a tale of two films

I guess I've been on something of an infrared kick. This all began because I was bound and determined to shoot a roll of IR in the Holga before the semester began. That said, there's something highly (and I mean highly) addictive about infrared--about what it reveals, what it allows one to see. I didn't want to use up another roll of 120, so I loaded the Canon AE1 Program with a roll of Ilford SFX 200, setting my camera's iso at 25. I was eager to see what difference, if any, it would make to shoot infrared indoors. This worked out fairly well as the first day of shooting was an overcast, rainy-ish day--not the best day for shooting outdoors. I was also eager to see what impact (if any) infrared film would have on skin.


















I was really pretty pleased with the flower shots and the soft, almost retro look I was able to achieve here.















































I think I shot about half of the roll indoors. The next day was a much better weather day, so I took things outdoors. My primary goal with the outdoor shots was to compare the Ilford SFX 200 (which, according to one poster on flickr is not a "true IR film, but a film with extended red sensitivity [meaning that] the IR effect will be less than 'real' infrared films") with Rollei 400 IR. What appears left and below is a sampling of the outdoor shots I took with the SFX 200.



















































Here, by way of a visual comparison then, is a sampling of the images shot on Rollei 400 IR film, beginning with the image left, titled "Ruin," which is one of my favorite images from this shoot. It may be important to note that the day got increasingly nice (i.e., clear and sunny) as it went on. In this way, there were far more opportunities to shoot in direct sunlight later in the day (after I had loaded the camera with the Rollei film) than when I first headed out with the SFX still in the camera. This being the case, I can't offer as accurate a comparison as I'd like to have offered. Perhaps the fact that I was shooting indoors combined with the fact that many of the outdoor shots I took with the SFX were not taken in direct sunlight makes SFX seem, indeed, less infrared-y than the Rollei 400 film. I'd also note that I kept the camera set at an iso of 25 while working with the Rollei 400 film. Both rolls were developed with Diafine. For both rolls, I used my Visico 720 IR filter.

no contest

I finally got around to finishing up the test roll in the Kalimar Spirit SP pano trashcam the other day. I was definitely not impressed. Then again, a pano trashcam has a lot to live up to given my experience (and satisfaction with) what is to my mind one of the best cameras (whether pano, trashcam or no) ever made--the ultronic panoramic. What follows could be viewed as an unfair comparison given the type of image chosen to represent each camera.
Here is a diptych featured an ultronic image to the left, and one taken by the Kalimar to the right. The image left, by the by, is one of my favorite all time images. What may seem unfair here is that the ultronic image is taken from a much closer distance than the other. I guess the best evidence I have of the ultronic's greatness has to do with the fact that of the 24 or so images taken on the Kalimar, only six were worth scanning in. This is never the case with the ultronic.

With this pairing the Kalimar image is positioned above the one taken with the ultronic. This was perhaps my favorite Kalimar image. The ultronic image featured here is okay--not one of my favorites.

My main problem with the Kalimar has to do with the way the images looked once developed. With the exception of the boat pic above, the colors were all blah--something that is represented moreso in the first image featured here. The colors from the ultronic have always been incredible. I don't know if this has to do with the camera, the developer or something else. [Note: I used fuji 400 in the Kalimar--a film and speed I often use in the ultronic.] I will say that when I developed the Kalimar images, the developer was very new. This is not to say that the developer wasn't compromised though by the c-22 debacle from last week. I refer now to trying to develop film meant for c-22 processing in c-41 chemicals. If the developer has been compromised to any degree, it's clearly not ruined. The colors are still okay, accurate enough, etc. I guess I'll try developing another not-so-important roll of film and see what's what before deciding to dump this liter.

I did do a number of close-up shots with the Kalimar, but they were hardly worth scanning or saving. What I find particularly remarkable about the ultronic is the depth of field--how everything, whether close-up or at a distance, is in focus. My sense was that the Kalimar was not as capable of doing this. It lacked a certain sharpness, attention to detail.

I'm not ruling the Kalimar out all together. All I'm saying at this point, is that it won't displace or even threaten the ultronic's position as my number one pano go-to camera. Perhaps I will do another test roll when I change out the chemicals. I think it would be most helpful, in terms of comparing the cameras, to take both cameras out on the same day and shoot the same subjects or scenes with each camera. That way, I will not be comparing images shot on a dreary day with ones shot on a better day.