Since the last instalment in this series (about four weeks ago), I've shot four rolls of film: two rolls of Rollei Infrared 400 (one 35mm and one 120) and two rolls of Ilford FP4 Plus (one 35mm and one 120). The subject of this instalment will be the infrared experience.
In the photo above you see my Mamiya C33, set up for infrared photography. The filter over the taking lens is a Hoya 25A, which is one of those recommended by Rollei, the film manufacturer. The filter factor is 8, so I divided the film's ISO 400 rating by 8 and reset it to 50. IR film focuses differently from normal panchromatic film because IR light has a longer wavelength. For this reason, most camera lenses have a small, red index mark on the distance scale for focusing with IR film (all of my 35mm lenses have such a mark). The first problem I encountered was the absence of such a mark on the distance scale of the Mamiya. My solution was to study those other lenses, particularly the 80mm setting of the zoom lens (which is also the focal length of the normal lens of the Mamiya), to see where the normal index mark would be for each distance setting according to the IR index mark. I made a table of these correspondences, which I then graphed for interpolations. This solution worked great. I did my test shooting at measured distances (mostly a single distance), which I set according to my graph. Such careful measuring of distances under controlled test conditions resulted in my 6x6cm shots being better focused than my 35mm shots, although there was no red index mark on the camera.
While we are talking about potential pitfalls in using IR film, I should mention that part of my 35mm roll was a bit fogged by light at the edges, due to my somewhat careless handling of the film cassette before developing. Apparently the Rollei cassette was not 100% light-tight. I was also sorry to see that the unexposed film was in a plastic can, not a metal one such as Kodak used to provide for IR film.
Here are a few images from my tests, first the 35mm, and then the 120:
In the shot above, you can see the typical IR "black sky and glowing foliage" effect.
Conclusions: I like IR film a lot, and I had forgotten how much I like it. Everyone know that it can give great special effects in landscape shots, but I find that it can also be useful for portraits. Due to its inherently higher contrast, it makes good use of low, indoor artificial lighting. It seems to be more sensitive than ordinary panchromatic film to modern light sources such as quartz halogen. For nudes, the heightened contrast brings out musculature.
I tried to test the "IR x-ray effect," by which certain types of clothing are rendered transparent, but determined that the filter I was using was not very suitable for that. I have ordered the most suitable type of filter for that purpose, but won't have it for about a month. It is interesting to note that Rollei did not include any of the "good" ones for the purpose among their ten-or-so recommendations. When I get the new filter, I'll test it on myself and share the results with you all. Until next time, shoot film if you can!
(to be continued)
Text and images Copyright © 2022 by Donald C. Traxler aka Donald Jacobson Traxler.
0633b_textitl.jpg)