Hells Gate in Infrared

Garbz

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
9,713
Reaction score
203
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Website
www.auer.garbz.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I was having a really crap day. It was overcast so I decided to leave my film camera along with it's efke 850 IR film in the car thinking IR was a total waste of time. Well by the time we hiked to hells gate a few hours later we had the most perfect conditions for IR photography.

The D200 had to do in this case:

3356388162_5e8b80c0be_o.jpg

3356388240_e5a9ff5a81_o.jpg


And on the way back we worked our way over the green sludge, not worth starting a new thread for this one:
3355569429_84c4de0d38_o.jpg
 
nice!

i like IR photography, but never had the chance or the equipments to shoot IR.

but how did you make the trees looks ghost-y :p?

and i don't think hell would look that beautiful :p!
 
The trees look ghosty because of the digital IR. The IR effect turns them white, and when using a digital camera that hasn't been specifically converted for the effect the photos require a long exposure. 25seconds exposures + wind makes them give the glowing leaves their ghostly blur.

Oh and if I took a photo straight down from where I am standing you'd know why it's called Hells Gate. It's a small cove surrounded by a 40m cliff.
 
The first one is great. There is a dreamy atmosphere due to the ghostly trees.
 
Ahhh, the green of the sludge ... :D :D :D!

So in how far would it have been better to have that IR film camera on you for this kind of photography???
 
Well really bad actually, because I developed the IR roll I shot the day after and completely fouled up the development of it :(. Only 1 photo on the 36roll turned out.

As for how it would have been better, it would have proper accurate contrast and a faster shutter speed. What I mean by that is the sky would have followed the water to be perfectly pitch black, and the IR effect would be stronger, i.e. leaves would be whiter. I have another photo shoot this weekend and I intend to try again. And the shutter speed is a drastic difference. The D200 was set to ISO100 f/5 at 60seconds (-1.6EV), the Efke IR820 film is ISO100 and in the same lighting conditions with the same filter would work at f/8 1/15th (+10EV), which is nearly 12 stops difference.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top