Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2040 14:14:35 -0500
From: Sid Barras 
To: "infrared@a1.nl" 
Subject: How to shoot HIE @ ISO 1000 and beyond (or, the strange case of HIE and HC-110)
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl


Greetings fellow infrared shooters:

What began as a simple test to determine some reasonable EIs for 
shooting with HIE and souping it in HC-110 I was out of my normal 
developer, XTOL, and the only other developer I had published developing 
times for was HC-110.

I found after the first roll all of the negs horribly overdeveloped, or 
overexposed. On the next roll I was still to hot, and I'd doubled the 
camera meter's ASA setting (A spotmatic F) from 200 (used with XTOL) to 400.

Well, there was nothing to do except try another roll at 800. It was 
when I was preparing to load the third roll that I performed a customary 
inspection of the Between-the-film-rails 89b gelatin filter, which I 
normally do after every fifth roll or so, that I discovered another 
"adjustment" I'd made to the camera and had forgotten about. (My excuse 
is that since you load the film into the camera in total darkness, and 
I'm over 40 years old, things like that happen.)

The exact nature of the "adjustment:" I'd adhered a section of the 
"aluminum foil" that a kodak wratten filter comes wrapped in over the 
pressure plate on the door of the film section of the camera.  I'd put 
it there  because I'd noticed on some of my "thin, yet printable" 
negatives often showed the dimpling pattern of the pressure plate onto 
the negative, especially noticeable in the even-toned areas like the sky.

My expectations were that the foil (a plastic coated sort of surface, 
not shiny, but a dull finish, yet definitely reflective) would increase 
the "halo" effect of the HIE film, given its lack of an anti-halation 
coating. But the result is far more universal.

it has increased the effective "speed" of the film by at least 3x!! 
Obviously, the light is passing throughout the film, reflected off of 
the foil's surface, and re-exposing the film!

My fourth "test" roll of film, I shot at a starting point of ISO 1350 
and bracketed one half stop in either direction.
I've got some very nice looking negatives from this set, and most of the 
ones that look good are either at 800 - one half and 800 even. This set 
was taken in much heavier shade than the previous. I'm going to try and 
upload some of the negs I scanned to my web site for viewing. (I say try 
because the lady who was doing my web site got angry about my 
"insensitivity" and left the other day....Now, isn't that ironic.....)

But It would appear, though, from looking at the negs through a loupe 
that the negs haven't taken a hit in the sharpness department from the 
"re-exposure"..... I haven't an enlarger at the moment, (she took that 
also, the wench!) but, as soon as I do, I will report back. Also, I'll 
try to have a link published ASAP for a public viewing of the "HIE at 
ISO 1000" ...........  Though I do admit, it seems reasonable to assume 
that because the film is exposed twice, it should suffer from 
acuity-itis......

Regards,
Sid B












Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:22:21 -0500
From: Sid Barras 
To: infrared@a1.nl
Subject: Re:HIE at 1000 negatives scanned and uploaded
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

Hi all,
I think I've successfully uploaded 2 of the negatives from the roll of 
HIE I shot at approx. ISO  1000, they are located at
www.sidbarras.com/HIEat1000-1.jpg

and
www.sidbarras.com/HIEat1000-2.jpg

These are fairly typical of the entire  bunch; and typical of HIE 
negatives I've produced in the past. I don't see a real hit in the 
acuity results. The graininess is fairly severe, but can that be a 
result or "re-exposure?"

I'm pretty proud of myself! I was able to upload those files to my web 
site and not even consider calling the "ex".....

I'm still in a bind, however..... She never showed me anything about 
using dreamweaver.... I guess my next  lady friend will need to have web 
 page construction savvy as a pre-requisite...  or, (perish the thought) 
I may have to learn to do it myself!

Sid B














Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 00:02:01 -0600
Subject: My current ammo: HIE, 87cBTRF, and a reflective pressure plate: first tests done
From: Sid Barras 
To: infrared@a1.nl
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

HI all,

I have currently been experimenting again.

I used the "semi-reflective" silver side of the wrapper that my 87c
wratten filter came in to coat the pressure plate on my K2 DMD pentax
camera.
This will increase the reflectance of the infrared rays back through
the film of course. What it also does is increase my apparent ISO
rating. I did a couple of test strip rolls, where I decided on an
arbitrary ISO rating as a standard (in the first case I used ISO 640)
then bracketted two stops on either side of that in a five shot
sequence with two blank frames before and after these series' then cut
the film in sections in the darkroom with pre-measured sticks of
cardboard the right length to match this 7 frame total sequence. I was
shooting HIE of course.

