Night-Vision tools in the darkroom ?

[Ken Lee]

Can anyone recommend a brand or model of night vision goggles or monocular, to be used in the darkroom ? Affordability is a consideration.

I have read that this tool can allow you to do unencumbered development by inspection, and see all aspects of film loading, tray development, etc.

Please don't consider this as an opportunity for yet another "purist" discussion: it is a sincere question. Thanks !

[Alan Davenport]

I'm pretty sure all of the "affordable" NVGs will be Soviet surplus. Try www.cheaperthandirt.com for starters.

[Michael Kadillak]

I recently wrote a short post at michaelandpaula.com in the Azo forum, Developing film section, called DBI - a Viable Improvement. Should contain all of the information you need. Let me know if you have any additional questions. I have been using this technique for quite some time.

Cheers!

[Bruce Watson]

Enhanced vision in the dark comes in at least a couple of flavors. One is light amplification (the so-called "starlight" rifle scopes and night vision products). Another is infrared, or "heat vision." If your darkroom is actually dark, as in no light to amplify, I think your best bet may be infrared.

As Alan said, the affordable stuff is Soviet surplus.

[John Z.]

The night vision goggles are a great tool; I second the thread that Michael recommended above on the AZO forum; lots of good information there that helped me decide on a product.

[Eric Woodbury]

Thermal vision will be too expensive. 'Light amplification' or near IR are your choices. Remember, though, that for you to see it, it has to be visible and that light can leak out of goggles. Also, people have developed film for a long time without this technology. It's not that hard.

[Ken Lee]

I have gone ahead and ordered a $ 219 "ATN Night Vision Goggles with Headgear", as mentioned by Sean Ross in Michael's excellent Azo Forum posting (http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/AzoForum/one.asp?ID=6011&PgNo=&GID=6011&CID=2" target="_blank).

[Ken Lee]

Correction: Jeremy Moore

[Ken Lee]

I finally got the night vision monocular, and took it for a test drive. What a tremendous experience !

I haven't had this kind of photographic experience since I first saw a print develop in the tray, over 40 years ago.

I decided to become accustomed to the device by first mixing my chemicals in total darkness. No problem: except that some forms of paint are not very readable under IF light. I needed to mark one or two vessels with laundry marker so that they could be read.

I developed 6 sheet of 5x7 in 8x10 trays, and once they are dry, I am confident that there will be few scratches if any. After all, I could see each sheet while flipping. J&C Classic 400 is rather soft, and I have scratched some before, no matter how careful I was - so this will be a good test.

Next steps: 8x10, developing by inspection. DBI w/NVG

[Michael Kadillak]

Glad that you are please with the experience.

One thing I would add to my previous comments on this subject. I have added an infrared LED bank of 40 small IR bulbs to the wall of my darkroom as supplimental illumination for those images that require N to the moon development and for which highlights are visually challenging to differentiate and qualify. I activate it when necessary with my old green filter safelight DBI foot switch. This may come in handy for you Ken when you are developing your alternative process negatives to a higher density range.

Cheers!

[Ken Lee]

Michael -

Could you tell us more about how to make that bank of LEDs, and also: where can one find an affordable foot-switch ?

It seems that with my unit, the negatives are most "inspectable" while in the developer. However, the only way to inspect them is when they are lying flat, on top of the other negatives. A bank of lights would be perfect.

When viewing against the bank of LED's do you turn off/cover up the IR "projector" ?

[Michael Kadillak]

Ken:

I can tell you that with the monocle I have, I can not only see them clearly in the developer individually (without other negatives behind ) after less than a minute and I can take them out of the tray at any point and clearly see highlight formation (or the lack thereof). An important point to consider. The quality and the intensity of the infrared illimunator and the ability to control this from a point light source to a wide source with the twist of a dial (mine has that). If the infrared source is to intense (ie. optimized for distance) it is not the best for close focusing as is the case with working with film at arms length, as it will could tend to reflect off of the film surface than penetrate it for visual observation. If you pull a sheet of film you are developing individually out of the tray at about 8 - 10 minutes and hold it at arms length, you should be able to get a very good assessment of the highlights formation without any difficulty. My only point of reference is my goggles and I purposefully bought an Argus monocle because of quality issues I was concerned about specific with my photographic application and paid $350 and have not been disappointed. You are going to have to experiment with this out for yourself.

