kevinteo

<p>Probably not; but the IR filters that are fitted vary from one manufacturer to another. I

think this sort of filter is aimed at cameras like the Leica M8 where the filter must be placed

over the lens rather than over the sensor. See here for more info: <a

href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-M8-

take2.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-M8-

take2.shtml</a>. The 486 filter that Michael Reichmann mentions is B+W's equivalent of the

Heliopan Digital filter.</p>

<p>There is quite a big difference. UV filters block almost all UV light below about 330 nm,

but transmit well into the infrared region. The digital filter cuts IR as well, which helps reduce

the excessive red sensitivity found in some cameras.<br>

<img src="http://www.heliopan.de/images/produkte/digital-video/digital-

video_diagramm.gif"></p>

<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>

<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>

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?

<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>

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.

Apologies in advance if this sounds like a MS Windows try-anything approach to trouble-

shooting, but here goes...

<p>Do DVDs still play in <a href="http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-

macosx.html">VideoLAN client</a>?</p>

<p>What about trying to reset the <a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?

artnum=2238">PMU</a> or <a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?

artnum=2238">PRAM/NVRAM</a>?</p>

<p>What about booting from the CD/DVD and repairing the volume using the Disk

Utility?</p>

<p>What about flashing the drive firmware? There's a lot of RPC-1 stuff that can be found

from one of the links on this page - <a href="http://www.powerbook-

fr.com/dossiers/dvd_region_free_en_article30.html">http://www.powerbook-

fr.com/dossiers/dvd_region_free_en_article30.html</a></p>

I recall that Rolland Elliot used to chop down 70mm IR film into 120/220 rolls. The paper

backing is supposed to be wound tight enough that you won't get light leaks or fogging if

you load it in subdued light.

<p><i>I have each of these along with a Voigtlander Bessa (not the rangefinder model),

and I'm assuming the Bessa would be a nicer, higher-end camera than the Kodak just by

virtue of being a Voigtlander, but again, in my ignorance I could be wrong.</i></p>

<p>I think the Bessa had a pretty wide pricing range in a given model year depending on

what lens and shutter went on the body.</p>

<p>I've found these three sites to be quite interesting-<br>

<a

href="http://www.ukcamera.com/classic_cameras/voigt7.htm">http://www.ukcamera.co

m/classic_cameras/voigt7.htm</a><br>

<a

href="http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Bessa_RF_histo.html">http://www.taunusreite

r.de/Cameras/Bessa_RF_histo.html</a><br>

<a

href="http://www.retrography.com/bessa.htm">http://www.retrography.com/bessa.htm

</a></p>

<p>And speaking of Kevin's post, I came across a box of 8X10 Panatomic-X glass plates

at my local swap meet; in retrospect, I wonder now if I should have bought it.</p>

<p>If you're looking at shallow DOF (and therefore bokeh), also note that the ƒ/1.2 has

nine aperture blades, the ƒ/1.8 has seven.</p>

<p>Red (yellow) and yellow (white) tulips. Voigtländer Bessa R2M, 35mm Nokton, B+W

099 filter, Kodak Ektachrome Infrared.</p><div></div>

<p><i>The inner element is held by rivets on the plate it is mounted on, so I would advise

against removing it</i></p>

<p>Thanks Ralf. I think I will heed your advice.</p>

<p><br><i>there is no such camera as a Voigtlander Brilliant</i></p>

<p>The Voigtländer Brilliant (spelt Brillant on the German versions) was a pseudo-TLR

built from 1932 to 1950. They were produced in a metal body until June 1937 with later

models being made with Bakelite™.</p>

<p>There are cameras from Fujifilm that are made for infrared photography.<br>

<a href="http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductIS-

Pro.jsp">http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductIS-

Pro.jsp</a></p>

I recently obtained a scanned copy (copyright expired) of a 1911 book on orthochromatic

filtration by Wratten and Wainwright (now part of Kodak). They refer to "ordinary",

"orthochromatic" and "panchromatic" plates. Shows the changes in what constituted

"ordinary", or what sort of speed is "fast".

I've included a few pages that I found interesting.<div></div>

<p><i>Is there no f16 setting or can you position it midway between f11 and f22?</i></p>

<p>Unfortunately not. This camera uses Waterhouse stops rather than an iris diaphragm. It

goes ƒ/7.7, ƒ/11, ƒ/22. That's it.</p>

Ralf, any idea how to get at the inside of the second element? Your post inspired me to have

a look at mine... Took the front element off, but I've still got something on the underside of

that second one.<div></div>

Funny that you should mention Panatomic X, I've still got a small stash left... Now I'm

preparing to buy a small load of Ektachrome Infrared for hoarding... Maybe you could try

double-bagging them in those film-safe lead bags. Might be cheaper than lining the freezer

with lead. ;)

<p>If you use something like a 28mm or 35mm lens and set it at the hyperfocal distance at

f/16, anything ≥ 5 feet will be in focus.</p>

<p>It depends... 16mm on which format? Anything with a field of view wider than about

75° will result in even polarization.</p>