How about some infrared images

[Nana Sousa Dias]

That only applies to the "normal" layer, the one sensitive to visible light. The speed of the IR-sensitive layer is much lower.
If you want to use it as a regular black and white film, disregarding its infrared sensitivity, then it is an ASA 400 film indeed (and a great one at that).

Great pictures, by the way.

Thank you, Vlad.

What I don't understand is how can someguys get a great Wood effect with the same filter that I used (89b), with a E.I. of 25 and 50 asa, when I had to use 1,5 and 3 asa.
Well, I guess I'll have to try it again with 1,5, 3, 6, 12, 25 and 50 asa...

[Philippe Grunchec]

Nana,

Don't change anything, your photos are great the way they are!

[Bryan Lemasters]

It does not look to me like you are doing anything wrong! That first shot is especially stunning, with nice tonal range. Great job! According to the specs from this link http://www.digitaltruth.com/products...i_Infrared.pdf
this film is rated at ASA 25 when using an 88A filter, which passes a bit more light than the 89B. Your 1.5 ASA sounds consistent w/ other IR films with sensitivity to 820nm. Kodak HIE is the only film that I've found that gives the full IR "wood" look that you describe. Everything else is a bit more subtle and, yes, often disappointing.

[SergeyT]

25 (IR) ASA - 4 stops (for 89b) = 1.5 ASA
No need to chage anything

[drew.saunders]

A few more from this past weekend.

This one turned out pretty well. I was expecting some blur from the wind for the exposure, I just thought the gazebo would be sharper:


I could say that the next image is meant to deconstruct something or some other art critic stuff, but I just plain messed up. I think I put the film in the holder with the emulsion facing inwards:


And the next one was a bit denser than ideal (a rare thing with Efke IR820), but I wanted to know what a close up of a cactus in IR would look like, and here it is:


Drew

[jvuokko]

Couple of Macophot IR820c Aura shots (4x5):

[tmastran]

A few photos made with Rollei IR 400. I used Cokin 007 filter (wich I believe it's a 89b) E.I. 1,5 asa and developed with Rodinal, 1+50, 10m30s at 20ºC on a Jobo ATL2.

Nana,

These are all outstanding. The composition, lighting, and tones. What strikes me is the apparent sharpness in these JPG images. How were they created? Are these scans from prints or scans from negatives? Were they drum scanned? Or am I just seeing good sharpening technique?

Thanks!

[Craig Griffiths]

A couple from the last few days, both Efke IR820 with 89B filter. Both developed in Rodinal 1+25. ISO of 3 for both.

The first is 8x10 and the second 4x10.

[Nana Sousa Dias]

Nana,

These are all outstanding. The composition, lighting, and tones. What strikes me is the apparent sharpness in these JPG images. How were they created? Are these scans from prints or scans from negatives? Were they drum scanned? Or am I just seeing good sharpening technique?

Thanks!

Hi, Ted

These are negative scans made with a Epson V-700 scanner. I wish I could afford a drum scanner!!!

This Rollei IR 400 is a very sharp filme, indeed. I just did the usual in photoshop, Levels, a little unsharp mask, resize and "Sharpen".

[drew.saunders]

I took some Efke IR820 to Point Lobos this past Monday, to see how it would do in cloudy/overcast/drizzly weather. In short, it really doesn't do well in overcast conditions, as even calculating the exposure at ISO 1 was at least 2 stops underexposed. These two images turned out OK:



I thought the lacy lichen (the stuff that looks like Spanish Moss, but isn't) would be brighter in IR than the trees, but it's pretty neutral.



I could claim that I intended the sky to look so moody, and there may be some effect from the misty sky and impending rain, but I think it's just an effect of the underexposure.

I also discovered on one of the 6 shots that it is possible to load the film with the piece of paper stuck to it in the holder and not notice. And for another shot I must have left the preview lever open on the lens, as I finally got a sheet of IR820 to be completely overexposed, but it must have taken about 5 minutes of light to do that.

It's always an adventure with that film, isn't it?