IR Film photography

cowasaki

cowasaki

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
19,708
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone do this? I was going to convert the D1x but decided to go film for IR in my new OM10. I was going to buy some Ilford IR film and then get them to develop it (for now). Is this a good option? Will I need an optical light filter too? If so what type?

I do plan on getting the stuff to do B&W developing myself but will wait till someone on here gives it up. My new studio should be light tight so will do it in there.
 
Getting Ilford to develop Ilford film is always a good idea IMHO, if you're not going to do it yourself. You don't actually need anywhere light-tight apart for loading the film into a developing tank spiral, once it's in there, everything else is fine in daylight. The SFX200 film is okay to be loaded and unloaded to the camera in subdued light according to the technical notes sheet.

I've already for a IR filter that I bought to try with the EOS-450D, a 720nm (very deep red - about 5 stops worth!) from Linkdelight on fleabay. I'm hoping that this will work, though in fairness, it's definitely going to be a tripod job - especially with 200ISO film like SFX200 - might have to give the Rolliei IR400 a try instead - though with the red welding glass on, it's still a equivalent of 12 ISO :eek:
 
My vote is Rollei IR400, it is iso 12 with an R72 filter, it gives quite a strong effect.
SFX200 is not IR film, it has enhanced red sensitivity not full on IR..:)
 
The Efke Ir820 is supposed to be very good as its the only film still made that has sensivity up to and beyond 750nm and gives quite dramatic images as so. One thing to be careful of though is that the factory in Croatia has had some quality control issues in the past, but it got a lot better now apparently.
The rollei technically does go past 750nm, but it falls off very rapidly so its not really the best if you want to use it for that type of IR photography.

With the Efke and Rollei be warned though that they must be loaded in complete darkness and froze before use. Develop them as quickly as possible - before you get them developed ask the lab if they use IR sensors for temp, frame cutting etc. If they do, ask if they will turn them off, if they say no use somewhere else or they will get fogged. As SFX is just extended red its not affected.

Although it won't be a problem with your OM10, if anyone else is using any Cannon EOS film camera, the Xpan 1 or most Minolta Dynax cameras, they use IR LEds for the focusing so the negatives may get fogged, it depends on the camera though as some just fog the sprocket area whilst others extend into the image.

Hope this helps
 
s162216 said:
The Efke Ir820 is supposed to be very good as its the only film still made that has sensivity up to and beyond 750nm and gives quite dramatic images as so. One thing to be careful of though is that the factory in Croatia has had some quality control issues in the past, but it got a lot better now apparently.
The rollei technically does go past 750nm, but it falls off very rapidly so its not really the best if you want to use it for that type of IR photography.

With the Efke and Rollei be warned though that they must be loaded in complete darkness and froze before use. Develop them as quickly as possible - before you get them developed ask the lab if they use IR sensors for temp, frame cutting etc. If they do, ask if they will turn them off, if they say no use somewhere else or they will get fogged. As SFX is just extended red its not affected.

Although it won't be a problem with your OM10, if anyone else is using any Cannon EOS film camera, the Xpan 1 or most Minolta Dynax cameras, they use IR LEds for the focusing so the negatives may get fogged, it depends on the camera though as some just fog the sprocket area whilst others extend into the image.

Hope this helps
Click to expand...

In the case of the EOS cameras it's actually a IR sensor for frame counting that's the problem - it fogs a band at the edge of the frame! Definitely not recommended.
 
I dunno, call me an anti-luddite here but I can't help thinking that this is one of those situations when digital is just so much better/easier/cheaper/more reliable/faster...

So shoot me

uzi.gif
Arthur
 
It's probably going to be another of those "done that, don't need to do it again" ones for me to be honest - the filter i've got works fine with the 450D, and gets some very interesting effects. It's just, seeing as I've got a camera that can handle it, i've already got a filter that'll do the job, and I can dev the film myself, I can try it for the price of a roll of film, so I might as well get another tick on the "tried it" list :)
 
Ah. *That* I can understand!
 
if i was going to get serious about IR stuff, I'd probably look out for a EOS30D and get it converted to shoot IR stuff - no faffing about with long exposures, shoot handheld, all that kind of stuff. But if I do invest in digital kit, at the moment, it'd probably have to be an upgrade from the 450D - not that the 450 has anything major wrong, per se, It's just it doesn't feel as good to work with as the EOS-3 film body... :)

Having said that, If i'm lugging it up and down a few mountains, I know which i'd sooner carry!
 
