1941 Eastman View Commerical B - Agfa Repromaster 210mm - f/45 - Arista EDU 100 - 8x10 Film - HC 110 1+100 - Unaltered Negative Scan
1941 Eastman View Commerical B - Agfa Repromaster 210mm - f/45 - Arista EDU 100 - 8x10 Film - HC 110 1+100 - Unaltered Negative Scan
I'm really frustrated with this image, I had taken a TMY-2 shot of it which I've posted previously, but I really wanted this shot to SHINE IR, but instead it flops, the water isn't at all black, the IR doesn't cut through the fog, and the tree's and other things really don't shine, I know this is slightly under-exposed, but the UV index was high this day, so I would have thought I would get more IR light in the image, and again, why the heck is the water and sky completely white in an IR image... I know Rollie doesn't have the effect that my EFKE does, which I've been alternating between to try and find a way to get the Rollie to at lest somewhat behave like I envision my IR images to be, but certainly not here.
Looking at my notes, I did also shoot a sheet of EFKE so I guess I was trying to compare, it's been so long I hadn't remembered, and the stack of EFKE IR is next on the list to be processed.
Anyway wanted to share regardless.
4x5 Rollie IR 400 | 450mm w/ R72 filter | f/22 @ 1/60th | HC-110(B)
Doesn't look like iR; maybe wrong film was in the holder?
My experience with IR in digital is that it cuts through haze like nothing else (haze which is present on high-UV days) Your photos shows depth in the scene with the 2nd peninsula being lighter seemingly due to some haze.
I have decided some cameras are just DARK, the majority of LF photos I see, generally the images aren't really contrasty and bright save a few clever photogs that have something else happening. I think on overcast days especially you need a contrasty bright lens. Regular, newer LF lenses seem calibrated for over controlling daylight shooting.
It's definitely IR, you can see it more in the trees in the left side, they do have a slight glow, in comparison to the other non-IR image. However it's certainly not as strong as it should be in my mind.Originally Posted by jp
As far as your comment about digital, the digital sensors are calibrated to absorb and register light that is farther down the spectrum, so they act more like EFKE/HIE than this lesser sensitive Rollie, it's just that going forward it's the only thing left in film that is IR sensitive, so I'm trying to really learn how to use it properly, I have seen images where it's done very well, but I struggle with it, perhaps I prefer scenes that would in themselves be less IR but because I'm so used to using the more sensitive film, I'm expecting a different result than this film is capable of.
Hmm, I don't really quite follow your logic, but I'll think about it, thanks for your input.
In regard to contrast control, IMO there is a problem with chronic overexposure + underdevelopment of negatives with the idea of maximum shadow detail and flat highlights. Scanning also probably plays a huge part, which doesn't have the traditional S-curve of silver gelatin paper - which means a "flat scan" doesn't look anything like a quick contact sheet.
Modern lenses are designed for maximum contrast, which is why some prefer older lenses with single or no coating, which induces a bit of global flare and lower contrast. For instance, my older Tessar lenses definitely do this, so underexposing a tad and overdeveloping gives it a bit more "snap" (or it works great for higher contrast scenes shot as normal).
Bishop Creek near South Lake in the Eastern Sierra. 4x5 Crown Graphic 150mm Sironar, Ektar 100.
Jerry Parker
Now, just find someone to sell it to for one million or more!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks