Infra Red: Girl in the Garden

Are these shot at night? Why did you use infrared?

"Are these shot at night? Why did you use infrared? "

 

No, they are not shot at night. One generally does not use IR film for night exposures, although I suppose that technically you could.

Infrared rays from the sun are mostly present during the day, so a really bright sunny day is usually considered the best time to shoot IR film, as it gives the most pronounced "infrared look". UV light is the spectrum of light thats available for night shots. You can capture UV light on any film, but infrared film is sensitive to a more extended spectrum of light than other films. In point of fact, it really only goes into the "near-infrared" spectrum, not the real infrared spectrum, but its called IR film just the same.

Monochrome infrared film is most common, but there is also color infrared film and I have some shots done with that in one of my other folders.

The reason for using IR film is simply: its interesting. I like the look of it, although I am still learning how to get the best from it. If you're interested in reading more about IR films, there is a fair amount of discussion about it in the Photo.net archives.

 

thanks for your comment...

Is this supposed to be beautiful or what?

a very interesting pic... not 'appealing' if you see it with just one angle.. but does have a gothic theme to it... creting the effect of ghosts and all those characters..

 

never knew IR could do it.. and check the background details.. they are good... also in IR the light is hidden so everything is imaginary.. and to get a good pic is just great..

 

nice going...

 

 

Amy thought my last comment was flippant so I'd better put it more seriously.

 

IMHO there should be some point in making a picture and if it is a photo of a person the artist has some responsibility towards the subject to make the picture interesting or appealing, at least fair. Using IR film produces the well-known black-eye effect & combined with the unflattering tight-lipped expression, the pseudo-provocative posture (with wide-angle distortion giving her a massive shoulder) & the ugly, ill-fitting underware the poor girl is made to look dreadful.

 

On top of this, the composition is pointlessly lop-sided with the shapeless foliage out of focus filling the left half of the photo. The whole thing is a mess.

 

OK ?

Can't put my finger on it. I like the model, clothing, pose. I'm not sure about the grain, and the background. What bothers me is the darkness of her eyes, I would have liked to see them, although in infrared it wouldn't be possible

Yikes, you can still use a flash and fill even with infrared. Several comments you have responded to on a soapbox around the bit of photo.net that I have explored, so I will attempt to be precise. The picture has issues, yes the eyes, the lips, the pose, the contrast, the styling. What is most evident is a need for new blood, not just .net blood either. So you don't like Natasha Merritt, good for you, but she takes risks. And in interviews she speaks well of her work. Sturges has a craft and art that while often muddled in controversy, is hard to find a flaw in. And Cindy Sherman was a good call, something to THINK about. She has an incredible craft, but it is often lost to her raging narcissism. The point is come up with ideas then opportunities. And looking at work can help, the elaborate world of Helmut Newton, the discipline of Sam Abell, the stupidity of Lisa Frank, whatever it is, think when you get BEHIND the camera.

I generally agree with Andrew in that it would be probably nice to make her more separated from the background, either by using flash or shallow DOF - or at least put her in the shadow while the background is nearly overexposed. I certainly wouldn't give it 2/2, thou, because it is a good overall work.