Mark Cassino Photography A Photographer's Journal

Latest Comments

In response to: Dandelion

Comment from: nic m [Visitor]

nic m

Correction 4 x 58 images.
Lovely image!

05/22/17 @ 12:04

In response to: Dandelion

Comment from: Yves Caudano [Visitor]

Yves Caudano

Lovely!

05/12/17 @ 03:15

In response to: Rollei IR 400 First Impressions

Comment from: [Member]

Hi Wilson -

That Combat Graphic camera looks really cool - I had never heard of them before.

I don’t know how sensitive selenium cells would be to IR light, but it would be best to find some way to meter through the filter. Maybe your Leica M8 with the B+W 092 could be used as meter? Might be worth looking into.

The problem with using visible light and applying a filter factor with an infrared filter is that there is not a consistent relationship between visible light and IR light. From Hoya’s website on their R72 filter: “Due to the nature of infrared light, filter factor and exposure compensation vary widely from visible light and depends largely on lighting conditions. ” (http://www.hoyafilter.com/hoya/products/specialeffectsfilters/r72infrared/) So, when it comes to infrared it’s better to directly meter the IR light.

When I first posted this I was trying to use a filter factor with a Hoya R72 and it did not work out well. The solution, pointed out in an early comment, was to directly meter through the IR filter. That worked well, though I was initially skeptical that the camera’s meters, intended to be used with visible light, would be accurate with an IR filter.

FWIW - I have never used Rollei 400s and do not know how pronounced the IR effect is. I’d be interested in seeing the results you get with it and the Graflex.
Good luck.

04/06/17 @ 16:33

In response to: Rollei IR 400 First Impressions

Comment from: Wilson Laidlaw [Visitor]

Wilson Laidlaw

I am about to try Rollei 400S in my Graflex Combat Graphic 70mm film camera (or at least I will when it comes back from rebuild, where we are having to remake one part of the shutter mechanism by 3D printing it in titanium), mainly because it is the only 70mm double perforated film available at anything approaching a reasonable price. Ilford HP5+ is over double the price for a 50 foot roll. I was wondering if I could use my Weston Master V meter (rebuilt to as new by Ian Partridge) with an IR filter, say a B+W 092 (650nm) in place of the normal flip up light reducer. I am not sure that the selenium cell would be sensitive enough to give a reading with this but once I get down to my house in France, where my various IR filters are. I don’t know how sensitive selenium cells are to infra red. All my recent IR photography has been with a digital Leica M8, which I have kept just for that purpose. It is one of the few digital cameras that as standard, does not have an IR filter in front of the sensor and for normal use, you have to use an IR high pass filter in front of the lens.

04/06/17 @ 11:29

In response to: The Northern Black Widow Spider

Comment from: P.C. s.e. Alabama [Visitor]

P.C.    s.e. Alabama

I have a Note 4 Samsung phone. It has a light, a flash, and a zoom lens. I have some unbelievable pictures. My son-in-law is a photographer for the Army, and he just couldn’t believe the photos this camera would take. I have pics of the moon at mid-night. And the clouds are very defined. It would have been great to have had this camera when I was in Thailand. But of course, as all G.I.’s did. I bought a 35mm which took a lot to set up. This phone does all that for you. ” AND YOUR NOT SPENDING A FORTUNE ON FILM!!! ” Just take that little chip to wally-world, or plug right into your printer and download. Oh Yeah! We have Brown Widows here in SE Alabama. Sort of a milk chocolate color with the red hour glass, and the same size.

02/03/17 @ 16:45

In response to: Testing Otamat 10mm f1.7 Lens

Comment from: Otto Souta [Visitor]

Otto Souta

Wow, thanks for posting your pictures. It is nice to see my lens in operation with these results!
Available on ebay under otas32 or directly - just PM me.

01/27/17 @ 06:51

In response to: Rollei IR 400 First Impressions

Comment from: Nick [Visitor]

Nick

I shoot a ton of this stuff. I have a 35mm 100 ft. bulk roll loaded at home and about 75 sheets of 4x5 to go through. Here are some of my images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/analoguefilm/albums/72157666795284664.

I find that adding a circular polarizer to first darken the skies and then adding your IR720/R72 filter will give more dramatic results. I meter at ISO 6 and bracket only in overexposure unless it’s a high-contrast scene. Then I’ll do one each way.

On 35mm it’s possible to see through the lens with the filter on in bright conditions making handheld shooting possible. f/5.6 at 1/30s gives me consistently good results.

For developing I do Rodinal (APH-09 to be precise) 1+50 for 12 minutes. 30 seconds initial agitation then 3 inversion every minute after.