The foot switch information can be found at michaelandpaula.com Azo forum, film development, half way down under title "Foot Switch". I believe I paid about $20 for a foot switch that I hold down to turn on and when I release my foot, it goes off.

The infrared LED bank I acquired on E Bay ($20) and it came with 39 lights in a circular device on a bracket that I screwed into the wall and put a $5 diffused light globe over that I got at Wal Mart. If the negative is really dense, I may turn off the IR device on the scope and just use the IR source on the other side of the negative. If you want me to provide you with the vendor that I got my IR LED bank, let me know. They sell them for surveilance as light sources and are readily available in many configurations. Talk about illumination - WOW.

Hope that helps.

[Mark Sawyer]

I think DBI using NVG's under LED's runs the danger of too many TLA's.

[alec4444]

Old thread, and not a lot posted on the topic. I gave my night vision goggles a go the other night while doing some 11x14 tray development. Some notes here in case someone wants to give it a go:

I used the el cheapo night vision monocular you can get on Amazon.com that comes with a head mount for around $200 new. Getting the head mount set up was a PITA, but once done it's pretty easy to take on and off. Everything was prepped in regular room light prior to development. Once the lights were out, I flipped the switch and it was damned bright in that room! Made unloading the filmholders a breeze.

After pre-wash, negs went in the developer. All three negs I was developing were shot without a shutter and with "guesstimated" apertures. The first two were clearly more exposed than the third, as development progressed noticeably faster. I pulled them early, while the third neg continued to develop. Timing was a bit of a nuisance - the monocular does not have a great amount of depth of field, so you need to constantly adjust the focus to look at different things.....like trays versus your watch.

Fixed, rinsed, good to go. Couple post-development observations:
--The focusing (again) is somewhat of a nuisance, but you can get used to that.
--Developing film is slightly different than paper - all three negs came out equally under-developed, but printable. I think it will take some time to get used to what I'm looking for in the neg and be able to consistently tell it's "done".
--Fixing with the goggles is pretty awesome - you can really see how fast it clears and thus, to some extent, how potent the remaining fixer is.
--If you're like me, you tried writing down your exposures and notes in the field and you're just not that organized or disciplined enough to maintain it. Development by inspection will make it so that differences in exposure won't be that important anyway! :D
--This is also a MUST if you're "winging it" with aperture and shutter calculations.

All in all, really impressed and excited to hone my skills! The purchase seems well worth it!

--A

[Ken Lee]

With the el Cheapo model I have, it definitely takes some experience to judge the high values, IE the densest parts of the negative. This is natural, since we are not seeing them on a light table, but rather by reflected light. That's why others have built the equivalent of a light table.

You'll get more comfortable when you develop some negatives that were exposed normally. No sense describing it, since it's something you have to see.

[R Mann]

I am using a Viper which has a rubber cap/filter which stops the lens down using a "pinhole" - this increases the depth of field a lot. It does dim the image so its a trade off - I am doing developing by inspection and I agree there is a learning curve. I look at both sides to check progress - most of the time I use hangers and a dip tank so it is fairly easy to flip it over during development. I think you will find them a great investment.

[Michael Kadillak]

Old thread, and not a lot posted on the topic. I gave my night vision goggles a go the other night while doing some 11x14 tray development. Some notes here in case someone wants to give it a go:

I used the el cheapo night vision monocular you can get on Amazon.com that comes with a head mount for around $200 new. Getting the head mount set up was a PITA, but once done it's pretty easy to take on and off. Everything was prepped in regular room light prior to development. Once the lights were out, I flipped the switch and it was damned bright in that room! Made unloading the filmholders a breeze.

After pre-wash, negs went in the developer. All three negs I was developing were shot without a shutter and with "guesstimated" apertures. The first two were clearly more exposed than the third, as development progressed noticeably faster. I pulled them early, while the third neg continued to develop. Timing was a bit of a nuisance - the monocular does not have a great amount of depth of field, so you need to constantly adjust the focus to look at different things.....like trays versus your watch.