The subject for the test was a large palmetto plant which I know from
experience has a very high infrared reflective foliage. It was in full
sun mid afternoon, and there was plenty of shaded area to gauge
infrared transmission.

I then chose my favorite of the moment developer (HC-110, dilution b)
and developed with an arbitrary time of 9 minutes at 68F.  By the time
I had gotten to the last strip, I had increased development by 75%, and
I was seeing good density on the "two stop over" negative of that strip.

I was forced to use the second roll of test strips to narrow the
development time, since I'd gotten an awful lot of blank film on the
first roll, and really didn't see enough good negatives to judge
objectively.

By the time I'd drawn some "not fully conclusive data" I was convinced
I'd need another couple of test rolls. I think on the next ones, I'll
be shooting the same set up with an ISO of 100 for the base exposure. I
feel certain that I'll be able to more narrowly draw conclusions from
starting at that point.

Some time ago, I had mentioned to the group that I did a similar thing
(put that reflective surface on the pressure plate) when I was using an
89b BTRF and had gained an increase in apparent ISO up to 1200. I am
still shooting that set up in another camera, and haven't looked back.

I get consistently good negatives at a very attractive ISO setting that
allows a lot of leeway in exposuring, especially when I'm "on the fly"
and don't have time to adjust the focus to compensate for infrared's
longer focus. At ISO 1200, you can use f stop 16 or even 22 almost
exclusively.

And after many rolls, I don't find the sharpness of the photos
compromised, as might be expected when using the reflector on the
pressure plate and thereby "re-exposing" the film, softening the focus
of the image.

So my intent with trying this same setup with the 87c filter was to
increase the "wood effect" and still be able to use a "hand-holdable"
ISO rating...

It may well wind up that I shoot around ISO 100, which would still be a
good compromise, considering that I'm using an 87c filter!

I willl report the conclusions of my little experiments to the list in
case anyone may find this info valuable.

Regards from South Louisiana

Sid B










From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" 
To: infrared@a1.nl
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 01:37:43 +0200
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Stealth Photography Revisited.] (For Jorrit)
Cc: eos@a1.nl
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

On 17 Apr 2003 at 21:46, Jorrit de Jager wrote:

> 
> >> You can decrease the effect of the IR-LEDs a bit, by adding an IR-
> >> filter over the LED (not the sensor on the other side of course>
> > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/irledtip.txt
> 
> The technique described uses a 87C gel filter over the IR LED to
> reduce the amount of fogged film. This may work for films that are not
> sensitive in the shorter wavelengts. But for the kodak IR films this
> would still mean fogging right?

This trick is only meant for Kodak HIE, since none of the less-
sensitive IR films suffer from these IR-LED's in the first 
place....:))
 
> Did anyone with IR LEDs that are fogging the film, ever try to narrow
> the beam? e.g. by using a IR opaque filter with (pin)hole in it?
> 
> Just thinking; because I still didn't try my IR films, so have no idea
> about the amount of fogging.
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Jorrit
> 
> PS for him or her who has the website with the list of camera's with
> 'IR incompattible' filmplates, I don't recall seeing the EOS50E (non
> QD) mentioned, but I just noticed a hole in the plate that would
> probably be used for date and time in QD body's :-(

I believe either Olympus or Minolta supplies 'closed' pressure plates 
on request....not sure if Canon does....

(CC to EOS list....anyone ever tried to get this from Canon 
Service?....or perhaps even for other EOS models?)

Of course, the alternative is taping the pressure plate....which can 
be done both ways: 100% absorbing, by using the paper backing of 
120/220 film, or 100% reflective, by using aluminium foil....which 
then also gains you several stops of exposure sensitivity....:))

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/hie_pressure-plate_reflector.txt
--                 
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

      The desire to understand 
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand


[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]











From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" 
To: infrared@a1.nl
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:14:35 +0200
Subject: Mirror-foil on pressure plate, braincracking ponderings (was: [Fwd: Stealth Photography Revisited.] (For Jorrit)
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

On 19 Apr 2003 at 1:37, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:

> Of course, the alternative is taping the pressure plate....which can
> be done both ways: 100% absorbing, by using the paper backing of
> 120/220 film, or 100% reflective, by using aluminium foil....which
> then also gains you several stops of exposure sensitivity....:))
> 
> http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/hie_pressure-plate_reflector.txt

Oh btw, if someone likes a braincracking pondering about this very 
topic:

The 'inventor/discoverer' of the above concept, Sid Barras, proved a 
3-stop gain with #87C (as well as #89A if I understand his first 
reports correctly, or even much more if he did not switch between 
'bare' exposure index and effective exposure index (without vs with 
filter)).

