Kodak HIE test result and some questions

[ramiro_aceves]

Hello

 

I have just made my first try with Kodak HIE infrared film following

your directions and I can say I am very happy and lucky with the

results :-) . I used ID-11 1:1 developer for 10 minutes at 20 degrees

(this 10 minutes time is my starting point for any unknown film

without better data), 5 inversions/minute agitation. I have developed

only half roll in order to save film in the first tests(This are the

advantages of a manual old camera:-D. I used Jessops R2 filter and

old Pentax-50 camera in manual mode of course.

 

I exposed 1/125 sec and f11 in sunny day with +2 to - 1 stops

bracketing. I found the best exposure at 1/125 secs f11. Contrast

seems to be right with my diffusion enlarger and Ilfospeed grade2

paper. I have to tell you only some observations:

 

1- I have got unven density areas near the film holes as you told me,

this uneven areas affect the final image, so I would like to

eliminate them. Is a five inversions/minute agitation too violent?

Should I reduce agitation, for example to two inversions/minute, will

be development time affected too much?.. I will retest again, no

problem.

 

2- The missing antihalation lyer is noticeable near the brighter

parts of the image.

 

3- The pictures have a nice "dream look" , I am happy, but, do you

think it worths buying a more expensive opaque filter to get more

dramatic feeling?

 

4- grain is big and sharp but I like it. Beautifull.

 

5- I got good shadow detail although I thought I was going to get no

details in zones illuminated by sky blue light. Will shadow detail be

worse with the opaque filter?

 

I have attached tree images. One shows the same "cityscape" I see

from my window taken with TURA-P150 and with Kodak HIE to see the

diference.

The other picture is a landscape in wich you can see the uneven

developed film holes on the top. It is a pitty that the tree on the

left does not have leaves now in wonter, but I will wait for spring

to test.

 

Thank you all for your help.

[ramiro_aceves]

Here is the second picture

[james___]

For the sprocket holes you can lessen the density increases by lengthening the dev time while lessening the agitation. Slowly invert the tank or just give it a couple of twists instead of inverting it. An IR filter will increase the IR effect but also decrease the shadow densities where there is no illumination except for blue skylight. It's a trade off and usually is reserved for compositions that have few deep shadows. You can increase the density differences between the illuminated and shadow areas by dev alone. James

[wieslaw1]

You do not need �black� infrared filter with the Kodak IR film. You will have to use tripod for every shot. Such filters you need for Macophot IR film.

 

�For the sprocket holes you can lessen the density increases by lengthening the dev time while lessening the agitation.� ��� bad idea. You obviously need a better agitation during development.

 

I ony use tanks which allow rotation of the spool. Never have a problem with uneven development. Good luck.

[__jon__]

"You do not need ÒblackÓ infrared filter with the Kodak IR film. You

will have to use tripod for every shot. Such filters you need for

Macophot IR film."

 

I don't know what you are talking about... Kodak HIE is much

more sensitive than Maco. In other words, you will get more

effective film speed with the HIE given the same filter. Try using a

opaque filter with Maco and you will get VERY slow speeds. I use

Wratten 25, 29, 87, and 87c. With the 87 and Maco, I get a film

speed around 12asa... I gave up on the Maco, it is just too slow

and I prefer the look of the HIE because of the lack of

anti-halation coating.

 

Ramiro,

 

I use both stainless and Patterson plastic reels and don't have

any problem with streaking. I do five inversions every 30

seconds. Just use a twisting motion. I use HC-110 at 68

degrees for 5 minutes.

 

Also, I much prefer using an opaque filter. I like using the 87c the

most, on a tripod. I tend to underexpose some, which gives finer

grain and black skies. If you can, take a look at Laurie White's

"Infrared Photography Handbook" on page 51--she shows the

same photo with HIE rated at different speeds.

 

If I want to hand hold (rarely), I use the #25.

 

Go here for the IR FAQ:

 

http://www.cocam.co.uk/CoCamWS/Infrared/INFRARED.HTM

 

To join the IR mailing list, go here:

 

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/ir_list.htm

[__jon__]

Kodak HIE, HC-110, Canon 24mm F2.0<div></div>

[wieslaw1]

Jon � do not contradict yourselves!

 

You claim not knowing what I am saying, only to repeat a line later essentially what I had said.