Fixed, rinsed, good to go. Couple post-development observations:
--The focusing (again) is somewhat of a nuisance, but you can get used to that.
--Developing film is slightly different than paper - all three negs came out equally under-developed, but printable. I think it will take some time to get used to what I'm looking for in the neg and be able to consistently tell it's "done".
--Fixing with the goggles is pretty awesome - you can really see how fast it clears and thus, to some extent, how potent the remaining fixer is.
--If you're like me, you tried writing down your exposures and notes in the field and you're just not that organized or disciplined enough to maintain it. Development by inspection will make it so that differences in exposure won't be that important anyway! :D
--This is also a MUST if you're "winging it" with aperture and shutter calculations.

All in all, really impressed and excited to hone my skills! The purchase seems well worth it!

--A

The focus is easily dealt with. You have a couple of options. First make sure that you are taking advantage of any rotational eyepiece adjustments if you have them. Mine have considerable adjustment at the eyepiece. Secondly. I focus at roughly my fingers with my arm straight and I move the film for and aft to keep things in focus. Lastly, if your monocle comes with a front cap with a small hole in it you can always use it with the cap on as it is like a lens at a smaller aperture relative to focus. The image is a bit dimmer but you have a deeper DOF.

Cheers!

[alec4444]

Lastly, if your monocle comes with a front cap with a small hole in it you can always use it with the cap on as it is like a lens at a smaller aperture relative to focus. The image is a bit dimmer but you have a deeper DOF.

Crap, I totally forgot about that! :o I do have a pinhole cap....

Thanks guys for the tips. Agreed, I probably should have exposed an initial sheet of film with an accurate shutter and developed by time to see what it looks like. Next time for sure!

--A

[Gary L. Quay]

For $29.00 I bought an LED light that I wear on my head like a miners' light. It has a red LED surrounded by 5 white ones. The red one is perfect for darkroom work. I got it at an auto parts store.

--Gary

[Michael Kadillak]

For $29.00 I bought an LED light that I wear on my head like a miners' light. It has a red LED surrounded by 5 white ones. The red one is perfect for darkroom work. I got it at an auto parts store.

--Gary

In the same vein that John Sexton encourages his students at his classes to perform a test for their darkroom safelights to technically verify the fact that these safelights are in fact "safe" I would pose the same question here.

Pure infrared light is invisible to the human eye. Since the devices that we are using in the darkroom were designed for weekend warriors the red glow of visible light was injected to let the operator know that these units are in fact turned on. If we can see the light I make the contention that the film can as well. Higher ASA film will be obviously more susceptible to fogging from this visible light source. The other variables are the intensity of the visible light source and the distance this source is from the film you are working with.

As a result I have tested the red IR light source that came with my monocle and I found that it does in fact add fog to the film that I was working with. I put a black piece of electrical tape in complete darkness down the center of a sheet of film and emulated working with in about the same time that I developed it in trays and turned off the monocle and pulled the tape and developed it in complete darkness and could visibly see the fog on the sheet film. I did not even have to get out my densitometer. If you do not take this variable seriously and perform your own testing you could be adding FB+F that could totally escape your detection and believe that all is completely well. It would be the same as using out of date film when you took the time and effort to insure that your film is in fact fresh from the manufacturer. To solve this problem for me I have a small 24 LED IR light source behind the sink on the wall on a foot switch behind a diffused globe that blocks out the red glow and I have a second LED IR light bank that I bounce off of an adjacent wall that works fine. I take the batteries off of the IR light source and leave it off of the monocle and do not have any other IR light source on my head but one really needs to perform your own testing.

There are all sorts of creative iterations along these lines. I saw a guy that was was developing single sheet film in glass trays with enormous LED light banks below the trays that I can only imagine how much FB+F was being induced into the equation but he said that his negatives printed perfectly.

If printing through excessive FB+F is acceptable to you that is perfectly fine with me as life is a series of tradeoffs. Personally I feel that LF and ULF are inherently expensive processes and I want to do the best that I can with the materials that I use to produce the best results. Testing to assess this variable is a simple process. Then you have hard data to either continue with this information in hand or make adjustments to improve the process.

If anyone else has performed the tests we would love to hear what you found. We need to be careful that we do not take two steps forward and unintentionally one step back.

Just my $0.02.

Cheers!

[Jan Pedersen]

Michael, Do you know if the Argus model you are using is still available? I have been trying to locate a dealer but nothing has come up so far.
Thanks.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, Do you know if the Argus model you are using is still available? I have been trying to locate a dealer but nothing has come up so far.
Thanks.