Now, for the life of me, I can't explain how a simple bouncing of 
light on the pressure plate, can create more gain than a theoretical 
1 stop (assuming perfect reflection)....since 1 stop is the result of 
what twice the amount of light would be (assuming that all light 
which hits the film is also passed through the film (impossible), and 
then bounced back....but then it would have to be absorbed 100% after 
reflection....*not* transmitted again 100% on the way back....)

No, subsequent total or marginal reflection back and forth, after the 
first transmission, couldn't explain it either....either it is 
absorbed as photographic light, or it is reflected....but whatever is 
reflected must be absorbed at one time or another, and that still 
only gains 1 stop total....and it still would not explain the huge 
transmission it has on the first 'hit', while none at all on the way 
back....

(in theory, *if* one would be able to create a perfect single-sided 
mirror, in front of (& close to-) the film, one could catch that 
return light (second transmission, through the film after the first 
reflection) too, and gain even more (depending on how much *is* 
transmitted after the first reflection, and how much absorbed).


Andy Davidhazy, are you reading this?....;))
(sounds a nice subject for an assignment to one of your 
classes........:))

If all explanations fail, I gladly point to my sig....:))))

--                 
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

      The desire to understand 
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand


[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]












From: "Stan Patz" 
To: INFRARED@A1.NL
Subject: the foil trick
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:04:52 +0000
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

To WJ and the group,

In a posting last week, I thought you made a brilliant analysis of the HIE 
film speed gain through the use of reflective foil on the pressure plate. 
Yes, it is now clear, without an active amplifier the best gain you can 
possibly get is 100%.

Along the lines of analysis, I wonder if you could expand on the footer in 
all your posts...

"The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand"

Does this aphorism have anything to do with the first of this month?


Stan Patz   NYC

Stan@PatzImaging.com
www.PatzImaging.com










From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" 
To: infrared@a1.nl
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 02:45:39 +0200
Subject: Re: the foil trick
Cc: sbarris@earthlink.net
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

On 26 Apr 2003 at 0:04, Stan Patz wrote:

> To WJ and the group,
> 
> In a posting last week, I thought you made a brilliant analysis 

Brain-cracking condensed is more like it, but I had to stay within 
the 15k character limit set in Majordomo....:))

> of the
> HIE film speed gain through the use of reflective foil on the pressure
> plate. Yes, it is now clear, without an active amplifier the best gain
> you can possibly get is 100%.

Sid said 3 stops, so 3 stops it is....and magic of course....:))
Please do not disturb my dream of having a hand-holdable 400/5.6 @f16 
with 12 ASA!....;))
(without both expense and size of the Canon IS lenses....my 200/2.8 
can stand upright in my LowePro Classic, longer won't fit that way 
(and conflict with other necessary gear....both 70-200 and 100-400 
are way too large....still waiting for my requested 200/2.8 IS (or a 
70-200/2.8 DO-IS with the same size & weight....:))

PS: anyone having a yak available for rent?....:))
 
> Along the lines of analysis, I wonder if you could expand on the
> footer in all your posts...
> 
> "The desire to understand
> is sometimes far less intelligent than
> the inability to understand"
> 
> Does this aphorism have anything to do with the first of this month?

Only if you believe in it....:))

--                 
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

      The desire to understand 
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand


[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]










Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:30:38 -0500
Subject: Fast infrared
From: Sid Barras 
To: infrared 
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

HI All,
Gosh, I wish I had more time to contribute to the discussions on this list--
these days, I barely have time to shoot film.

I had written previously about my experiences with HIE altered with a
reflective medium attached to the pressure plate, specifically the
dull/shiny, plastic coated wrapper that kodak ships their wratten filters
in. (the inside surface, not the yellow outer side.)

I shoot my HIE with this rather unusual accessory, plus an 87c between the
rails wratten filter.

I shoot this set up at ISO setting of 1250. I used to bracket my exposures,
but I've gotten quite comfortable with this setting, and now I just fire
away, and I get about 75-80% usable negatives. I shoot mostly landscapes,
both in direct sunlight and open shade. I usually don't shoot in deep shade,
mainly because I like the strong IR effect of direct sunlight.

