Discussion in 'Colour or Not' started by Done_rundleCams, May 9, 2018.
I guess it must be why I shoot so many IR shots, pure chance means I get one or two that work.
Sounds like me with any kind of shooting, P_C, and still not sure if I have the cojones to try real IR film. As well, I found
another IR filter from the same manufacturer except this one is called the IR 760 filter. An extra 20 (??'s) on the filter.
Go for it .
Or start with R80s or R400s, they are a bit cheaper than straight IR films but still good.
Anyway, the shots you show on here are worth the ones that don't make it.
That's a good idea about the R400s, Steve and, I'm guessing, a tad easier to
load ... If memory serves, one is supposed to load true IR film in the dark (?)
and, price wise, I think the difference is $2 and I'll definitely ask my mate (who does
film processing) if there's anything special I should do or he should do?
As for pics shown, here or on FB, worthy or not, they, usually, get posted
Ilfosol 3 1:14, for 15', I think*. Treat as normal film. About 5' for R80s[ 1:9?].
*edit or 1:9 12'
Thanks Steve . I know I don't have the cojones to try it myself
IR filters come in several types of which the 720nm* is the perhaps the most commonly used - essentially it cuts out almost all wavelengths shorter than 720nm (it does tend to let some through, perhaps 5-10 of the red end of the spectrum). A 760nm filter moves the transmission bandwidth further into the IR range and effectively eliminates all visible light transmission. Options also exist for 850, 950 and even 1000nm+ filters but these tend to be used only for scientific imaging and by real die hard enthusiasts as the exposures become increasingly lengthy even with the camera converted. Output is effectively mono only. 720nm is probably the highest value filter than can still be used for false colour images.
There are other options too, 665 and 590nm IR filters allow more of the visible spectrum through and are better for 'false colour' images as they give brighter colours with more tonal range.
*nm stands for nanometer (1 mn =1 billionth of a meter). the wavelength range of visdible light is aproximately 400-700nm (blue - red), above 700nm is the IR, below 400nm lies the UV.
Wow, thanks Nigel . I'm going to stop by my lab to see if they can do IR film processing and, if so, I may have to grow a pair ....
Treat it just the same as ordinary film. You can put the filter on and off as you please from one frame to the next, with it off, the film just behaves as normal.
Both Rollei IR, same roll, with and without filter. I think these were in Rodinal, but others work just as well. Better, in fact, I'm not keen on the amount of grain from Rodinal.
The wavelength quoted is usually the point where the filter has 50% transmission, most long pass type filters have fairly rapid transactions going from basically no transmission to full transmission in around 30nm, my 960nm filter on the other hand is very gradual, with the transition takening several hundred nm.
Quite a number of normal filters can be interesting with a 'full spectrum' converted camera generally they transmit quite a bit of IR while having their normal effect on the visible portion. Blue, green , magenta & variable ND filters have all worked well, as do some of the more specialist dual pass type such as Schott BG3. They could also work with film, but I suspect the exposures would be even more difficult to get right, and there's no way of telling the result till you've processed the film. (An EVF is a great bonus for IR!)
Very cool, Steve
Cheers and I think I feel some growth happening
I've just been playing with the SD14 again for IR, having heard of a simple way to get an aerochrome look from it.
With the dust trap/hot mirror popped out, and a green X1 filter on the front, then using Fluorescent WB (I find RAW on the Foveons a pain) I get results like this practically SOOC.
wrabness aerochrome small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
(I did make a minor tweak to the hue to intensify the reds, but that wouldn't have been required with a CWB)
Very cool looking photo, Mike, has a film photo look to it
Separate names with a comma.