I did a quick search as well Jan and all I came up with is the number for Argus International in California as it appears that the Argus M monocle is not currently being stocked. ARGUS International is listed as 831 461 4700. I have no idea if the number is valid. Just passing it along.

Cheers!

[Ken Lee]

"If anyone else has performed the tests we would love to hear what you found. We need to be careful that we do not take two steps forward and unintentionally one step back".

Perhaps different models produce different amounts of visible light.

In the years since this post first appeared and I got my IR device, I have never noticed anything deleterious, with either paper or film - but then I have never performed a rigorous test either. So my experience is... anecdotal.

The walls in the bathroom/darkroom where I worked for several years, were off-white. Now I have a darkroom, and they are gray. If there is some additional base fog, I can't see it, and have had no problem working with it. For me, the benefits far out-weigh any disadvantages.

[Michael Kadillak]

"If anyone else has performed the tests we would love to hear what you found. We need to be careful that we do not take two steps forward and unintentionally one step back".

Perhaps different models produce different amounts of visible light.

In the years since this post first appeared and I got my IR device, I have never noticed anything deleterious, with either paper or film - but then I have never performed a rigorous test either. So my experience is... anecdotal.

The walls in the bathroom/darkroom where I worked for several years, were off-white. Now I have a darkroom, and they are gray. If there is some additional base fog, I can't see it, and have had no problem working with it. For me, the benefits far out-weigh any disadvantages.

I am only mentioning the testing procedure for units that have an attached IR illumination unit that one turns on during film developing as a first step for testing. That is where I found fogging to in fact take place and it was not inconsequential. I about fell over when I saw it on the test negative. I had been dealing with it with complete satisfaction for months and it was not until I read Sexton's recommendation for a darkroom safe light test procedure that I took this seriously. If you bounce an separate IR illumination unit off of an adjacent wall that is a completely different animal that has a far lower probability of negative consequences.

In a very polite and professional manner let me be the devils advocate.

If you do not do a 10 minute test you are making a conclusion based upon an assumption as opposed to dealing with facts. But where does one draw the line as to the benefits outweighing the disadvantage and possibly making adjustments to lower this? 0.05 density units? 0.2 density units +?

Normal development has a way of masking this issue for obvious reasons. If you are finding yourself needing to extend development for a low contrast scene it could be baggage that one should not need to carry.

In this day and age I assume nothing. For me the buck stops here. I just work better with facts.

Cheers!

[Ken Lee]

Excellent advice. I will perform a test as soon as I can.

Much obliged !

[Michael Kadillak]

Great Ken. I would be interested in hearing what your test concludes as inherently we all are using different monocles with varying IR illumination intensities.

Have a great day!

[Jan Pedersen]

Michael, thank you for the info, i did find a couple of other Monoculars that seems promissing. More research to be done.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, thank you for the info, i did find a couple of other Monoculars that seems promissing. More research to be done.

I have been using my IR monocle for several years now and treat it with kid gloves. Knock on wood - so far all I have had to do is replace batteries. I would be curious what is currently available and at what price target? Maybe when you complete your research you could let us collectively know what you arrived at?

At the end of the day we are all in this gig together. I am still infinitely grateful for the countless members of this forum that years ago assisted me with my countless questions.

Smile. It sure beats the alternative....

[John Bowen]

a search of Amazon.com turned up an Argus M monocle. 1 available for $419....at least it was available yesterday.

Good luck!

[Michael Kadillak]

Ouch. That is the company that I purchased my Argus M monocle from that cost he $320 with the headset nearly four years ago. As the technology improves the prices should come down particularly for Gen 1. I am sure that there must be some company that still produces an affordable monocle for this application.

When I first looked at night vision goggles 10 years ago Generation 1 prices were over $2,000 which put them out of the range of all photographers. Six years later the price dropped like a rock in the lake and the possibilities are considerable. I believe that Jan will find a new trove of possibilities quite possibly even better than what we are using now. I mix my photo chemicals from bulk a gallon at a time and am sending Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee a fat check for a Lodima order as it is an absolutely marvelous paper. I printed some Lodima again today and it is just fabulous.

Analog - what a concept. It simply does not get any better.....

Cheers!

[Clyde Rogers]

This thread (and Michael's thread on the Azo forum) were really helpful in my foray into night vision for sheet film development the past two weekends. Thanks to all who've shared their experiences.

I've just started tray development of 7x17 film using night vision goggles. I decided to try the cheapest route possible, and bought a set of "Eyeclops Night Vision Goggles" from the Target toy department for $68.

Surprisingly, they aren't bad. Problem one, they don't focus close enough. I tried attaching a pinhole over the lens, and it helped quite a bit, but they weren't good enough to evaluate details. The goggles also include two light sources---a switch selects either a clearly-bad-for-film glowing red ring of LEDs, or a small bank of invisible LEDs for shorter ranges (one or the other is always on).

I decided to take the goggles apart, and found that the lens actually can be focused down to inches once you pick off the adhesive they use to fix the focus, so I set them for arm's length. I removed and dremeled out the ring of visible LEDs around the lens, which both provided me with a way to switch the remaining dimmer lights on and off, and gave me a place to reach into the unit to tweek focus.

I also got a 940nm 104-LED surveillance video light (about $80) and put it on the ceiling, pointing down at my developer tray. This is one bright little light with the goggles. Without goggles, it gives a very faint red glow when viewed directly head on (far less than the glow-in-the-dark hands on my GraLab timer). I got this light to try to get the pinhole working better, but now with the focusing lens it likely isn't needed. Still, if you're looking for a safe IR light source for a darkroom, this one seems very good.

Before doing good images, I ran a film test. I put a sheet of efke 100 on the back of a tray in my sink (where the developer tray sits), and had both the goggles light and the ceiling video light blast it for 20 minutes, uncovering another part of the film every 5 minutes. I used the goggles to develop the film and checked all over it with a densitometer. No variation at all, no change from film base plus fog density over the entire film.

I've done several runs of real images now, and am very pleased with the results. I have adjusted development times on the fly with good effect and great ease. The things I'd like better are a wider field of view, finer resolution, and more comfortable straps. Still, they really do work for me, and I'm quite satisfied that I've got my $68 worth.

Later,

Clyde

[dng88]

Hi Clyde,

It is much cheaper than 300 pounds. Do you think the goggle can be used by people wearing glass?

Dennis

[dng88]

Also, for the led light, it seemed we have two types - one for 850 nm and one for 940 nm, any difference? Thanks for any advice in advance.

[Ken Lee]

I also got a 940nm 104-LED surveillance video light (about $80) and put it on the ceiling, pointing down at my developer tray.

Brilliant ! Where can one purchase those, please ? Does it screw into a socket like a standard light bulb ?

I haven't run a rigorous "shadow" test, but I too noticed that (to my eyes) the light from my GraLab appears far brighter than the red LED on my monocular.

[dng88]

On the evil b, you have

##p NEW 5mm INFRA RED LED LAMP in %%%nm FREE SHIPPING

where you have 50/100 for ## and 840/950 for %%% ...and they are $15 or $26, free shipping to HK.

BTW, is your goggle ok for spectacle wearer? Same question as I am asking Rogers as yours are different from his.

[Ken Lee]

I use an ATN Viper. You can see a full description here (http://www.atncorp.com/NightVision/NightVisionBinocularsGoggles/ATNViper). According to the web site, the diopter adjustment is +/- 5. It has a flexible rubber eye-cup.

I purchased mine on the eBay store of Optics Plus (http://stores.ebay.com/OpticsPlus). The model I got, is here (http://cgi.ebay.com/New-400-ATN-NIGHT-VISION-Goggles-w-Headgear-2-Yr-War_W0QQitemZ220402155773QQihZ012QQcategoryZ40970QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262).

The price appears to be the same, or very close, to what I paid a few years ago.

[Clyde Rogers]

Hello all,

On the glasses, I just tried the gogs with my glasses (I have them for distance, so don't use them in the darkroom), and it seemed like it worked okay and wouldn't damage them. My glasses aren't large, so your mileage may vary. I wouldn't hesitate with a beater pair, and would consider getting a pair at the pharmacy just for this task. The goggles only use the right eye, so you only need that one corrected.

On 850 vs. 940, whether it matters depends on film sensitivity. The safest bet is the longer wavelength, so go for a 940nm light. I got mine off the bay from seller dennis6z7a. He shipped a unit with power adapter very quickly (I bin'd it Sunday night and had it Wednesday). I also saw a seller with good feedback from China selling something similar. An ebay search for "invisible LED" or "940nm LED" should pop up some choices.