Why get one converted when you can pick 'em up for £300 already done?
 
Ambermile said:
Why get one converted when you can pick 'em up for £300 already done?
Click to expand...

I guess that shows the degree of thought that I've given it, Arthur - I haven't even looked to be honest - I was just aware that it was possible to swap the pre-filter on the sensor for one that made it work in IR - I suppose there will always be people who have it done then decide it's not for them and sell the camera on, I just thought that it'd be a small sector of an already small market, and to get a good camera, i'd be as well getting a good normal camera, give it a good going over for a couple of months, then convert it!
 
It's a rather larger market than you might think BY, just gotta know which door to go in (and TP isn't the right one!). Try the Astronomy Classified websites, e.g. this one went for £400 I think.

Arthur
 
I'll bear it in mind, though at the moment only way I can spend any decent coin on digital kit is if it pays its way. The 450D has paid for itself a couple of times over in allowing me to do in-house shoots of customers product catalogues for websites/shopping carts i've been implementing for them. When theres 600-800 items, and they're all smaller than the size of my fist, and we want a white background, a cheap digital, a homebrew light-tent and shooting tethered to the laptop means I can bang out the shots in extremely short order, and get up and running quicker. Works like a charm.
 
Ambermile said:
I dunno, call me an anti-luddite here but I can't help thinking that this is one of those situations when digital is just so much better/easier/cheaper/more reliable/faster...

So shoot me

uzi.gif
Arthur
Click to expand...

wait....what...eh

but digital is bet....:suspect:/easier/cheaper/more reliable/faster for everything anyway, why would you drop IR film into that bracket and not FP4...

iso 12 isn't so hard..:lol:
 
'cos the last thing IR images have is warmth... and despite rumours to the contrary I do think one should use the best tools for the job (not necessarily the ideal ones, or the right ones, just the best ones to do the job as one visualises it). And for me that means digital for IR. Same as I doubt I will put the Lensbaby on a film camera again - it's a digital toy unless you have way more experience than I will ever have with it... same as IR. No need to convert the camera either, just get a tight/high band filter.
 
I was going to have a play with IR on the FM. Most of the newer Nikon film cameras also use an IED (IR LED) in the film sensor mechanism so its got to be an older one!

If I really get into the IR then I might convert one of my cameras when I get my D3s but then would mean the D700 (err nope) or my only crop camera the D200 so might well get another D1x which is what I had planned to convert in the first place! I suppose I might swap my D700 with Mrs_C for her D300 then convert my D200............
 
I don't see any rational in the best tool for the job.
If you can't shoot IR film because it isn't the best tool..??, then you can't shoot FP4, or 160VC or Velvia.
Its just another film, we shoot it for the same reasons we shoot any film....don't we ?

I dunno about IR anyway, its nice an all but ultimately its a bit fantasy for me..
 
You are generalising. The best tool for the job *in hand* i.e. to get the current image we are after, rather than the best tool to create *any* image full stop, is what I mean.
 
I'm currently sitting on a stock of 20 rolls of 35mm Kodak EIR colour infra red film, and the results produced definitely can't be achieved easily digitally, in fact as far as I know the false colour simply can't be done any other way apart from using that film.

As for the OP's question about a filter, I believe red/orange/yellow B&W filters are effective for any IR film!
 
I dunno, call me a purist but how can you get "colour" with IR?
 
I prefer to straight monochrome IR too
 
Ambermile said:
I dunno, call me a purist but how can you get "colour" with IR?
Click to expand...

