jonpaul_hills

<p>I have a B&W filter that has a cutoff of 695 nm. I don’t know what exact filter it is, but the glass on it is bright shiny blue. I have used it with both the Efke IR820 (aura and non aura) as well as with Ilford SFX. The lower cutoff is just enough to make your exposure times slightly more managable, while still mantaining a strong IR look.</p>

<p>Thank you all! I believe that I now know exactly what I need. I appreciate all the help!</p>

 

<p>I’m looking to buy a very cheap EOS body on a budget to have it converted to IR. Looking at 20D and 10D. Is 6 megapixels enough to get good pictures?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Alright I will try that. Thanks!<br>

 </p>

<p>I shoot a little differently. I have tried shooting the way you do, leaving the WB how it is, but I always end up with my leaves and my sky being too close in color for me to make anything of it. I'm assuming you swap channels around is Photoshop? Right now I usually take a custom white balance off of random foliage and use that. Would I get better results shooting the way you do?<br>

You can see one of my shots, unedited, in my photos. <br>

It's not letting me post it here...</p>

 

<p>I am using a Canon T1i. My thought is to take it apart and remove the hot filter, so that my exposure times would be more manageable, but i could still shoot non-infrared shots as well. What do you think would be the effect on the color images if the hot filter was not in place?</p>

<p>Hello there! <br>

I am 18 years old, and have fallen in love with Infrared Photography. I have been involved with photography for several years, starting with black and white film, then moving to infrared film. I took the leap to digital about two years ago to save money on film, chemicals, and darkroom rental. I have been taking infrared photos with a Hoya R72 filter and a tripod, sometimes reaching into the several minute range of exposure. When doing some research on infrared conversion, I have found that shutter speeds are significantly faster once the camera is converted. I absolutely love "tinkering" with my equipment, and having already converted 3 Canon FD lenses to work with my EOS body with nothing but a pair of pliers and superglue, I believe I have the skill to do at least some basic modifications to a camera on my own. I found a tutorial on converting a camera to IR at home, by simply removing the hot filter and replacing it with an IR filter. My question is this. If I were to gut my camera, remove the hot filter, and then put it back together without adding the IR filter, could I get equal results by just sticking my Hoya R72 on the end of the lens like I am currently? I realize I wont be able to look through the viewfinder, but in terms of exposure times and image quality, would it be the same? <br>

Any advice will be very helpful!<br>

JonPaul</p>

<p>Hi there. I have an EF mount Canon EOS camera, and a large collection of old FD lenses that I have a sentimental attachment to, and so would like to be able to use. I want to be able to retain infinity focus, and would also very much like to avoid using an adapter with optics in it. I have seen some people who have done their own FD to EF conversions, and I have decided that I will try to do this myself. I know the FD lens has to be about 2mm closer to the sensor than it did for film cameras in order to retain infinity focus. My main question going into this conversion is whether or not there is a specific way to remove the space, or if I can just remove the FD mount, chop off 2mm of metal, and screw on the EF mount, with some experimentation of course. If anybody knows about this, I would appreciate any help.<br>

I am aware that this is a task for skilled metal workers, but I would like to try it.<br>

I am also aware that it may be much easier to simply buy some inexpensive EF lenses, but I would like to use my current lenses.<br>

Thank you everybody! <br>

JonPaul Hills</p>

<p>Thank you everybody for all the help! I've learned a lot! Ill look into the listed adapters and hopefully figure all this out.</p>

 

<p>So would it be correct of me to say that if I purchase an FD>EOS adapter that contains optics, the infinity focus will not be lost?</p>

<p>Thank you for the help everybody!<br>

My intention would be to use an adapter that does not contain any optics, so merely changing the mount. I am confused about the "loss of infinity focus" part. Is this saying that i will not be able to focus on things that are far away? Does this affect everyday casual photography, or is it just an issue with landscape photography? And can it be compensated for by simply shutting down the aperture?</p>

 

<p>Hi there. <br>

I have been shooting film for a while now, and would like to buy a Canon digital camera to replace my old Canon AE-1. I have a significant amount of equipment for my film camera, and I know that you can purchase adapters to put the old FD lenses onto the new Canons, but I was wondering if anybody knew how the image quality would turn out in this situation. I would love to be able to just buy the adapter instead of buying a whole new array of lenses, but I have no idea how well the glass quality of the old lenses would compare with the new lenses. I'm not looking for professional level image quality, but I also would like to avoid taking "junk" pictures. If anybody has used the FD lenses on newer cameras and has advice, or knows anything about how well the image quality would hold up, I would love to know.<br>

Thank you everybody!<br>

JonPaul Hills</p>

Hi there. I have been looking at some fisheye conversion lenses and have found a few that appear to be of good quality. Some of

them say that they are meant for digital camcorders, but still have filter threads for attachment. Is there any reason why I couldn't just

slap of of these lenses meant for video recorders on the end of my trusty Canon AE-1 and start snapping pictures?