I had written that this combination of reflector on the pressure plate had
increased my apparent ISO setting  by 2-3 x factor. That is, I used to shoot
HIE with the 87c filter at ISO 100-400, depending on the situation.

There was some very astute observations posted that the maximum ISO gain I
should expect with the reflector on the pressure plate is twice the normal
setting. Logically, this must be true. However, I seem to be getting more. I
would welcome, in fact, I wish, someone else would try the set up and see if
their results match mine. (I'd even supply the reflective material to anyone
requesting it, I have lots of wratten filters.)

I don't know why I should get more than twice the ISO-- perhaps the fact the
reflective surface is dull-- it reflects in many directions, at random
angles, perhaps the film is actually "re-exposed" more than once?

I do know the ISO setting of 1250 is accurate for my situation. But I sure
wish there were others here who could confirm (or refute) my findings. Any
takers?

Regards from South Louisiana
Sid B













From: "Breukel, C. (HKG)" 
To: "Infrared (E-mail)" 
Subject: Re: Fast Infrared
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:05:15 +0200
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

(maybe this message arrives for the second time, but I did no se it the
first time..)

On 10 Jun 2003 at 3:30, Sid Barras wrote:

> HI All,
> Gosh, I wish I had more time to contribute to the discussions on this
> list-- these days, I barely have time to shoot film.
> 
> I had written previously about my experiences with HIE altered with a
> reflective medium attached to the pressure plate, specifically the
> dull/shiny, plastic coated wrapper that kodak ships their wratten
> filters in. (the inside surface, not the yellow outer side.)
> 
> I shoot my HIE with this rather unusual accessory, plus an 87c between
> the rails wratten filter.
> 
> I shoot this set up at ISO setting of 1250. I used to bracket my
> exposures, but I've gotten quite comfortable with this setting, and
> now I just fire away, and I get about 75-80% usable negatives. I shoot
> mostly landscapes, both in direct sunlight and open shade. I usually
> don't shoot in deep shade, mainly because I like the strong IR effect
> of direct sunlight.
> 
> I had written that this combination of reflector on the pressure plate
> had increased my apparent ISO setting  by 2-3 x factor. That is, I
> used to shoot HIE with the 87c filter at ISO 100-400, depending on the
> situation.
> 
> There was some very astute observations posted that the maximum ISO
> gain I should expect with the reflector on the pressure plate is twice
> the normal setting. Logically, this must be true. However, I seem to
> be getting more. I would welcome, in fact, I wish, someone else would
> try the set up and see if their results match mine. (I'd even supply
> the reflective material to anyone requesting it, I have lots of
> wratten filters.)
> 
> I don't know why I should get more than twice the ISO-- perhaps the
> fact the reflective surface is dull-- it reflects in many directions,
> at random angles, perhaps the film is actually "re-exposed" more than
> once?
> 
> I do know the ISO setting of 1250 is accurate for my situation. But I
> sure wish there were others here who could confirm (or refute) my
> findings. Any takers?
> 
> Regards from South Louisiana
> Sid B


Hi Sid,

I am currently testing the "new" MACO film AURA (820c without ant-halo
layer). Some day I'll give a complete overview, but one thing I tried is
placing a piece of aluminium foil behind a sheet of AURA film to see if I
could enhance the halo effect: it did not do anything for the speed, but it
did give much more highlight density (and halo): Perhaps no surprise: the
light from the shadows will (I assume) not reach the foil or the pressure
plate at all: and the shadow details determine the speed of a film. The
highlights will and are amplified by the bouncing back light from the shiny
aluminium.

Best,

Cor










Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:28:42 -0400
From: "David J. Romano" 
To: infrared@a1.nl
Subject: Re: Fast Infrared
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

> it did not do anything for the speed, but it
> did give much more highlight density (and halo): Perhaps no surprise: the
> light from the shadows will (I assume) not reach the foil or the pressure
> plate at all: and the shadow details determine the speed of a film. The
> highlights will and are amplified by the bouncing back light from the shiny
> aluminium.

Cor,
Reading between the lines, you are indeed finding a difference in film speed.
It might actually be making the film slower! It may depend somewhat on the
developer used, but the characteristic curve of Maco in HC-110 is basically all
toe. It doesn't have a straight line portion or shoulder off. The effect of the
extra light will have a much greater effect on the highlights than on the
shadows because not only is there more light available, the curve shows it has
more of an effect on density. The film is actually slower because in order to
compensate for the blown out highlights, you must reduce development which will
also reduce the density in the shadows.

