl whose wedding is on Dec. 31th, I could try some infrared roll as well, because the SFX is actually not available.
My lenses are: Nikon 17-35 - 50 F/1.4 AF - 70-200 F/2.8 - 105 F/2.5 AI and 200 F/4 AIS plus Tamron 28-75 and 90 plus CV 40 F/2
Just a hint: the wedding will take place since 18:30 onwards (even if I guess I'll be at bride's home 2 h earlier) and most of our shots could be done during night outside. Might it be a nice opportunity to try? I think I'll have to use the FM3a since the F6 uses an infrared sensor that might trick the exposure and/or do some other unpredictable thing to the roll.
A few questions:
1) how can I meter infrared light? same as always or such rolls have "different" metering from standard ones?
2) I doubt to have any IR mark on my lenses, although I think to have to focus FARTHER (?) than the effective focus point?
3) which kind of result might I expect shooting during night?
3b) What happens if I use flash?
4) which advice would you give me? Oh, yes, one more question: is it possible to SCAN IR rolls or they become damaged somehow? (I mean, aside having printed pictures, can I also scan them to show you?)
whatever comes to your mind will be greatly appreciated.
Keep in mind I'll shoot mostly with D700 and F6 but I'd like to try some IR pictures if I have time.
TIA
EDIT: I see Bjorn rates 5 for 17-35 and 105 (I have to get it back since just today I took it to repair, since after F/5.6 the diaphragm doesnt close) while both 200 and 50 aren't that good and 70-200 isn't mentioned either. Any idea for the CV40 and the Tamron 28-75 / 90 mm? Have you ever used for such pictures ?
although I'd have liked to get an ILFORD SFX 200, kind of b/w I used sometimes in the past that likes a lot to a girl whose wedding is on Dec. 31th, I could try some infrared roll as well, because the SFX is actually not available.
My lenses are: Nikon 17-35 - 50 F/1.4 AF - 70-200 F/2.8 - 105 F/2.5 AI and 200 F/4 AIS plus Tamron 28-75 and 90 plus CV 40 F/2
Just a hint: the wedding will take place since 18:30 onwards (even if I guess I'll be at bride's home 2 h earlier) and most of our shots could be done during night outside. Might it be a nice opportunity to try? I think I'll have to use the FM3a since the F6 uses an infrared sensor that might trick the exposure and/or do some other unpredictable thing to the roll.
A few questions:
1) how can I meter infrared light? same as always or such rolls have "different" metering from standard ones?
2) I doubt to have any IR mark on my lenses, although I think to have to focus FARTHER (?) than the effective focus point?
3) which kind of result might I expect shooting during night?
3b) What happens if I use flash?
4) which advice would you give me? Oh, yes, one more question: is it possible to SCAN IR rolls or they become damaged somehow? (I mean, aside having printed pictures, can I also scan them to show you?)
whatever comes to your mind will be greatly appreciated.
Keep in mind I'll shoot mostly with D700 and F6 but I'd like to try some IR pictures if I have time.
TIA
EDIT: I see Bjorn rates 5 for 17-35 and 105 (I have to get it back since just today I took it to repair, since after F/5.6 the diaphragm doesnt close) while both 200 and 50 aren't that good and 70-200 isn't mentioned either. Any idea for the CV40 and the Tamron 28-75 / 90 mm? Have you ever used for such pictures ?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
You can't use SFX (or any other IR film now that HIE is gone) for IR photography involving people, as its actual infrared sensitivity is extremely marginal (at ASA 1-3). With IR filter, it usually needs exposure times well above a second even in bright sunlight.
It might do as a "eye friendly flash" film with dark red filters on the flashes - its filter factors for red filters are considerably smaller than these for regular black and white film.
It might do as a "eye friendly flash" film with dark red filters on the flashes - its filter factors for red filters are considerably smaller than these for regular black and white film.
italy74
Well-known
Ciao
I've already used SFX with RED filter (this because someone told me that putting a red filter on the lens gave IR-like results with such roll, which is a b/w for what I know) and had nice results in the past (always b/w, not ir).. but I'm not going to use SFX now... (no idea what the photographer will propose me, he just told he had some IR roll but I didnt ask which, at that time) however, do you then think that IR rolls are too lower sensitivity to be useful at night?