12/30/16 @ 13:04

In response to: Vivitar Panoramic Focus Free

Comment from: David [Visitor]

David

Your review led me to pick up one of these 101 panoramas at a thrift store newish in box for $3.00. Absolutely love it! It was so much fun shooting with it and the pano viewfinder gives a new perspective for framing

08/27/16 @ 16:21

In response to: Rollei IR 400 First Impressions

Comment from: [Member]

Hi Rick -

I think that 1/30th at f8 in bright sun - approximately ISO 32 per the sunny 16 rule - would be a good starting point for IR400 and an R72 filter. But, as noted above I needed to use much longer exposure times than expected to get the full IR effect. You might want to try metering through the R72 filter mounted on your camera / lens. I was skeptical of this approach but found that it works well. I wondered if the camera meter was sensitive to IR light, but it worked fine for the camera I was using. Comparing adjusted light meter readings to readings in camera through the R72 would be interesting.

The R72 filter blocks most of the visible light and allows infrared to pass through. Taking a meter reading from visible light and then adjusting it will work if there is a correlation between the visible light and IR light. I don’t think that correlation is very tight. IR seems more directional and in experimenting I’ve noted that simply changing the camera’s angle in relation to the sun can have a significant effect on IR light while having little effect on visible light. I sometimes use an IR converted DSLR that relies on a visible light metering system, and see this all the time. The meter reading in camera, based on visible light, changes little between setups, but the results in IR can vary significantly.

So, whatever you do with a handheld meter will be an approximation. Through the lens might be better.

Hope you get some great shots!

Mark

08/13/16 @ 10:49

In response to: Rollei IR 400 First Impressions

Comment from: Rick Jack [Visitor]

Rick Jack

All the information you’ve posted is very helpful. I found some of this film in my refrigerator and want to give it a try.
If I understand correctly using a 720nm filter is like shooting at ISO12?
I intend to use a hand held light meter and bracket, so about 1/30 @ f8 is a good starting point in bright sun?
I didn’t know the 35mm film had a dye layer, thanks for the heads up. I guess I’ll try a piece of the leader in water first. I haven’t come across a film with a dye since the 1970’s.
I’ve been shooting IR in digital and miss the film look.
I just wanted to thank you for motivating me.

08/12/16 @ 19:28

In response to: Dutchman's Britches, Bloodroot and Hepatica

Comment from: Grace [Visitor]

Grace

Great photography. Just returned from an afternoon’s walk in the woods (about 20 miles east of Madison, WI). The Dutchman’s Britches were the dominant flower in bloom on this hike and very abundant. Every square foot of this area had 5 or 6 of these plants–over an area the size of a baseball field. Gorgeous!

04/26/16 @ 17:01

In response to: Tree at Middleton Place (Non Infrared)

Comment from: Marie [Visitor]

Marie

Thank you for this photo! It has such detail and depth. In the IR version, I thought I was looking up a hill. Now, I can see the water and it eerily changes the whole picture. It reminds me of the book on trees by Thomas Pakenham. M :)

03/21/16 @ 05:15

In response to: Film vs. Digital Photography

Comment from: Mark Samuels [Visitor]

Mark Samuels

Indeed this is one of the best discussions I’ve read on the web regarding such comparisons, particularly in terms of practical applications. Very helpful for someone thinking about trying to go to larger format (than digital APS-C). Thanks!

03/07/16 @ 14:38

In response to: Caffenol

Comment from: Trevor [Visitor]

Trevor

This article is very interesting and well written.Following the guidelines set out in caffenol.blogspot.com I used cheap,not ‘real’, coffee (sainsburys basics in my case) and,when using Dri Pak (or any other ‘decahydrate’ version of sodium carbonate), multiplied the recommended amount by 2.7.However,I found that a good starting point is to shoot at box speed and develop for 15 mins with the common agitation pattern of 10 inversions to start then 3 inversions per minute there after.The 100asa and 400asa versions of Kentmere film,one of the cheapest brands available,both respond well to this recipe (vitamin C included,as per caffenol.blogspot),development time and agitation.The example attached is with Kentmere film via an Epson 2450 scannner, followed by auto levels and a little sharpening.

02/26/16 @ 03:13

In response to: Muddy March Leaves - Final Edit

Comment from: [Member]

Thanks, Lillian! I think this photo was made using version 5.0.4 of Photomatix but there has been at least one update since. I try to keep it up to date and the license has thus far allowed for updates at no cost.

12/26/15 @ 11:45

In response to: Muddy March Leaves - Final Edit

Comment from: Lillian [Visitor]

Lillian

Nice work!!very good! What version of Photomatix have you been using??
Im going to buy Photomatix Pro 5 and just started using http://macphun.com/noiseless tools (also). The process is relatively simple for now..

12/25/15 @ 10:37