On the other hand, if we compensate for the increased highlight density by
reducing exposure, the overall contrast increases because we lose the shadows
to save the highlights.

Ideally, the film speed and contrast would stay the same, but the image would
be softer due to the increased halation. The question is, which has a greater
effect on shadow density: the decreased development or the increased exposure?
Both will have a greater effect on the highlights than the shadows. I would
guess that the development has the greater effect, and only by using a highly
compensating developer, would you realize a true increase in film speed.

Comments anyone?

David









From: "Breukel, C. (HKG)" 
To: "'infrared@a1.nl'" 
Subject: RE: Fast Infrared
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:42:17 +0200
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David J. Romano [mailto:romano@epp.agfa.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:29 PM
> 
> Cor,
> Reading between the lines, you are indeed finding a 
> difference in film speed.

..well that was not what I meant: when printing 4*5 sheets of 820c, AURA &
AURA plus alu. foil (exposed as identical as possible) I obtain the same
shadow density (keeping the same enlarger exposure time); more highlight
density in the AURA versus 820C, and again more highlight density in the
AURA + foil versus AURA. As I expected.

On these findings I conclude that in my case there is no speed gain, and
adding foil makes darkroom work harder..;-)

Reducing development will compress the midtones, of which there aren't too
many present anyway.

I'll look into your suggestion of an compensating developer, I tried Pyro,
if you can call that a compensating developer, it is said to print
highlights (on VC) at a softer grade. I did not notice such an effect (but
maybe that's me), but I do notice a firm increase in printing times.


> It might actually be making the film slower! It may depend 
> somewhat on the
> developer used, but the characteristic curve of Maco in 
> HC-110 is basically all
> toe. >

Could you post or send this curve (and maybe any others you have on MACO
film)

Best,

Cor 













Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:24:55 -0400
From: "David J. Romano" 
To: infrared@a1.nl
Subject: Re: Fast Infrared
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

> > Cor,
> > Reading between the lines, you are indeed finding a
> > difference in film speed.
>
> ..well that was not what I meant: when printing 4*5 sheets of 820c, AURA &
> AURA plus alu. foil (exposed as identical as possible) I obtain the same
> shadow density (keeping the same enlarger exposure time); more highlight
> density in the AURA versus 820C, and again more highlight density in the
> AURA + foil versus AURA. As I expected.
>
> On these findings I conclude that in my case there is no speed gain, and
> adding foil makes darkroom work harder..;-)
>
> Reducing development will compress the midtones, of which there aren't too
> many present anyway.
>
> I'll look into your suggestion of an compensating developer, I tried Pyro,
> if you can call that a compensating developer, it is said to print
> highlights (on VC) at a softer grade. I did not notice such an effect (but
> maybe that's me), but I do notice a firm increase in printing times.
>
> > It might actually be making the film slower! It may depend
> > somewhat on the
> > developer used, but the characteristic curve of Maco in
> > HC-110 is basically all
> > toe. >
>
> Could you post or send this curve (and maybe any others you have on MACO
> film)

Cor,
What I was suggesting is that unless you use a compensating developer, you
have 2 choices:
1. A loss in film speed due to the necessary decrease in development.
2. An increase in film speed, but more contrast and less shadow density.

Highly dilute developers are good for compensation, like Rodinal 1:100. Also,
stand development would cause a compensating effect.

Here are 2 links. One is for Maco 820, and the other for Kodak HIE, both in
HC-110.
I don't use Maco film for my personal work, only Kodak. I did the experiments
for people who want to use my infrared light meter with Maco film and judging
by the curves, I would not recommend HC-110 with Maco.


http://davidromano.com/HIECurves.jpg
http://davidromano.com/macocurves.jpg

David











Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:25:13 -0700
From: Joshua Putnam 
To: infrared@a1.nl
Subject: Re: Fast infrared
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

Sid Barras wrote:

> There was some very astute observations posted that the maximum ISO gain I
> should expect with the reflector on the pressure plate is twice the normal
> setting. Logically, this must be true. 

The first thing that comes to mind is reciprocity failure. If
you're shooting HIE along a non-linear part of its exposure
curve, then it's quite possible doubling the light will more than
double the effective speed, and halving the light would more than
halve the effective speed. Though I'm sure there's a better way
to express this than my mangled prose above.

