|
Author
|
|
Derek Lincoln
Friend
Registered: September 2008
Location: Market Drayton, Shropshire
Posts: 206
|
|
Sat, 6, December, 2014 10:25am
|
|
|
A good subject for IR Chisel. What is it taken on? I like the plants in the foreground on the left to lead your eye into the main interest of the picture.
Derek
|
|
|
|
alexmuir
Friend
Registered: January 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,681
|
|
Sat, 6, December, 2014 12:12pm
|
|
|
A great shot with lots of detail and impact. I have used SFX, but not for years, and not with an IR filter. It seems to work well. I used ID11 for my last IR film (Rollei IR 400) and found that the results were better than my previous developer. Your shot retains good detail in both the sunlit and shaded aspects of the building which is not easy to achieve with the high contrast you get with IR.
|
|
|
|
|
Terry S
Friend
Registered: December 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,816
|
|
Sat, 6, December, 2014 1:03pm
|
|
|
A well composed shot which I like. 
Not sure why but when clicking to enlarge it, it darkens overall somewhat meaning that all of the back of the buildings and trees fill in and become black. Luckily the front print is good.
Terry S
|
|
|
|
|
vincent
Friend
Registered: December 2008
Location: Co. Kildare Ireland
Posts: 876
|
|
Sun, 7, December, 2014 12:04pm
|
|
|
Excellent IR shot. I saw a copyof this print yesterday when we had our print showing from members of Irish Section of APUG. I'm very impressed with IR effects gained from SFX and will have a go a using this film, come summer. Well done Fran.
------------------------------
Cheers
Vincent - Not afraid of the dark
|
|
|
|
|
chisel
Friend
Registered: December 2011
Posts: 261
|
|
Sun, 7, December, 2014 8:32pm
|
|
|
Gosh -thanks for the comments all!
I shot it on a canon eos 10qd - its the last canon camera that didn't use an IR diode for sprocket counting (which would ruin IR film). In other words, the most modern canon that I could use for IR.
The lens was either a 24-105 F4L or the 17-40 F4L and I used a Hoya R72 screw on filter. I did two exposures for each shot, metering at ISO 6 and ISO 3... but in truth either would have done fine across the few IR rolls I shot. I printed around grade 4 or so.
Incidentally, I had one (2 year's expired) roll of Efke IR820 aura - shot it during this trip, but it didn't develop well at all.....
Fran
|
|
|
|
|
PaulDiz
Friend
Registered: August 2010
Location: Elphin, Co.Roscommon
Posts: 105
|
|
Wed, 10, December, 2014 4:56pm
|
|
|
I will second Vincent. The print was superb. Thanks Fran.
Cheers
Diz
|
|
|
|
|
Mike O'Pray
Friend
Registered: October 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,984
|
|
Wed, 10, December, 2014 7:50pm
|
|
|
Terry I seldom click to enlarge as the standard print scan seems to be nearly as big but I tried it just now and didn't notice the differences you mention
Might it be something at your end as they say?
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Terry S
Friend
Registered: December 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,816
|
|
Thu, 11, December, 2014 2:24pm
|
|
|
Don't know Mike but just checking it's still doing it? But the front print is still good to look at.
Never remember experiencing it on any other pic in the past...?
Terry S
|
|
|
|
|
chisel
Friend
Registered: December 2011
Posts: 261
|
|
Thu, 11, December, 2014 4:37pm
|
|
|
no difference when I enlarge it either. Could it be the graphics being under a bit of strain?
|
|
|
|
|
Bill
Moderator & Keeper of the Calendar
Registered: September 2008
Location: Barrow - in - Furness
Posts: 1,803
|
|
Mon, 15, December, 2014 10:59am
|
|
|
I've just had a look at this enlarged and there is no change at all. It still looks the same.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Film and Darkroom User
Photo Details
