Kodak Infrared Film and Filters

W

whitecat

Lone Range(find)er
Local time
3:34 PM
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
1,345
View My Gallery
Anyone shooting any infrared out there. I see alot of different ideas for filtration and exposure. Any comments?
Thanks
 
Agreed, there is plenty in the pipeline, and plenty more in my fridge.

I use a #25, 29 or no filter, and usually rate it from ISO 200 to 500 depending on the ir content of the light. I develop in HC110 dilution b for 9 minutes.
 
I'm with Chris101, #25 or 29 red filter. I just shoot f11 at 1/250 in full sun lots of foliage. Or f11 at 1/125 for sun with half shade or with a building (dark). I develop less than Chris101 in HC-110 but I also think my ISO/EI may be lower. I'll have to check.

OK, I'm at 100. That is with the red filter in place and setting a hand meter at 100. Then I develop HC-110h 11 minutes, 68f, practically no agitation-just 30 seconds at the beginning.
 
I went Digital for my Infrared a LONG time ago. Digital Sensors go out deeper into the IR than film, out to 1.1micron. Film goes out to ~0.9micron.

Remember that the light meter in your camera meters only the visible domain. I normally use -3EV to -4EV to shoot IR on the Monochrome camera, a Nikon 8008s with a Digital Back. This is with a Nikon R60 deep red filter. The Nikon Coolpix uses the Sensor for metering, so it's pretty accurate in visible or IR. I can use a Wratten 88a and still get good exposures.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I went Digital for my Infrared a LONG time ago. Digital Sensors go out deeper into the IR than film, out to 1.1micron. Film goes out to ~0.9micron.

Remember that the light meter in your camera meters only the visible domain. I normally use -3EV to -4EV to shoot IR on the Monochrome camera, a Nikon 8008s with a Digital Back. This is with a Nikon R60 deep red filter. The Nikon Coolpix uses the Sensor for metering, so it's pretty accurate in visible or IR. I can use a Wratten 88a and still get good exposures.
Click to expand...

The problem with digital for me is that it can't come close to the look of HIE. The extra amount of IR captured by digital would usually be more important for scientific/astronomical uses than for more general/art photography.

Yes, it is a matter of personal taste, but I think a lot of people are like me and prefer the grainy, ethereal look of traditional B&W IR films over digital.
 
Make an IR meter and a previewing device and expose as recommended. Dissect a spotmeter, remove the filter in front of the metering cell (it filters UV and far red, including IR usually) and replace it with whichever filter you want to use - ~and~ a Melles Griot 035WP622 filter. This means the device measures light from the lower cutoff of your IR filter to the limit of sensitivity of the meter's cell, but not below or above.

Make a preview device by getting a cheap a night-vision scope, such as the excellent but expensive ITT Night Questor the compact and useful IMI Gnome. Place your filter of choice in front of the lens or behind the lens in front of the image intensifier. You can even use this to look at the ground glass of a large format camera with an IR filter on the lens.

I got instructions on how to do this from Paul Hansma's article in Photo Techniques sometime last century. It's all really easy to do, well, apart from dissecting your favourite spot meter. You never need to bracket again. Perfect!

The 87 and 87c are probably the most useful filters for HIE - they balance exposure and IR effect well.

Digital makes all this much easier. The M8 does it extremely well.

Develop in Xtol, D23 or D76 and avoid overdevelopment. HIE is a marvellous material and it's a shame it's going.

Marty
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I went Digital for my Infrared a LONG time ago. Digital Sensors go out deeper into the IR than film, out to 1.1micron. Film goes out to ~0.9micron.

Remember that the light meter in your camera meters only the visible domain. I normally use -3EV to -4EV to shoot IR on the Monochrome camera, a Nikon 8008s with a Digital Back. This is with a Nikon R60 deep red filter. The Nikon Coolpix uses the Sensor for metering, so it's pretty accurate in visible or IR. I can use a Wratten 88a and still get good exposures.
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. I love infrared but it's a pain in the ass to shoot and develop and meter. The results are unpredictable, high spoilage ratio, and IR film is expensive as are good IR filters. I acquiesce to the Gods of digital on that one.
IR - ultimately, is just an effect, and one that can be mimicked rather well with software.