-- 
Protect your dreams for your family's future: is your life
insurance enough to get them there without you?  I can help.

Joshua Putnam, Putnam Financial Services
Voice: 206/992-2296   Fax: 425/793-3623










Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:22:41 -0500
Subject: My firm conclusions on exposuring HIE
From: Sid Barras 
To: infrared group 
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

HI Gang,
I've posted my rather unorthodox situation and methods for shooting HIE
before, and I've consistently shot these same conditions long enough to be
certain that these condtions work for me:

1. HIE film
2. 89b wratten filter between the film rails.
3. The aluminum reflective wrapper that the wratten film comes packaged in-
-
wrapped tightly around the pressure plate on the film compartment door.
That's my unorthodox contribution. I first thought of this when I began to
have "peppered" negatives-- little spots of overexposure noticeable in areas
of even tone-- they were caused by the little dimples in the pressure plate
of my Pentax Spotmatic F camera. The wrapper was both an attempt to make the
pressure plate smooth, and to also exacerbate the "re-exposure" of the HIE,
due to its lack of an anti-halation coating, and to also be able to get a
boost of apparent ISO. It does indeed accomplish both things: it increases
my apparent ISO, and eliminated those annoying dimples in areas of even
tone, like in blue skies with no clouds.
4. In-camera meter set at ISO 1250.That's right, not 125, 1250. (After at
least 20 rolls of consistently obtaining good negatives, I don't bracket
except on pictures I must make absolutely sure I have a good negative AND
I'm not comfortable with the lighting conditions.
5. Souped in HC-110, dil. B. for 4:30 at 68F. (I make sure I don't go over
the time stated, and I make sure it's done at 68F).
6. The agitation regime I use is very careful-- five inversion every 30
seconds for the entire duration of the development time; and these
inversions are gently done. I used to occasionally have trouble with "pepper
fogging"-little spots of no emulsion or no development over large areas of
the negative... I have not had any more trouble with this pepper-fogging
since I went to this constant, gentle agitation. I find that the film I'm
using, which is actually that aerographic 35mm HIE that has the slightly
more rounded sprocket holes than the Kodak rolled and packaged commercial
film (though it is the exact same emulsion)
7. No stop bath, plain water, changing and agitating the water 4 cycles, at
least, before the fixer.
8. I use formulary's TF-4 fixer, constant agitation for the first minute,
then 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off till I reach 3:30.
9. clear water rinse for 5-10 minutes, depending on how fast I'm moving the
water over the film.

The short list:
HIE at 1250 ISO.
89b BTRF. Dull mirrored surface on the pressure plate to increase
re-exposure, and therefore, the ISO setting I can use.
HC-110, dil. B for 4:30 at 68F.
TF-4 fixer, 3:30.

I shoot landscapes, architecture and people with my infrared. I sometimes
add fill flash to people photos, it eliminates the dark shadows, and
increases the IR effect as well.

Given these conditions I shoot at, consideration can be given to the
benefits of such a high ISO-- small apertures at high shutter speeds-- and
the possibility of not having to adjust your focus index to compensate for
the longer IR wavelengths. This is a great benefit to those who don't like
to constantly pull the camera away from their eyes to adjust the focus mark.

There has been some discussion that this reflective surface could not
possibly do anything more than double the ISO, since it could only re-expose
the film once (after bouncing off the pressure plate and re-penetrating the
film's emulsion.) I agree that this seems logical, but I must also report
that before I added the reflective surface to the pressure plate, and all
other conditions equal, I would shoot the HIE at 400, so it would seem I've
gained more than one stop- and, as I've said, I've shot the film this way
long enough to stand by my results.

Sorry for the excessive length-- I would like to generate some discussion on
the issue, but I would most welcome some folks who would like to try this
"method" and report back to the group their own findings.

Oh, I also didn't have some problems that might have been expected:
I don't seem to see any scratches on the film from the coating I've put on
the pressure plate. This wrapper, probably familiar to some of us on the
list, is a foil that has been apparently plastic-coated. It is yellow on the
"outer" side, and aluminum colored on the inside, the side I expose to the
film. I suspect the plastic coating is easy enough on the film that it
doesn't get scratched.

Well, I've exhausted the subject, I think. I hope if nothing else, this
discussion can contribute to some nice infrared images.