I've already used SFX with RED filter (this because someone told me that putting a red filter on the lens gave IR-like results with such roll, which is a b/w for what I know) and had nice results in the past (always b/w, not ir).. but I'm not going to use SFX now... (no idea what the photographer will propose me, he just told he had some IR roll but I didnt ask which, at that time) however, do you then think that IR rolls are too lower sensitivity to be useful at night?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Yes. That is, IR being invisible you could of course bring on a whole truckload of military spec IR floodlights which nobody would notice. But with the current crop of IR films (SFX, Rollei and Efke) all around one ASA or less after you compute in their IR filter factor, there is no way you can use them with hand-held camera and lights. In the past, hand-held IR was more feasible, as Kodak HIE was still in the 10-25 ASA range with IR filters thrown in...
Sevo
charjohncarter
Veteran
sevo is right, if you had even late evening daylight you would have to use a tripod and a slow shutter. Plus, unless it was a scene in which the bride was a very small part she would not be too flattered with true IR. See, this (digital but no lip color and pasty skin):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davesabog/3369601277/in/pool-405122@N23
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davesabog/3369601277/in/pool-405122@N23
italy74
Well-known
Ok guys thanks... but I still have two questions:
1) I have to use filters (RED? which else exactly?) in ANY case?
2) If I use flash (as suggested by Memphis) to reduce exposure time, I hope to a reasonable amount of time, which kind of effect I can get ? In the end, being the human body a heat source, shouldn't it be recorded by the film? Or its "energy" it's too weak?
By the way, John, I and my friend would find your portrait cool. If it wasn't for red hair (good in this case) it would look a beautiful and perfect wax statue
1) I have to use filters (RED? which else exactly?) in ANY case?
2) If I use flash (as suggested by Memphis) to reduce exposure time, I hope to a reasonable amount of time, which kind of effect I can get ? In the end, being the human body a heat source, shouldn't it be recorded by the film? Or its "energy" it's too weak?
By the way, John, I and my friend would find your portrait cool. If it wasn't for red hair (good in this case) it would look a beautiful and perfect wax statue
Last edited:
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
No. But the IR sensitivity is so small in relation to the overall sensitivity that it practically does not register at all in the presence of blue light. So you might as well use a better film for the same effect (or rather lack thereof) if you leave out the filters. SFX is about as grainy as Delta 3200 - if you need speed for marginal light conditions, the latter might be a much more useful option.
Much too weak. IR films have a sensitivity that starts somewhere about 500-600°C. To capture thermal IR emanations from a human body (i.e. radiation in the 30°C range), which is spectrally closer to microwaves than to visible light, you need a very special electronic camera with a sensor cooled with liquid nitrogen or helium, and a lens not made from glass, but from some termal IR refracting metal or semiconductor.
Sevo
italy74
Well-known
Ok thanks, so it's just not feasible.
charjohncarter
Veteran
That isn't my portrait, but I did pick the best one I could find. I use SFX at 40 with a red 25 filter. I develop 18 minutes in HC-110h. I don't really want the IR effect but it does give a little snap to black and whites. Here are two photos taken of the same scene at about the same time of day (3 PM, 15:00):
SFX with Red filter (25):
Efke IR820 with Hoya R72 filter, 7 seconds:
raid
Dad Photographer
I have only used the Kodak color IR slide film for several years.
Exposure was easy with a yellow filter @ ASA100, but I used to use red and green filters and even a combination of filters.
Exposure was easy with a yellow filter @ ASA100, but I used to use red and green filters and even a combination of filters.
With the demise of HIE and Ektachrome IR, Infrared Photography is best done with a digital camera. Low-cost used cameras such as the Nikon Coolpix 950, 990, 995, and 4500 can be picked up between $75 and $150 and converted to Infrared using replacement glass from surplus optical shops and done on the kitchen table in about 30 minutes. Be sure to make sure the flash is discharged first.
I use a Nikon coolpix 950 for color infrared, and an old DCS200ir for monochrome.
Kodak DCS200ir, 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor with R60 filter, hand-held, ISO 100 setting.
Humans to not generate enough heat for Near IR. You need to get into Longwave Infrared region for that. A thermal imager operates in that region.
I use a Nikon coolpix 950 for color infrared, and an old DCS200ir for monochrome.
Kodak DCS200ir, 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor with R60 filter, hand-held, ISO 100 setting.
Humans to not generate enough heat for Near IR. You need to get into Longwave Infrared region for that. A thermal imager operates in that region.
Last edited: