Re: Konica IR versus Kodak HIE

[eml@xxxxxxxxx]

The Konica has ZERO halo effect because its base is extremely effective
at suptressing halation. It also is sensitive only to about 800nm,
while Kodak is sensitive to 900 or beyond, a bit.  So the infrared
effects are a trifle less.

BUT!  BIG BUT!!! The Konica is virtually grainless.  Because of its 
lesser IR sensitivity, it is far closer to the effective working
range of the antireflection coatings on modern lenses. It also is
closer to the designed useful range of the optical compromises made
when your lenses were designed. 

AS a result, it should produce less flare and far sharper (grain quality aside)
images, especially if using complex lenses like zooms.  Konica fairly BEGS
to be enlarged into murals!  It is REALLY sharp when using simple, highly
corrected lenses, like the Tessar in my Zeiss Ikoflex.  Provided the wind
isn't blowing the leaves...  Provided the sun is bright... Provided it's
sitting on a big firm tripod...  Fotr if the Konica is anything, it's SLOW!
With a #25 filter, an EI of about 8 is good.  That's 1/30 at f:8, roughly,
in bright sun.

I have spoken to Kodak and written them over the years aabout their failure
to produce an IR film with an antihalation backing, something that other
manufacturers did in the '30's.  I personally hate halation and dark loading
of 35mm cassettes, so I won't use HIE.  Instead, if the need for speed
arises, I'll use the new Ilford product.  Kodak makes some brilliantly
designed films, especially TMX and TP.  Vericvhrome Pan was perhaps
the finest film ever made.  But I have always considered HIE to be
laughable.

Regards,

Edward M. Lukacs, LRPS
Washington, DC, USA     



------------------------------

Topic No. 2