A question to EIR users

[timbowles]

I just got a roll of EIR back from the lab I shot over the 1st week of

October/07 in Utah.

 

On day one of the trip I realized I forgot to change the ISO setting on my

incident lightmeter from 100 to the 200- 320 I use for EIR, depending on the

amount of light present. I left the film in the camera for the week I was using

it down there, with no special attention taken regarding cooling, etc. It went

through the carry-on xray coming back to Canada, sat around for a couple days

still in camera (because I didn't have a chance to finish the roll), then went

into the fridge in a ziplock for 3 weeks while waiting for some sun. Last week

the sun poked out for a couple days, so I took the camera out of the fridge and

let it sit 24 hours in the ziplock before proceeding to finish the roll. I then

froze it (in a ziplock) for a few days and took it into be processed.

 

So what I have are the 1st 5 shots perfectly exposed (which I was expecting to

be 1 to 1 1/2 stops overexposed), and the rest 1 to 1 1/2 stops underexposed.

Would this be due to IR availability at high altitude (I thought it would be

more, thus overexposing, if anything), or due to the protracted period over

which the film was used, and not kept cool? I think my metering and personal EI

are correct, because I've tested this film (albeit only a couple rolls due to

price). Could it be the IR availability at this time of year, especially the

shots I took up here in Manitoba? Granted, some of the later film was shot under

very light cloud, but I've done that before using an ISO of 200 and been o.k. An

important note is that color rendition is exactly what I was expecting to see-

none of the magenta shift I've heard EIR experiences when not kept refridgerated

or shot and processed quickly.

 

Thanks,

Tim

[kevinteo]

Did you use Process E-5 or AR-5?

[kevinteo]

Sorry, meant Process E-6, or AR-5. ISO 100 is quite normal for Process AR-5, which would

have left the rest of the shots underexposed.

[timbowles]

It was done E-6

[kevinteo]

<p>The exposure latitude of this film is relatively narrow. A landscape taken under

scattered cloud cover would exhibit shadows in the areas covered by the clouds.</p>

 

<p>The following is extracted from the Kodak data sheet: "<i>reversal processing will

yield cyan dye in the infrared-sensitive layer... The amount of dye formed is inversely

proportional to the exposure... Infrared radiation appears as red, which is the result of

yellow dye formation in one layer, magenta dye formation in a second layer, and the

absence of cyan dye</i>."</p>

 

<p>Unlike HSI or HIE, EIR still uses a lot of the visible spectrum. This means that a

photograph taken without much infrared presence, if properly metered, will still be

correctly exposed but will exhibit a strong shift towards cyan.</p>

 

<p>If you didn't get the color shift, the only thing I can think off then is that you metered

through the filter.</p>

[timbowles]

I didn't get a color shift, just dark. I must have just metered wrong. Weird- this has worked quite reliably at ISO 200 for bright and 320 for blazing sun in the past. I have used a light yellow filter with no adjustment and a light orange with an extra 1 1/2 stops exposure succesfully. The problem must be in my handheld metering technique and filter adjustments (I never use on-camera metering for slide film).

[kevinteo]

Weird indeed. I meter off a gray card if using my camera meter (non-TTL) or I use an

incident meter. Haven't yet encountered what you described. Maybe you should check with

the lab again; I suspect they might have accidentally used AR-5 even if you told them E-6.

Are the colors on the first five frames as saturated as you might expect from using E-6?

[timbowles]

Yup- they look like the other photos I've done with the light yellow filter. I'll call the lab, but I doubt they even run AR-5 chemicals. Thanks. What do you think about shooting the film over a protracted period of time like this? I've heard that you get a magenta shift if the film is left at room temp for very long, so I put the whole camera in the fridge. It seemed to work, so I think I'll continue to do it, rather than blowing a roll. I've only got about 15 rolls left, so I have to make it last. I wonder how long it can sit in the fridge like that......

[kevinteo]

<p>From Kodak's technical sheet <a

href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/ti2323/ti2323.p

df">TI2323</a>-</p>

<p><i>Unexposed Film<br>

Unexposed color infrared films must be kept in a freezer or refrigerator. Unexposed film

can tolerate up to one month at temperatures not exceeding 55°F (13°C),

including no more than one week at room temperature (75?F/24?C). For best infrared

sensitivity, store EIR film in a freezer at 0 to -10°F (-18 to -23°C), in the original

package. To prevent moisture condensation on refrigerated or frozen film, allow it to

reach room temperature before opening the package?otherwise sticking or spotting may

occur. Warm-up time from a refrigerator is about 1 hour and is about 2 hours from a

freezer.</i></p>

<p><i>Exposed Film<br>

Keep exposed film cool and dry. Process film as soon as possible to avoid undesirable

changes in the latent image. If it is necessary to hold exposed film for several days (such

as over a weekend), it should be resealed and refrigerated at 55°F (13°C) or

lower. Keep room temperature storage to a minimum?preferably no more than two days.