[scott_eaton]

Who cares.

 

The opaque filter does little with HIE that you can't do with a 25 red.

[stephen hazelton]

I've just used the agitation recommended by Kodak (5 seconds of agitation every 30 seconds) and haven't noticed a problem. I DO like the look better with the opaque filter, but am waiting for things to green up a bit before I use some more HIE. From what I've seen, the opaque filter does increase the contrast with shadows. If you have some spare money, get the opaque filter, but don't worry too much about it. (Ironic to be shooting pictures where the filter is worth more than the camera!!)

[chris_waller]

I only ever use a #25 red filter with HIE. I dev in Rodinal 1:50, 10-12 minutes at 20 C inverting the tank once every 30 seconds. I always pre-soak the film before development.

[__jon__]

Wieslaw,

 

"You do not need ÒblackÓ infrared filter with the Kodak IR film. You

will have to use tripod for every shot. Such filters you need for

Macophot IR film."

 

I'm not contradicting myself. You said Maco works better than

Kodak with opaque filters. You are wrong.

[__jon__]

Scott,

 

>Who cares.

 

I don't know... let me guess... how about the original poster?

 

>The opaque filter does little with HIE that you can't do with a 25

red.

 

Uhh, wrong. You get dramatically different results using, say, an

87c vs a #25. Do you regularly shoot HIE with an opaque filter?

 

>Attachment: solar1.jpg

 

Yeah, that would be quite a different photo if you used a darker

filter. But I'm sure that nasty flare would still be there. Maybe a

lens hood is in order?

[wieslaw1]

Jon - I try to be precise because I believe this forum is to provide exact information, not a kind of gossips, �woodoo believes�, or missunderstandings. I have not used the word �better�, nor I implied it in any context. Your comments are for the second time misleading!

 

My original line above was directed to Ramiros question no. 3 and it is:

 

�You do not need �black� infrared filter with the Kodak IR film. You will have to use tripod for every shot.(If you do). Such filters you need for Macophot IR film. �

 

to which you replied::

 

�I don't know what you are talking about... Kodak HIE is much more sensitive than Maco. Try using a opaque filter with Maco and you will get VERY slow speeds...

...Also, I much prefer using an opaque filter. I like using the 87c the most, on a tripod.

 

(Understandably WITH KODAK IR, because you rejected the Maco film). You also mentioned that you use other (red, not opaque) filters with Kodak film.

The meaning of your lines is the same as mine, so please do not confuse the readers by introducing contradictions where they do not belong.

---------------------

 

In general � you will achieve IR effect with Kodak IR film when you use any common red filter. �Black�, or �opaque IR filters have a cutoff spectral edge around 680 micrometers, and longer. (Regular red filters cut the visible spectrum at 580 - 600 um) That means that nearly all visible to human eye radiation is blocked around 680 um. Hence the filter is called �black� or �opaque�. Since IR red films have sensitivity extending from blue - 340 um to IR at 820um - Macophot, or 340 to 900um - Kodak High Speed Infrared film, the actual film speed will be reduced in either case when such filters are used. Therefore, most likely one will need a tripod for proper exposures.

 

In case of Macophot the use of a common red filter is inadequate to achieve the IR effect, likely because of its different spectral sensitivity than Kodak HIE. So if you want to use its full potential an opaque filter is a must. Otherwise Maco will act as common panchromatic film, but will cost your 4 times as much. In case of Kodak you do not need such a filter and consequently no tripod. Choose as you please, but the examples of IR photos shown here are not inspiring. How many totems have you photographed Jon?

[richard_milner2]

I have tried Kodak HIE with a dark orange filter (Kenko YA3) and got a good infra-red effect.

 

The effective ISO is increased to 100, so it is easier to hand-hold the camera.

[ole_tjugen]

Unique among modern films, Kodak HIE has no anti-halation layer. This gives a halo effect around bright objects, contributing to the "dreamy" look. This is often confused with IR effect, which I think may be the case in some of the answers here.

 

BTW, MACO IR films have full anti-halation...

[richard_milner2]

Have a look at this photo which exhibits the IR characteristic of very pale greenery. This was shot with an orange filter.<div></div>

[wieslaw1]

The correct units in my comments above should be NANOMETERS - nm, not micro - um. Sorry.