Regards from South Louisiana, home of Cajunland USA,
Sid Barras









From: "Paul R. Ostand, PE" 
To: "IR List Reply" 
Subject: RE: My firm conclusions on exposuring HIE
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:51:04 -0400
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

Sid Barras wrote:
6. The agitation regime I use is very careful-- five inversion every 30
seconds for the entire duration of the development time; and these
inversions are gently done. I used to occasionally have trouble with "pepper
fogging"-little spots of no emulsion or no development over large areas of
the negative... I have not had any more trouble with this pepper-fogging
since I went to this constant, gentle agitation. I find that the film I'm
using, which is actually that aerographic 35mm HIE that has the slightly
more rounded sprocket holes than the Kodak rolled and packaged commercial
film (though it is the exact same emulsion)

and also

4. In-camera meter set at ISO 1250.That's right, not 125, 1250.
---------**********
Sid, if I understand this comment (6) these are like the "pinholes"
previously discussed on the list. Am I understanding you correctly?

As to (4), the ISO 1250 in camera. Are you composing without the filter,
then placing it on the lens?

As to the remainder, I await others comments. It is all fascinating; thanks
for sharing.

PAUL










From: Hermann Klecker 
To: infrared@a1.nl
Subject: Re: My firm conclusions on exposuring HIE
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:40:12 +0200
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

Am Sonntag, 29. Juni 2003 04:51 schrieb Paul R. Ostand, PE:
>
>> 4. In-camera meter set at ISO 1250.That's right, not 125, 1250.
> ---------**********
> Sid, if I understand this comment (6) these are like the "pinholes"
> previously discussed on the list. Am I understanding you correctly?
>
> As to (4), the ISO 1250 in camera. Are you composing without the filter=
,
> then placing it on the lens?

The short answer is YES.

Barras also wrote:
>>2. 89b wratten filter between the film rails.

Which means that the filter does not effect the build in metering (similar to
external metering) but does effect the actual emulstion.
This is because the filter 'between the rails' ist at a position behind the
lens, behind the metering, behind the mirror but before the film.

Regards
Hermann








Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:02:02 -0500
Subject: Re: My firm conclusions on exposuring HIE
From: Sid Barras 
To: 
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

> From: "Paul R. Ostand, PE" 
> 
> Subject: RE: My firm conclusions on exposuring HIE
> 
> Sid, if I understand this comment (6) these are like the "pinholes"
> previously discussed on the list. Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes- pinholes, I suppose would be a proper designation. I must have missed
the threads dealing with this issue. I have done some lith processing in the
past and have had what is called pepper fogging from some inconsistencies in
that process, and I would call this the opposite effect-- either the
emulsion was coming off the base in tiny specks, or wasn't developing at all
in these areas and being washed off in the fixing process....
 
> As to (4), the ISO 1250 in camera. Are you composing without the filter,
> then placing it on the lens?

the camera is metering without the filter. A truly fast speed. The filter is
safely tucked away behind the shutter curtain, just in front of the film--
in between the film rails-- taped down with a tiny bit of scotch tape on
each end-- the bit of wratten filter I've cut out and put there is just long
enough so that the ends that are taped down are "rounding" the corner of the
shutter box so that the edges don't expose an edge that might scratch the
film as it goes by. Now, the film does ride on a slightly higher surface
than the filter does, but I wasn't taking chances....











Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:39:00 -0400
From: "David J. Romano" 
To: infrared@a1.nl
Subject: Re: My firm conclusions on exposuring HIE
References: 
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

Sid Barras wrote:

>
> 4. In-camera meter set at ISO 1250.That's right, not 125, 1250. (After at
> least 20 rolls of consistently obtaining good negatives, I don't bracket
> except on pictures I must make absolutely sure I have a good negative AND
> I'm not comfortable with the lighting conditions.
>
> There has been some discussion that this reflective surface could not
> possibly do anything more than double the ISO, since it could only re-expose
> the film once (after bouncing off the pressure plate and re-penetrating the
> film's emulsion.) I agree that this seems logical, but I must also report
> that before I added the reflective surface to the pressure plate, and all
> other conditions equal, I would shoot the HIE at 400, so it would seem I've
> gained more than one stop- and, as I've said, I've shot the film this way
> long enough to stand by my results.


Sid,
Your results sound great.  I can explain how more than stop of film speed can
result from the reflective pressure plate. You are not crazy!

