Re: Filter choices for studio photography

[Eric McRae <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I do people photography in the studio and on location, mostly babies in the
> studio.  I use konica in 120 with a #25A most of the time and develop it in HC-110,
> also some of my images were 35mm HIE in PMK or XTol.  I tried a hoya RM90 but it is
> impossible with fast moving toddlers!  Check out my images a
> http://www.thebabyphotographer.com/gallery.htm
>
> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:23:52 -0800
> From: Steve Homer <shomer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Filter choices for studio photography
>
> > 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  *
> ******************************************************
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 12:42:21 +0000
> From: rod sage <rsage@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Filter Choice
>
> >
> > 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
>
> I have found that if you have an accessory/hot shoe on an SLR you can
> mount a separate viewfinder. They are easy to find on ebay. Some have
> variable focal lengths and paralax correction. I use one for an old
> Argus C3 which has 35-50-100 fl's. You can still use a flash on a
> bracket.
> Rod S.
> *
> ****
> *******
> ******************************************************
> *  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  *
> ******************************************************
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Infrared-Digest V0 #623
> ******************************

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