[MF3D.FORUM:385] Re: MF Ektachrome Infrared

[Marco Pauck <pauck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Talbot wrote:
> 
> Tom Deering wrote:
> 
> > This looks interesting for sure.  If I did it, I might repackage it
> > using 120 paper.  At $20 a roll, I'd hate to lose any of that
> > emulsion to spacing problems.
[...]
> Total cost with 120 is $3.33 to $3.83.  With 220 it works out
> like this:
> 
> # Shots:      7        8        9        10        11        12
> Cost-A      $3.57    $3.125  $2.778    $2.50     $2.27     $2.08
> Cost-B      $4.43    $3.875  $3.444    $3.10     $2.82     $2.58

You might add to your calculation that EIR developed in the
E-6 process has very high contrast, so you'll have to bracket
your exposure at least +/- one f-stop in 0.5 f-stop intervals
to be sure to get optimal results. That would increase total
costs by a factor of five!

> Now, two cautions for both approaches:  The EIR packaging
> insists that the film must be handled in COMPLETE darkness,
> even for *loading the camera*.

Although I haven't tried Rolland Elliott's confection myself yet,
from what I've heard, you can handle it in subdued light.
The main reason why 35mm EIR and HIE has to be handled in total
darkness is that the material used for the felt of the cartridge's
light trap isn't opaque to IR!

> I'd also be *very* careful about making
> sure there's no light sneaking into your Sputnik, whether
> through the door hinges, camera back joints, or the little
> red advance window.

That's a really important point, as I've seen cameras (my
Horizon is an example) that are save for visible light but
leak IR.

BTW: more info on EIR from the infrared mailing list is
available here:

http://www.pauck.de/archive/mailinglist/htdig/htsearch.cgi?words=eir&config=mailinglist&restrict=mailinglist%2Finfrared

	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