However, I don't shoot IR with digital cameras - I now use software. Exposure 2 for Photoshop has a nice IR mode (it has a 30 day free trial). This tries to mimic various film stocks - color, black and white, and print. (Aside - why are there all these plug-ins and actions etc. to mimic the "film look" but no film stocks that try to look "digital"?) It has Ilford SPX, Kodak HIE, even Konica. The HIE has a lot of settings for glow. The software has a 30 day free trial.

There are also some very good PS actions that are free for IR if you search around the web.

I shoot film - any color film (cheap or outdated usually if shooting "IR"), without the hassles of shooting IR film. I scan it in, and use software to get the "IR" effect.
|
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
... IR - ultimately, is just an effect, and one that can be mimicked rather well with software. ...
Click to expand...
Oh I vigorously disagree with that statement! IR photography is much more than white foliage and dark sky. The reflectivity of various surfaces in IR is unpredictable and cannot be duplicated with software.

As an example, one particular "effect" is the reflectivity of cotton is high and thus most clothing is rendered as white regardless of color. Software will render cloth according to it's color, not it's composition. IR is a style much more than it is an effect.
 
Oddly enough I just finished developing my first roll of of HIE a few minutes ago.
I shot it with a red filter at ISO 80 and processed it in ID-11 for 8 1/2 min and it seems to have come out pretty good as far as I can tell.
 
NickTrop said:
However, I don't shoot IR with digital cameras - I now use software. Exposure 2 for Photoshop has a nice IR mode (it has a 30 day free trial). This tries to mimic various film stocks - color, black and white, and print. (Aside - why are there all these plug-ins and actions etc. to mimic the "film look" but no film stocks that try to look "digital"?) It has Ilford SPX, Kodak HIE, even Konica. The HIE has a lot of settings for glow. The software has a 30 day free trial.


|
Click to expand...

There simply is no digital simulation that comes close to HIE.

It is a piece of cake to shoot- just use a 25a filter, in bright sun I simply expose at F8/250th and 90% are good without bracketing. Since it has been discontinued, however, I am considering converting a meter for more tricky situations to save on bracketing. Yes it has to be loaded in the dark, but no other special treatment.

I am all for digital, but the death of traditional IR photography is quite sad. Digital IR is really a totally different animal than HIE - some is nice but I find most of it either gimmicky looking (false color) or too sterile.

If you have ever seen a good HIE print (I particularly like canvas), then you know what I'm talking about.
 
I've got a few rolls of HIE in my freezer, I just need to rummage around and find my IR filter (B+W 099?). Using a deep red filter is a nice way to get into IR, but using a true IR filter makes for a much more powerful effect. Alas, they are much more expensive, but if you look hard you can find them ~50% of retail.

Last time I shot HIE+IR filter I think I was hand metering (unmodified) at 25 ISO on a sunny day, I probably could have bumped it up to 50, but most of the shots came out very well. There really is nothing else like HIE, I guess I'll have to try the Efke at some point.

Shooting IR with a rangefinder is an enjoyable experience, something I can't say for SLR's and IR.
 
projectbluebird said:
I've got a few rolls of HIE in my freezer, I just need to rummage around and find my IR filter (B+W 099?). Using a deep red filter is a nice way to get into IR, but using a true IR filter makes for a much more powerful effect. Alas, they are much more expensive, but if you look hard you can find them ~50% of retail.

Last time I shot HIE+IR filter I think I was hand metering (unmodified) at 25 ISO on a sunny day, I probably could have bumped it up to 50, but most of the shots came out very well. There really is nothing else like HIE, I guess I'll have to try the Efke at some point.

Shooting IR with a rangefinder is an enjoyable experience, something I can't say for SLR's and IR.
Click to expand...

Using a red filter isn't about getting into IR - its about the look you're after and shutter speeds. 😀

Yes, using a IR filter is going to give a stronger effect - not always what you're after.

I really like the Efke - but it requires an opaque, IMO, and it is slow. I use an R72. Bring along your tripod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom