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: Steve Homer <shomer@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: Filter choices for studio photography
  • Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:23:52 -0800

> From: Marco Pauck <pauck@xxxxxx>
> Steve Homer wrote:
> > [...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.

I certainly agree. Typically I use both infrared and
conventional film during a session with a model. I
rarely count on the infrared effects to "carry" an
image. 

> 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?

The local pro photo lab did an exhibit of my work last
year, and scanned a few of my work prints. It's a bit
embarrassing; I did a lot more manipulation during
printing of the exhibition-quality prints. You can see
these rough scans at 
http://irphoto.net/steve.homer/
They are all shot with Kodak 70mm through an 87C
filter. 

In the leftmost image, the model's sweatpants were dark
gray cotton/polyester blend; they were rendered
brighter than the skin tone, which was distracting. (I
burned in that area in the final print.) The very
extreme tan lines disappeared. In the middle image, you
see the expected dark eyes. The image resolution isn't
strong enough to show the very prominent veins in the
chest above the shirt. A keen eye will see the pressure
plate dots vertically near the left edge of the image.
The shirt was cotton and was rendered with the same
tone as I would expect from conventional b&w film. In
the rightmost image, the black ink is much darker than
you would see with conventional film; some red ink in a
tattoo near the dragon's tail disappeared altogether;
and the black cotton drape is significantly darker than
with conventional film. 

Some other considerations: red spots, moles, freckles,
nipples, and red scars will lighten and often
disappear. Hair dye tends to reflect infrared very
efficiently, even if it is visibly very dark. Silk,
nylon, rayon, and polyester are white regardless of dye
color. 

> 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

Using a rangefinder or twin-lens reflex camera, or a
btfr filter, solves the focusing-through-the-filter
problem but doesn't address film speed. Beyond a
certain point, increasing the flash output is too
uncomfortable for the model (not to mention very
expensive). With Konica for example, which has an
effective ISO of 6 with a red #25 under flash, I set up
two 600watt-second monolights, undiffused, just a few
feet from the model. It was very tough on their eyes,
and I was limited to f11: fine for many styles of
studio work, but less depth of field than I generally
prefer. Using a stronger filter would even further
decrease the depth of field, to the point where I would
be completely unsatisfied with the images. Another
artist might produce fabulous work under the same
conditions, of course!  

I've been curious to try mounting an 87C gelatin filter
inside my RB body. Has anyone tried this? More to the
point, does anyone else on the list photograph people
in the studio? 

Tschuß,
____________________________________________________
Steve Homer  shomer@xxxxxxxxxx   Santa Cruz, CA  USA
*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  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  *
******************************************************