Is it not the same as mono though in the sense that what you're seeing is a reaction to the chemicals used in the emulsion in which case it can't really be said that one is right and one is wrong? Seeing as IR isn't visible to the human eye then it can be interpreted any way the photographer chooses IMO.
 
Kev M said:
Is it not the same as mono though in the sense that what you're seeing is a reaction to the chemicals used in the emulsion in which case it can't really be said that one is right and one is wrong? Seeing as IR isn't visible to the human eye then it can be interpreted any way the photographer chooses IMO.
Click to expand...


Really? A narrowband image "interpreted" as having myriad colours? Best to just get a colour piccie no?
 
I don't think so. Narrowband doesn't really mean B&W in my opinion (limited as it is). The world doesn't look like it does in an IR B&W image any more than it does in a colour IR image.

Neither is really a record shot are they, they're more of an artistic approach in which case I'd say that they were equally valid methods.
 
"Colour IR" is anathema! The world would look monochrome in IR if you could see through the filter. Are you saying/implying a missing spectrum of IR colours nobody knows about then? I agree that there is an artistic approach/viewpoint and that can be suitably expressed with the use of the right filters (88A eg.?) but only because they are not true narrowband filters. Try bolting a 950nm pass filter on the pointy end of your camera and see how many different colours you get. I can lend you one if you like!

Arthur :D
 
You've lost me Arthurr, I just know that I like some colour IR images.:shrug:
 
Yeah, me too :lol:

Don't mind me, got a pedantic one on today, sorry :D
 
Colour IR daffodils would be preferable.;)
 
Yeah, see - can't do IR daffs. Well, not outside anyway. Hmm. Inside though, ... no, got no daffs around anyway, sorry! Could do dandelions in IR though?
 
Ambermile said:
I dunno, call me a purist but how can you get "colour" with IR?
Click to expand...
Sorry I'm late to reply, but: http://www.flickr.com/groups/colorinfrared/ the EIR film was used aerially to track a number of things including vegetation growth and, for military use, soldiers. It is designed specifically to capture colour from within the infra red spectrum between (I recall) 750nm to 900nm - albeit false colour, but it's purely chemical reaction to the IR light that determines the hues and to me that chemical process is as pure as it gets with photography.
 
Jakska said:
Sorry I'm late to reply, but: http://www.flickr.com/groups/colorinfrared/ the EIR film was used aerially to track a number of things including vegetation growth and, for military use, soldiers. It is designed specifically to capture colour from within the infra red spectrum between (I recall) 750nm to 900nm - albeit false colour, but it's purely chemical reaction to the IR light that determines the hues and to me that chemical process is as pure as it gets with photography.
Click to expand...

^^What he said. You can buy the last remaining rolls of this film from Silverprint and from the guy who cuts and rolls it here.
 
Jakska said:
Sorry I'm late to reply, but: http://www.flickr.com/groups/colorinfrared/ the EIR film was used aerially to track a number of things including vegetation growth and, for military use, soldiers. It is designed specifically to capture colour from within the infra red spectrum between (I recall) 750nm to 900nm - albeit false colour, but it's purely chemical reaction to the IR light that determines the hues and to me that chemical process is as pure as it gets with photography.
Click to expand...

True, but I guess that means you missed the point about "bolting a 950nm pass filter on the pointy end and see how many different coloursyou get..." earlier in the thread then?
 
It actually says if you read the datasheet on Silverprint for the Kodak EIR to not use anything greater than an orange filter or all you will get is an image the colour of the filter.
 
Whatever, the point is valid nonetheless, IR colour is anathema. Simple.
 
Should I really be having to look up word definitions in a discussion about IR colour film.
What exactly are you saying....that you don't like it :shrug:
If it is, then its an opinion, not a fact.

:)
 
No, I do it myself - I am saying that colour and IR are not compatible. IR as a narrowband of the spectrum is just that, a narrowband, no room for colour. Especially over 950nm. IR *false* colour may be what we are talking about in which case that's fine - I myself have made false colour images of the Moon before now but to say they are representative of any *actual* colour is misleading.


PS - if you don't know the definition of a word then surely basing an arguement on it is a bit pointless, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top