<p>Thanks for the tips everybody! </p>

<p> I have a Canon AE-1 and I really want to get ahold of some macro bellows and try out macro photography. I was looking around and it seems like the best option for film would be something with fine grain, and good contrast. Right now it's looking like I'm going to try some Ilford Pan F-50, a film a shoot landscapes with. I like this film for its fine grain. I know very little about macro photography with bellows, so does anybody know if this film would work well? Also, is there an equation or way to find out how much I will have to compensate for light loss with the extension of the bellows? And is there an equation or way to figure out how much you have to extend the bellows in order to get true 1:1 macro magnification?<br>

Thanks for the time everybody!<br>

JonPaul Hills</p>

<p>Alright thanks everybody! That all helps a lot!</p>

Hello. I shoot a lot of black and white film, and also a lot of infrared films. I keep hearing about the reciprocity factor, and I don't really

understand what it even is. I understand it can effect the image, and it appears with long exposure times, but I don't fully understand

what it entails. If anybody can explain this to me, that would be fantastic.

Thanks everyone!

JonPaul Hills

<p>I shoot the Efke IR820 at ISO 1. If you can set your camera to ISO 25, then correct five stops and you are at ISO 1. I always shoot at ISO 1, and then bracket an additional 5 stops for the filter factor (Hoya R72). It might seem like you could just find which one works, but I can't find a constant. So put a Hoya R72 filter on, shoot at ISO 1, then take the same image again, this time adding another 5 stops. It will usually put you around the 6-10 sec range with the filter factor. I've gotten very good results using this technique. (Also, REMEMBER TO LOAD AND UNLOAD THIS FILM EITHER IN COMPLETE DARKNESS, OR UNDER FLUORESCENT LIGHT!!! IR radiation can make its way through the felt of the film canister. I have had many a roll flashed on the first half from light getting in during foolish loading procedures) </p>

Garrys camera repair does great work. They fixed my canon AE-1 program for 50 dollars. Just google them.

I shoot this film with a B&W 092 deep red filter and get good IR effects. The shutter speed usually is around 1/2

second. I meter by estimating color temperature for the scene, then compensating one stop for each 10 percent

increase or decrease in temp from 5500 degrees. If you have not researched color temperature, Laurie White has a book called

"The Infrared Photography Handbook" that teaches all about estimating color temperature. This film is often looked at

as a film that does not offer great infrared qualities, but it can be coaxed into giving very pleasing results.

I have shot several rolls of the Ilford SFX 200, and contrary to popular belief, I have achieved stricking infrared rich

shots. With a B&W 092 filter shooting the entire roll in the sun at 1/2 shutter and f/11, I could get good results. Bracket

some for IR rich subjects. This film can give pictures that are far closer to those taken with Efke IR 820 and the like

than most believe.

I've had good luck with a B&W 092 filter and my aperture set at f/11 and shutter at 1/2. Look into what objects reflect

large amounts of IR light (foilage, sand) and what objects reflect minimal IR light, and bracket +1 and -1 when the shot

contains a lot of these objects. I develop in Ilford ID-11 for 10 min at 68 degrees.

Hello. I shoot a lot of 35 mm infrared film, and I love the halo effect given by the lack of an anti-halation backing. I know that all

standard black and white films have this feature, and I know that the backing is usually water soluble. This leads me to the question I

have been dying to know the answer to. If I were to soak the film, prior to even loading it into my camera to shoot, would it remove

the anti-halation backing? And would the film then be rendered useless from water damage, or could I dry it out, and have a roll of

black and white film that would have the halo effect I so love with my IR film? If anybody has tried this or knows if it would work, let

me know! Thanks everybody!

<p>Hi everybody, I need something explained to me. I'm just learning about expansion and contraction of black and white film during processing for value control, and I am a little confused. I understand that N+1 is an expansion, and N-1 is a contraction, but I don't understand how long the +1 is. If you had a developing time of 10 minutes, is N+1 11 minutes? And N-1 9 minutes? I don't understand if the +1 and -1 are a set amount of time, or if it is a percentage of the original time. If anybody can help me understand, I would appreciate it. <br>

Thanks everybody.</p>

<p>Awesome. Thanks for the help.</p>