Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D

Notice
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

Re: Filter choices for studio photography


  • From: Marco Pauck <pauck@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: Filter choices for studio photography
  • Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 09:16:46 +0100

Steve Homer wrote:
> 
> Marco Pauck <pauck@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >#25 is far to weak for MACO as well as Konica and SFX in my
> >opinion. You should at least use a #89B.
> 
> Hi Marco -- Why do you say the #25 is too weak a filter? When photographing people in
> the studio, the Wood effect is hardly a concern unless I have a potted plant in the
> scene!

Well, most people seem to be looking for a strong as possible 'IR effect'
(the Wood effect is only one although important aspect) and are disappointed
by MACO, Konica, and SFX/SP816 when using a plain #25. In this case, the
only alternatives are a stronger filter or sticking to HIE.

> I've used Konica with a #25 filter both indoors and outdoors for people photography .
> The skin tones are fabulous with either flash or daylight, and outdoors (as is clear in
> your own comparison photos on your web page) foliage is quite light, though not as light
> as with the 89B. I appreciate all the great information on your web site, but the
> aesthetic issues in choosing filters for landscape versus studio people photography are
> rather different.

True. I think it has been pointed out on this list that there're more subjects
for IR photography than graveyards with black sky and bright foilage ... ;-)

Using IR film, it's very easy to get images that are impressive - at the first
sight. But the second sight might reveal that they lack something regarding
the more traditional aspects such as composition, texture or tonality.
No technical gimmick - neither IR film nor cross-processing, ultra-wide lenses,
stereoscopy, etc. - will compensate for the lack of photographic vision.

Maybe it's like to drinking Cherry Coke or listening to Heavy Metal music:
you get a strong effect but you will probably miss the subtle delights of
a fine wine or Bach's cantatas ... ;-)

BTW: Any images you can share to point out the aesthetic issues relevant for
your work?

> There are practical considerations, too: I want to be able to see through the filter as
> easily as possible to check whether the model moved.  I do use an 87C with Kodak 70mm in
> the studio, but fumbling the filter on and off the lens to compose the photo or check
> the focus gets quite tedious. Often I see a great pose through the viewfinder but can't
> slap the Cokin filter holder back onto the lens fast enough to take the picture. Also,
> with flash photography, increasing the filter factor means giving up depth of field.

Yes, I think opaque filters in front of the lens are usable
for slow landscape photography but absolutely impractical
for fast moving subjects.

However, there are alternatives to using a weaker filter:
- using a rangefinder camera or
- mounting the filter between the film rails

	Marco
--
Marco Pauck -- marco@xxxxxxxx -- http://www.pauck.de/marco/
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,
neat, and wrong.  -- H. L. Mencken
*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  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  *
******************************************************