Re: There are a lot of mistakes in this IR photography book!

[aeophoto@xxxxxxxxxxx]

On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 09:16:51 -0500, you wrote:

>aeophoto@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> =20
>> I had purchased this book and, frankly, hadn't read it yet.  My first
>> impression had been good because, instead of just saying shoot at ISO
>> 200 - that's what I shoot at, she seemed to have good reasoning for
>> how to choose what ISO to shoot at.  I shoot routinely at 1000 ISO
>> (yes I like grain and tend to aim away from having the very strong
>> highlights of infrared.)
>
>I would think that if you are looking to maximize grain that you would =
want to shoot
>considerably slower.  I knock the EI up to 1000 (metered TTF) when I am =
looking for
>high contrast images, and down around 50-100 for a more "ethereal" look =
(reference
>"House of Dreams I" or "Discovery" at =
http://www2.ari.net/glsmyth/north.htm).
>
>george


Well of the 2 shots on my website - the railroad tracks were shot @
800 and the trees were shot @ 1000.  My original intention was to cut
down on glowiness.  I do aim for darker shadow areas than you might
traditionally see with infrared - but with detail in highlight areas.
Logical thinking normally would have increased grain at higher ISOs -
but were not talking normal film we're talking infrared.  I don't know
- - I'm starting to get horribly confused - BUT I have been happy with
my results (knock on wood) for several years.

I had one shot from the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia that had a
different quality than my previous photos.  It was shot @ about 2 pm
in mid-April from a boat in the swamp.  It was shot with a 25 filter
and @ 1000 and Kodak 35mm infrared.  It is not on the internet -
although it may be on my website in December - but it was spectacular
- - I loved it.  But the contrast range was lower than my normal
infrared shots and the detail was wonderful.  I had been interested in
her book @ the ISO information because I wanted to be able to
duplicate that look (without necessarily going to the swamp.)

I shoot @ 1000.  Use mostly 25 filter - I'm now experimenting with the
29 filter and the RM90-should have first results from latter filter
later today.  I use D76 undiluted and cut back on development about
20%. =20

A friend, who is a geologist and has watched infrared film used in a
technical capacity rather than as art, keeps mentioning the water
content of things and infrared.  (I.E. The reason new foliage glows
the most intensely and why evergreens don't glow.)  Now Georgia in
April is humid, but only pleasantly warm.  It's spring - so there's
new foliage.

Can you come close to the results you achieve in a humid place
shooting in a much less humid place, simply by changing how you handle
the film?


Angela
aeophoto@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://home.pacbell.net/aeophoto/


"If you play the games, you're voluntarily taking=20
a tranquilizer."

Jeffrey Goines from 12 Monkeys


*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

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