My light doesn't screw into a socket, it came with a wall-wart for power. It really does work very well. A lot of what searches will find on ebay are bare LEDs, which need to be paired with appropriate resistors and power supplies. Unless you're at least a little into electronics, don't bother with bare LEDs. Get a ready-to-use light instead.

I almost got the Viper, it looks really nice. I expect it has better optics, construction, resolution and comfort than the toy goggles. But then the modified eyeclops seems perfectly adequate and has this great plastic orb with weird appendages (like the Borg on Star Trek). So what they lack in features and functionality, they make up for with low cost and style.

Until later,

Clyde

[Steve Goldstein]

These things are brilliant!

Are there any special tricks for disassembly, or is it as simple as removing the obvious screws?

My days of fighting with film holders will soon be over :). There is some irony, though, in using such a hi-tech modern contraption to make my use of "obsolete" technology more convenient.

[Clyde Rogers]

No tricks. Pull out the (I think 6?) screws, and gently pull pieces apart so that you don't accidentally break wires or anything. Good luck!

Later,

Clyde

[dng88]

Just to say thanks. Great finds!

[Ted Stoddard]

Read the article in the March/April Issue... regarding the eyeclops night vision goggles...

[dng88]

Get the article, thanks Ted and just order the google, thanks Clyde.

I still have a hard time to find the LED bank (I am not into electronic and electricity and hence really want a simple lamp to use. Most of the items from ebay seemed not right.). Drop an question to dennis6z7a and hope he can answer it. But any further advice on foot switch and/or LED 940nm would be much appreciated.

[John Clifford]

Thanks for tip on Eyeclops. I bought mine from Wallmart for $47.00. Loading my 4x5 holders and grafmatic has never been easier. The biggest aid is in loading my HP Combi tank. And you can actually see the stuff that you drop on the floor.
The vision is a little fuzzy close up so I tried wearing my reading glasses. Mmm..a little awkward (big head)! So I took a lens from an old pair and with a little duct tape placed it in front of the lens in the middle of my forehead. Hey presto an instant improvement at about 18" in front of my eyes. Careful positioning of the duct tape allows one to flip the lens up for more distance vision.
I haven't tried looking at developing negs yet but developed negs reflect glare back at you and detail is hard to see. The earlier posted information seem to cover that problem.
So if you do not mind looking like a geriatric Cyclops (in the dark!) then these are a very cheap and useful addition to the darkroom.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Anyone know if these will work with X-ray film which is either green or blue sensitive?

Thanks,

Jim

[Ted Stoddard]

Jim, I do not know if they would work for the x-ray film but i say try it and see if it will work... I am glad people liked the article... I am glad it will help everyone out I have more testing I want to do with E-6 sheet film processing in trays the only problem is to keep the temp up where it needs to be... I will not be doing the test immediately but will work on it in the future... maybe it will be another possibility for another article... we will see!

[Derek Kennedy]

Cant seem to find the eyeclops in a Canadian store - if they sell it, its out of stock.

[sanking]

If anyone is interested I just put my Argus-M night vision scope for sale in the FS section of this forum.

Sandy King

[jp]

Is all this gadgetry in any way necessary?

[Ken Lee]

"Is all this gadgetry in any way necessary?"

Not at all.

One might ask the same about safelights: they aren't necessary, but they sure do make working in the dark... easier.

[Ken Lee]

"Anyone know if these will work with X-ray film which is either green or blue sensitive?"

Infra-Red is a comparatively long wavelength: longer than Red, and the other visible colors. Green and Blue are at the middle and short end of the visible spectrum, and X-Rays are extremely short.

The spec sheet for the X-Ray film should tell you if there is any sensitivity in the long range of the spectrum, but my guess is that X-Ray film is sensitive only to the shorter side of the spectrum.

[Don Wilkes]

Derek: Try Toys R Us. Their Canadian online site says they have it:

http://www.toysrus.ca/product/index.jsp?productId=3245408

May have to look into this myself!

\donw, Victoria

[sun of sand]

I bought a pair of these eyeclops things and you certainly can see in the dark
All the "issues" mentioned are very true
No running around in these things -outside of an open level field- as you would certainly die an instadeath but since I personally wouldn't be caught dead even holding these things outdoors in public its of no importance to me this limitation

Resolution is poor. Better at lower right corner than center on mine. See more detail using regular safelight DBI even after attaching a +4 diopter for close focus of 10 inches
The IR reflects off dev/fixed film so glare seems a big issue. Have to hold at an angle

Holding up in front of a white surface helps ...with unfixed film?
An independant IR source while blocking onboard IR would be ideal
Using the additional red light for close DBI inspection seems worthless as it just blows everything out

Good enough but not sure if that much of an improvement over regular safelight DBI outside of being continous
Loading film perhaps but perception is off so may take some time but seeing where the box of film is instead of carefully sweeping for it would save time and probably some dust and prints if don't wear gloves

[Derek Kennedy]

Derek: Try Toys R Us. Their Canadian online site says they have it:

http://www.toysrus.ca/product/index.jsp?productId=3245408

May have to look into this myself!

\donw, Victoria

Thanks Don!

That link is for their bionicam though - not the eyclops Night Vision Goggles unit you strap to your head (to make you look like a cyborg!) - thats the unit I cant seem to find. Ive tried Toys R us and walmart and others...all sold out. And I refuse to pay 80US plus shipping to get it from fleabay out of the states.

[jp]

"Is all this gadgetry in any way necessary?"

Not at all.

One might ask the same about safelights: they aren't necessary, but they sure do make working in the dark... easier.

Personally, I have a super high tech day job and use a darkroom instead of photoshop because it's a good traditional process that makes very good results. The darkroom is sort of an anachronism and I like it. Except for the loss of Tech Pan, and my gain of affordable large format equipment, the B&W darkroom hasn't changed much in 20+ years.

I don't use a safelight for film. If you can't load and unload film from film holders and boxes, and load it into a processing tank, you either need more practice or a better system. People have been doing it for decades now and it's a refined process that rewards consistency and preparation.

I do have one a safelight for paper though. When I print, I can be in the dark for a couple hours making prints, and it's a simple matter of ergonomics and practicality to prefer a ceiling mounted low-tech safelight over a wearable night vision system.

I've even got a color analyzer/exposure meter with my enlarger, but I don't use it. Once I get an exposure right with a guestimate test strip, and I've shot consistent negatives, the printing exposures will change very little, and any changes would be subjective rather than coldly calculated.

[Michael Kadillak]

Personally, I have a super high tech day job and use a darkroom instead of photoshop because it's a good traditional process that makes very good results. The darkroom is sort of an anachronism and I like it. Except for the loss of Tech Pan, and my gain of affordable large format equipment, the B&W darkroom hasn't changed much in 20+ years.

I don't use a safelight for film. If you can't load and unload film from film holders and boxes, and load it into a processing tank, you either need more practice or a better system. People have been doing it for decades now and it's a refined process that rewards consistency and preparation.

I do have one a safelight for paper though. When I print, I can be in the dark for a couple hours making prints, and it's a simple matter of ergonomics and practicality to prefer a ceiling mounted low-tech safelight over a wearable night vision system.

I've even got a color analyzer/exposure meter with my enlarger, but I don't use it. Once I get an exposure right with a guestimate test strip, and I've shot consistent negatives, the printing exposures will change very little, and any changes would be subjective rather than coldly calculated.

That is the beauty of wet photography. You can choose your own tools that you feel comfortable with and that work for you in the pursuit of your vision.

Personally, the older I get the more I appreciate the ability to use any technical advances that I realize improve the results I am pursuing without compromising the primary objectives of working in a wet darkroom.

In my younger days I felt that anyone that would be so lazy as to consider a horse to commute in a wilderness area was a first class pansy ass. Now I own my own cross buck saddles and panniers. Go figure. Experience and maturation has taught me that it is not about how one gets the job done. It is about the job getting done. Easier at a reasonable price is always better than old school stubborn.

Just my $0.02.

[sun of sand]

Developed 6 holders last night that had been waiting for weeks using the eyeclops
Half the negs were trash from overexposure error and other half were retakes once I realized what I had been doing
Rodinal

Pretty great actually. No reflection/glare problems for the most part
Normal/thin negatives are very easy to inspect
the denser ones ...


I learned what was making resolution so poor for me
My eye wasn't in line with the screen but to get it there I had to lower the goggles uncomfortably low on my nose so I just push down on em when inspecting
Remarkable improvement haha
No spills from agitation
You could load film with em quite easily

[urs0polar]

Has anyone done any tests with the ATN Vipers yet to see if they fog the film? If so, is the consensus to get them, turn off the IR source, then get a 940nm led light from the auction site?

Just looking for conclusions to this very interesting thread :)

[R Mann]

I only work with B/W - mostly Ilford film. I have been using Vipers for film loading and developing by inspection - I leave the Viper IR LED on and have had no signs of fogging - some developing runs have been as long as 20 minutes. I use hangers, not trays, so I am only viewing the film when I remove the hanger from the tanks. I did try using a couple of IR cheap flashlights placed around the room for a more uniform back ground light, but really prefer to "see" what I am looking at - and the Viper based LED works great for that. I would get the Vipers and only worry about changing something if there is a problem with your work flow. I think these were one of the best darkroom tools I have invested in - makes film loading a snap & I never have to worry about misplacing something. Make sure you get a good headset that fits right, as you will notice you are wearing it after a few minutes.

[Ken Lee]

As the person who originated this post 5 years ago, I can tell you that I have been using the same device ever since, with no detectable effect whatsoever.

[Michael Kadillak]

These devices were manufactured to let the weekend warriors who they were marketed to know that they have not turned the unit OFF when they can see the glowing red light on the IR illuminator.

You do not need a degree in physics to know that if you can see the red glowing light - there is a risk of adding fog to your film. The red you see is obviously not outside of the wavelength of the response for sheet film like pure infrared light is.The only variable in the equation is if the ASA of the film you are using (low ASA film is obviously less susceptible to the adverse consequences but not immune) and the intensity of the illumination from the specific scope. It is sometimes not easy to see the adverse consequences with your eyes but it is there.

A while back I took my Argus C3 mononocle and tested T Max 400 to see the effects of the added fb+f and in total darkness put a piece of black electrical tape across a sheet of film and left the IR illuminator on at about 25" from the sheet of film for a period of 10 minutes and in total darkness pulled the tape and developed the sheet of film and the increased negative density as compared to the protected area of the film under the tape stood out like a sore thumb. I pulled out my transmission densitimeter and Whammo - the process added nearly 0.15 density units to the film. If I had not seen the difference with my own eyes during the testing process I would have blown right by it as "inconsequential" and moved on as that would have been easy to do. This is equal to using film vastly beyond its expiration date or subjecting it to above recommended temperatures for an extended period. Will the negative print? The answer is "absolutely". But you are having to print through what you added by simply assuming that it is not that big a deal.

No thanks. In the same manner that John Sexton rails on testing your safe light in your darkroom - assuming anything without testing is simply not recommended. But at the end of the day each is able to make their own choices as to how they conduct business.

[Michael Kadillak]

I wrote an extensive article on this process on the Michael and Paula Azo forum in 2004 that you can search for yourself. The scopes have changed, but the conclusions are still valid.

Just to put things into perspective. A while back there was a guy on APUG that built a box that would hold a clear glass baking dish that he developed his negatives in. Below the dish he placed a number of IR LED's banks to illuminate the developing negatives from below and swore that he could not see any averse consequences. I told him to develop an unexposed negative in total darkness and compare it from the one in his homemade IR from the bottom deal over a light table if he did not have a densitometer. Just about this time his posts on this specific technique to develop sheet film seemed to stop.

One other thing. I also put a black patch over the non-viewing eye to keep the If bouncing around the room from affecting the opposite eye. Cost me $1.50 at Walgreens. Better safe than sorry.

Cheers!

[Ken Lee]

Update: My ATN Viper finally bit the dust after 8 years of use, so I purchased another one.

These days, I figure 8 years of use is reasonable for a low-end piece of electronics equipment.

[Michael Kadillak]

Update: My ATN Viper finally bit the dust after 8 years of use, so I purchased another one.

These days, I figure 8 years of use is reasonable for a low-end piece of electronics equipment.

Knock on wood. My Argus is still going strong after nine years and probably a dozen battery replacements. I use it regularly for film development and film holder loading.

[Tin Can]

Michael, per your post #60 it seemed you did not like the fogging your IR device created.

Now you say you still use it.

Are there safe for film ways to use it?


Knock on wood. My Argus is still going strong after nine years and probably a dozen battery replacements. I use it regularly for film development and film holder loading.