Infrared film shooters...Need some advice/tips/questions answered...

[Jon]

I'll begin by stating clearly and up front that I have NEVER shot IR before in any format.

An image posted some months ago on another board showed some fairly neato properties of IR film on skin...Some of the complaints of IR characteristics that I recall were that blood vessels tended to be more prominent.

I've got a personal project that I'm going to be taking on throughout this summer, and if, for example, the above is true, I absolutely must include some IR images (in other words, blood vessel prominence is a desireable feature to me within the context of this project).

Before I go Gaggling all about the net (which I will do immediately after clicking "Post"), I'd like to know some of the basic real world characteristics of IR, base setting tips, etc. Any information or experienced anecdotes will be much appreciated.

Edit to add: This will be IR film (35mm most likely, 6x7 would be cool if I can find it) NOT an adapted, filtered or otherwise altered digital emulator.

[Jon]

Aha...I think I found my answers...

Set ASA at 200, use Kodak color IR film, a Wratten 87 filter, expose as usual and bracket one stop each way, process as E6 slides.

Now if I can find that F5...I think it's holding a tarp down on one of my cars...

You guys are gonna FREAK at what comes out of this (if it works the way I think it will - and I think some of you already know what I'm up to hehehe)

[Latinbob]

I believe you can also use a Red #25 filter for film. That way you could look through the lens with the filter on to compose. The Wratten 87 is opaque I believe. Either way, these should be interesting. I love IR but I have never tried it with film. Be sure to load the film in very subdues light. A changing bag or darkroom is better. Same when you take it out to process. IR film is not tolerant at all to being in the light. Good luck!

[Mr. Pickles]

I thought you had done it with film on one of them old bodies. Apparently not. Considering your little Sony produced some killer and one award winning shot, doing it with film ought to look even better if you get it "right"....

[scoundrel1728]

Digital imagers are quite sensitive to IR and can produce genuine - not simulated - IR exposures. This doesn't show up in general photography (much) because today's digital cameras have good IR blocking in front of their imagers.

The IR blocking on some of the older digitals, such as the Nikon Coolpix 950 and the Olympus C-3030, was less effective than on today's models. I once tested this out on my own E950 by shining the infrared LED into the lens. Although no visible light came from the LED, the image on the LCD monitor was so bright that it flared the lens. I also have a picture around somewhere on my CD-ROMs where I used this remote as an infrared flashlight. The newer cameras have better IR blocking. I have also tried shining the LED into my Coolpix 995. I could see the IR in the monitor but it wasn't nearly as bright as with the 950.

There are people who will modify your camera to shoot infrared only or will sell you such a camera. It is also possible to modify a digital camera so that it will respond to both infrared and visible light, but then you must thereafter use a filter on the lens to block either the infrared or the visible part of the spectrum depending on your application. You also won't be able to use either your viewfinder or autofocus when actually shooting infrared; you must remove the filter to frame and focus the shot, then replace the filter before the exposure.

There will also be a slight focus shift most lenses because the acromatic correction does not extend into the infrared. Some lenses have a mark on them to give you an idea how much you must shift the focus. On these lenses you can focus manually, then note where the focus mark (for visible light) lines up on the lens barrel and move the focus so the same point lines up with the infrared mark.

Exposure might be a bit hit-and-miss as well. Incandescent lights are quite bright in the infrared, whereas fluorescents put out hardly any infrared light, even though the exposure may register the same on your meter. Sunlight is somewhere between these extremes. Skylight sends relatively little infrared into the shadows.

This subject has also come up on Photocamel before. You may want to check out this link to get some more info on infrared photography, especially with digital.

[Confusion Circle]

I love Kodak HIE.* I shoot it at ASA 200 and bracket extensively.* Many of my pictures that have been accepted for exhibition at a local art gallery have been shot on this film.* Shots that are overexposed turn out very grainy, but this grain is one of the most attractive things about HIE.* I have never cross processed it in E6 chemistry before.* I wonder how they negs turn out?

[Jon]

Hi CC, thanks for your input. Grain wouldn't altogether be a bad thing for this particular project, it would actually be a nice bonus for what's in my head. I want to do as little post work as I can get away with and have the images come out as "natively" as I can.

When you say "bracket extensively," are you meaning a full stop at a time, or more, or do you mean more than the standard meter/over/under (3) bracketing?

[cameraguy21773]

Check this link.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

[scoundrel1728]

Interesting site, and don't confine your attention to the UV and IR photography tutorial. The multitemporal approach appears to be pretty simple to implement with a digital camera on a tripod.

I have produced some images with a variant of the afocal approach, such as the one with this message. Although I actually used a lens for this one, the image has some of the flavor of an afocal image. In this instance, it was the light pattern cast on the bottom of a swimming pool near a heater jet. The surface of the water was disturbed enough to refract the light into these patterns on the bottom, which I then shot from the surface in the usual way with my digital camera. Original colors removed and contrast enhanced in postprocessing.

[Nikonfreak]

I'd love to get into infra red... I've seen some awesome images done with this type of photography.

There's something magical / mysterious / captivating about it. I'm wondering if I shouldn't have kept a D100 body and converted it to I/R

[Confusion Circle]

Originally Posted by Jon

Hi CC, thanks for your input. Grain wouldn't altogether be a bad thing for this particular project, it would actually be a nice bonus for what's in my head. I want to do as little post work as I can get away with and have the images come out as "natively" as I can.

When you say "bracket extensively," are you meaning a full stop at a time, or more, or do you mean more than the standard meter/over/under (3) bracketing?

I bracket in 1 stop increments over 5 frames @ 200 ISO. I also use a #25 red or #29 red filter. Sometimes even 7 frames if I am not sure of the outcome...ie: amount of IR.

I've just experimented with my first roll of Kodak EIR this afternoon...very excited as to how they will turn out!

Here are two pictures of mine that were exhibited at a local gallery here in Vancouver:
http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,10200.0.html