First, doubling the amount of light hitting the film may be the theoretical
limit; but this is not only impossible, it does not result in a doubling of the
film speed. It is impossible because the film absorbs at least a portion the
light that strikes it. Otherwise, it would not react with the silver.  The most
that the the pressure plate can do is reflect back whatever hits it, which can
never be 100%. The aluminized paper you are using is probably not reflecting
more than 80% of the IR light. It would take a special coating even to get 90%
on aluminum.

Nevertheless, the amount of addtional light necessary to double the effective
film speed can be as little as 25%, or .10 log. Consider this: Because of the
film's gamma, which is approximately 1.0 in the midtiones and highlights, a 1
zone increase in exposure requires only .10 log to .15 log more exposure
depending on one's taste. This 1 zone increase is, effectively, a doubling of
the film speed. If the film received a doubling of the light as was the
theoretical limit we said, it would at least quadruple the film's speed (2
zones) Here is a chart that illustrates my point.
http://davidromano.com/89B_HIE_HC110.jpg

The 1 stop = 1 zone rule of thumb is aonly true for "N" development. HIE is
about "N+3"

I would add to this that by increasing the halation, you are mainly punching up
the highlight density on the film, which will effectively increase the overall
contrast of the negative. Your development time of 4:30 at 68F is a little
short, which is probably compenasting for this increase.

David












Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:48:08 -0500
Subject: New development testing results for HIE in PMK
From: Sid Barras 
To: Infrared mail list 
Reply-To: infrared@a1.nl

Hello fellow Infrared shooters:

I'm the guy in South Louisiana who's been shooting HIE at 1250 - 1400 ISO
with the addition of an ISO boosting reflective metallic wrapper on the fil=
m
pressure plate in addition to the somewhat less esoteric use of an 89b
wratten filter between the film rails.

With this unique shooting set up, I've been developing the film in HC-110
for 4:30 seconds at 68=B0F with good results. I occasionally will overexpose
in heavy shade conditions, unless I remember to set the exposure
compensation on my pentax K2 to underexpose by one-half to one stop
underexposure. Otherwise, great results.

But I longed for the really good mid-tone separation and acutance I get by
using any typical T-grain black and white film like Kodak's Tmax or Ilford's
Delta with PMK developer. When I say PMK, of course I'm talking about the
"Pyro Gallic acid--Metol-- and whatever K stands for that Photographer's
formulary sells. This is the same formula that Gordon somebody wrote about
in his book "The book on Pyro" which some of you may have seen or read. (If
you desire accurate information, please ask and I'll get off my lazy butt
and find it and give you the ISBN number...)

I had tried PMK once before with this film shot the way described above, but
at the 1:2:100 dilution, I was still getting very thin negatives at 17
minutes of development.

Well, I had a roll of typically shot HIE that I could waste, so I tried the
PMK once again, and got very good results with this combination:

dilution: 1.5:2.5:100 (in other words, slightly hotter than the standard
1:2:100 dilution)

Development time: 17:00 at 74=B0F (some of the negs were slightly
overdeveloped; On my next roll I will probably go with something like 16:00
at 74=B0F.

Agitation: continuous, on one of those JOBO type developer tank rotators. It
basically turns and tilts the developing tank at the same time, probably
something like 60 rotations per minute.

Stop bath: plain water, 4 or 5 cycles of filling the tank, agitating it a
bit, pouring all the water out, and repeating the process.

Rinsed film is then fixed in Photographer's formulary proprietary fixer "TF
4" for 4 minutes, agitation for first minute, then 30 secs per minute
thereafter.

Then film is removed from tank, put back into the used developer that has
been saved (I still don't understand the purpose of this step, but the pyro
guy -- Hey I remember his name!! -- Gordon Hutchings, recommends it to
improve the "sought after" pyro stain. This is done for two minutes, no
agitation.

Then, a slow, gentle, 20 minute water bath rinse, film still on the spool,
of course.

Result: excellent negatives, especially for HIE, which tends to have poor
mid-tone separation (read: too much contrast, especially in bright sunlight
with shady areas where the exposure range can test any film, being many
stops between the bright and the shade.

Again, I repeat, though, I would probably shorten the development time by
one minute next time, or of course, one could cool the fluid down a bit too.

Well, that's my two cents worth, sorry to make it so long.

Sid

PS: I'm still hoping someone will adopt my unique set up (the reflective
pressure plate) and try to repeat and confirm my results and method...

If you have any question, remark, comment, want to share some philosophy or just want to express your opinion about these pages, feel free to send email to: w.j.markerink @ a1.nl