Re: IR & Water: a robust debate continues...

[Ben Kreunen <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Saying things like: You can't use AF lenses
>for IR photography, you can't cut down 70mm IR film
>into 220 rolls, You can't take UV pictures unless you
>have an expensive quartz lens. Despite what theory
>says, all of the above are possible to a certain
>extent.

Exactly.. and while numbers and theory are all very well in understanding 
what's happening, the only thing that matters in the end is what's on film. 
Go out and photograph water in different situations, see what happens and 
add it to the stockpile of photographic experience.

Some of this debate seems to have been a little irrelevant when you 
consider that your average shot of the sea/lakes from land doesn't look 
through water, but rather at the reflection of the sky so absorption has 
very little to do with it.

Long exposure times will blur reflections making water appear more 
transparent but this works for any type of film.  There are more things to 
consider than just the absorption spectra of water that effect it's appearance.

Cheers

Ben

=======================================================
Gallery and Photography Tips (including IR)
http://www.bigbenpublishing.com.au/gallery/photography/
=======================================================

*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  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  *
******************************************************