[wieslaw1]

Ole, it is not necessary to introduce another variable. IR effect = IR film which is sensitive to the range of electromagnetic spectrum as mentioned above. Can be modified by proper filtration.

 

Antihalation layer has nothing to do with it. And if you like a �dreamy� look of the highlights you can generate it by putting a softar filter on the lens. With any film.

[james___]

I'll have to disagree with that last statement. the lack of an antihalation layer is what helps make Kodak IR such a nice film when used with the appropriate subject matter. The glow achieved with the film is because of the lack of the antihalation layer which allows the light to bounce around between the film surfaces (light piping)and spread out creating a diffuse glow around the highlight edges. This can't be duplicated successfully with a soft filter. The soft filter will also spread out the midtone and shadow edges too.

[__jon__]

Wieslaw,

 

 

>I try to be precise because I believe this forum is to provide

exact

information, not a kind of gossips, Òwoodoo believesÓ, or

missunderstandings. I have not used the word ÒbetterÓ, nor I

implied it in

any context. Your comments are for the second time misleading!

 

You are misunderstanding them, but they are not misleading.

Don't mix up

your confusion or lack of knowledge with my posting.

 

>My original line above was directed to Ramiros question no. 3

and it is:

 

Here is question #3:

 

"3- The pictures have a nice "dream look" , I am happy, but, do

you think it

worths buying a more expensive opaque filter to get more

dramatic feeling?"

 

Here is your response:

 

>ÒYou do not need ÒblackÓ infrared filter with the Kodak IR film.

You will have

to use tripod for every shot.(If you do). Such filters you need for

Macophot

IR film. Ò

 

Here is your first mistake: Ramiro is already using a red filter. He

asks

for a "more dramatic feeling"--guess what Wieslaw? He can get

that by using

an opaque filter! Do you understand??

 

>(Understandably WITH KODAK IR, because you rejected the

Maco film).

 

I rejected it because it is too slow with an opaque filter. Please

see your

first mistake above--he wants more of an IR effect.

 

>You also mentioned that you use other (red, not opaque) filters

with Kodak

film. The meaning of your lines is the same as mine, so please

do not

confuse the readers by introducing contradictions where they do

not belong.

 

I'm not introducing contradictions. He will get more of a "dramatic

effect"

with Kodak than he will with Maco. I said I rarely use red filters

with

Kodak (or Maco for that matter) BECAUSE I want a more

"dramatic effect". I

think you need to reread Ramiro's post.

 

>In general Ð you will achieve IR effect with Kodak IR film when

you use any

common red filter. ÒBlackÓ, or Òopaque IR filters have a cutoff

spectral

edge around 680 micrometers, and longer. (Regular red filters

cut the

visible spectrum at 580 - 600 um) That means that nearly all

visible to

human eye radiation is blocked around 680 um. Hence the filter

is called

ÒblackÓ or ÒopaqueÓ. Since IR red films have sensitivity extending

from blue

- 340 um to IR at 820um - Macophot, or 340 to 900um - Kodak

High Speed

Infrared film, the actual film speed will be reduced in either case

when

such filters are used.

 

Thanks for reposting all the information that is included in the

links I

posted above.

 

>Therefore, most likely one will need a tripod for proper

exposures.

 

Here is your second mistake Wieslaw: can you show me ONE

PLACE IN RAMIRO'S

POST WHERE HE SAYS HE DOESN'T WANT TO USE A

TRIPOD? You assume things and

then say others are contradicting themselves??? If he wants that

effect, he

obviously realized that an opaque filter will require a tripod.

Wieslaw,

most people understand that you can't see through an opaque

filter.

 

>In case of Kodak you do not need such a filter and

consequently no tripod.

 

He is already using a red filter... did you read his post?? He

wants a "more

dramatic effect". Hello? You really need to read Ramiro's post

over again.

Twice.

 

>Choose as you please, but the examples of IR photos shown

here are not

inspiring.

 

Well, if your judgement about photography is as good as your

explanation

about filtration, then I guess your comments are meaningless. I

looked in

your folder, were are your images? The "inspiring" ones, please.

 

>How many totems have you photographed Jon?

 

Just one Wieslaw. How many infrared pictures have you ever

taken?? My print

portfolio is full of them. You?

 

>Ole, it is not necessary to introduce another variable. IR effect =

IR film

which is sensitive to the range of electromagnetic spectrum as

mentioned

above. Can be modified by proper filtration. Antihalation layer has

nothing

to do with it.

 

Here is your third mistake: Kodak gets its distinct look from

"halation".

Here is the definition of halation from Laurie White's "Infrared

Photography

Handbook" page 104: "Halation: A halo-like flare surrounding

bright objects

on film. Halation is caused my light reflected from the film base."

Kodak

has no anti-halation coating. Maco does. Ole is correct: on top of

the IR

(Wood) effect, you get an additional flare from the lack of coating

on HIE.

 

>And if you like a ÒdreamyÓ look of the highlights you can

generate it by

putting a softar filter on the lens. With any film.

 

You will get a softer photo with that filter--but it won't give you the

halation. That is a separate issue from filtration. You might want

to read

the section "Kodak HIE & problems related to film pressure

plates, databacks

& IR-LED film counters" on WJ's page below to see how people

are dealing

with halation and reflective pressure plates. By the way, there

isn't one

mention of using a "softar".

 

 

So Wieslaw, considering all of your mistakes above, you should

do some

reading--or actually buy some IR film and try it. And, being the

generous

person I am, I'm going to assume that your aren't a troll just

arguing

because you don't have anything better to do--I'll just assume

that you like

to read about IR photography instead of actually doing it. So, I'll

give you

some links so you can reduce the number of mistaken beliefs

you have about

it:

 

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm

 

http://www.cocam.co.uk/CoCamWS/Infrared/INFRARED.HTM

 

http://www.amazon.com

 

I hope after you read up this, you won't have anymore Òwoodoo

believesÓ.

[wieslaw1]

I tried to be nice to you, Mr. Witsell, and limit my remarks to the technical reasoning, but I am afraid you suffer an inferiority complex, and are unable to accept divers views.

 

Prior to my previous comment I have checked your log at this forum and found the famous �Totem� picture displayed several times, but more importantly your childish responses to many discussions and bad manners have already antagonized other members. I take liberty to cite the reply by �James� to your ignorance. Here are the excerpts, I sign my name under it as well:

 

(The full lines can be found here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004IKL)

 

�I've been shooting IR for 10 years in all formats (8x10 to subminiature including 2 1/4) not just point and shoot 35mm, dev the film myself, print my images myself, and know that exposure and dev times will change depending on what look you want, contrast you are after, and that you can dev it in any kind of black and white dev you want.

IR film is (...) actually more sensitive to the blue end of the spectrum than most other black and white films which is one of the reasons you need a blue absorbing filter. Ah.......did you know that?

 

I don't see anything special in your totem image.

(...) Take a look at my IR images on usefilm.com/member james mickelson before opening that black void in the middle of your face. I don't know what you don't get in my answer to this question. (...)

 

But before you shoot your mouth off and dismiss someone elses methodology, make sure you know what you're talking about. Lumberjack

 

Oh, I have 3 images posted here on photo.net if you would like to see what else you can do with IR films. Not everything needs to have that overblown superhalated look. And you don't even need IR film to get that look.

James�

 

My full support James.

 

WA Zdaniewski --------------

 

PS. My photographs can be found, however I do not care Mr. Witsell, of your opinions. Spare your generosity and your literature sources, but I write books on photography myself.

[wieslaw1]

James,

 

The glow on Kodak film is a matter of taste. The fact that Kodak, for some reason, has chosen to manufacture such film, does not mean that this is characteristic of IR films in general. IR films are films sensitive to IR irrespectively of the presence or lack of an antihalation layer. Similarly, it is possible to manufacture panchromatic films without the antihalation layer and observe the �glow� of highlights. In fact such films have been produced in the past until improvements in processing made them obsolete.

 

Another, but related issue is creation of glow, or halo effect, by IR radiation penetrating into the surface of the subject photographed. I can show you very similar diffused effect achieved on IR films by other manufacturers. These films do have the antihalation layer and also produce the halo. However, I would prefer to do it in a private exchange of email, rather than at this forum while risking some idiot might come in-between.

 

Yes, I know what a lady�s stockings can do when you put the net on the camera lens. Or in reverse, on the enlarger lens.

[gene crumpler]

Get a copy of Laura White's book on IR. All the answers are there.