Before unsealing and processing exposed film that has been held in cold storage, follow

the warm-up procedures described above for unexposed film.</i></p>

 

<p>Kodak, as with any manufacturer, will give a conservative estimate as to what the film

can tolerate without damage. I've read people who have stored the film at refrigerator

temperature over an extended period with only minutely detrimental effects to the film

compared to if it had been stored in the freezer. I prefer to play it safe; I only thaw what I

intend to shoot that day. I have, however, delayed processing an exposed roll for about

three weeks (film placed in the refrigerator, but not frozen) with no discernible ill

effects.</p>

 

<p>Regardless, you should try to finish the film by the expiry date. Infrared film is more

susceptible to deterioration from gamma/cosmic rays. Outdated film, or film stored in

poor conditions, will likely have desensitization in the infrared layer.</p>

 

<p>Have a look at this image from this site - <a

href="http://msp.rmit.edu.au/Article_03/02e_b.html">http://msp.rmit.edu.au/Article_03

/02e_b.html</a><br><img src="http://msp.rmit.edu.au/Article_03/IRFig42.gif"></p>

 

<p> As you can see, Ekatchrome Infrared uses cyanine for infrared sensitization. I

referenced Kodak's technical sheet about how the "amount of dye formed is inversely

proportional to the exposure". The above diagram shows what happens when strong

infrared presence in the scene results in only magenta and yellow being left behind.

Yellow and magenta combine to form red, which is what you see on your processed slide.

Desensitization in that infrared layer - either from out of date or poorly stored film - will

leave excess cyanine dye, which would result in a shift towards cyan, not magenta.</p>

 

<p>If you need to know more, there's a good book called <i>The Art of Color Infrared

Photography</i> by Steven H. Begleiter that should make for good further reading. It

covers some of the basic science, but is quite comprehensive about the pictorial aspects of

the EIR use, including usage of the film under artificial lighting. For technical uses of

infrared photography (surveying, forensics, scientific, etc.) try to get a hold of Kodak

Technical Publication M-28: Applied Infrared Photography. It's an old library binding that

Kodak published in 1968 (revised July 1970). It will help in understanding the rendering

characteristics of infrared films (including EIR) in general, which might allow you to better

pre-visualize the color reproduction on the processed slide.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting. :)</p>

[timbowles]

Thanks for the in-depth response. I actually have the book you mentioned, and I agree it's quite good. It was on his recommendations that I chose my EI of 200-320 (although I did find him quite ambiguous in his statements on how to rate this film). If you have better/other suggestions, I'm certainly open, so I don't waste any more film. I see you use the IR filter, which I won't be doing. I like the Cokin 001 (light yellow # 8) and 002 (light orange #21) effects, depending what I'm shooting. I was just wishfully thinking I might get away with stretching out what I have left of this film. I guess I just have to plan a few days of shooting very carefully to maximize every frame. I got into film only a couple years ago, so EIR and HIE are the first films I've had to watch (that I've valued) die out. It's hard to accept.

 

Tim

[kevinteo]

<p>I was looking at Abe Books (<a

href="http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?

sts=t&tn=Applied+Infrared+Photography">http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchRes

ults?sts=t&tn=Applied+Infrared+Photography</a>) and realized that there's a more

recent 1977 version of the M-28 publication. It is one of the best primers on infrared

photography I have read.</p>

 

<p>I probably use the B+W 099 filter more than I should, if only for the convenience of a

screw-in filter. I do have quite a few Wratten gels though, and find the #16 to be a good

compromise between wanting a yellow or an orange filter. Might I assume that you could

use that in a Cokin holder?</p>

 

<p>Judging from your portfolio, I doubt you waste very much film at all. :)</p>

 

<p>The sad thing is that we're in a minority of people who will be mourning the loss of

these two great films. There's a good thread (<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-

a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NNrY">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00NNrY</a>) about reactions to Eastman Kodak's modern corporate philosophy.

I like the comment about how if none of this would happen if George Eastman still ran the

company. I suppose a photograph taken with discontinued films will now have to capture

not just the scene, but also any extrinsic factors of the photographic experience.</p>