This is not my photograph but I need some advice about IR film

>>3032882
Without actually having shot with an R72 before, my advice is pretty useless, but if that's the instructions you're given, that would be correct.
Also, there's no reason you couldn't use the cameras meter. Set it to 25, take off the filter, meter the scene, set camera, replace filter, shoot. You will probably need to take the filter off to focus anyway.
Remember to use the IR focusing mark on your lense.
It's the red dot on the focus scale, focus normally through the viewfinder, and then move whatever number was lined up with the normal focusing indicator so it's aligned with the red dot instead.
Also, to get a full IR effect in your photos, you'll need to choose moist subjects. So people, or healthy green trees, or clouds. Dry barren shit doesn't reflect IR nearly as much.

>>3032940
I just thought like, the meter reads visible light, most of which is going to be filtered out.

So a meter reading taken without the filter doesn't really tell you anything about the amount of infrared light available with the filter.

I was wondering whether metering would work with the filter on, like whether it reads infrared light the same way as it does visible light.

>>3032940
Ooooh, so it's the moisture that reflects IR?

When I heard it was just living stuff I was a bit skeptical, sounds like magical hippy bullshit. But then I though maybe its something to do with pigments like chlorophyll or whatever's in our skin.

>>3032940
You know that ir photos like op posted are all made with custom white balance settings in Photoshop or Lightroom, the actual pictures before post processing look really bad and have weird colors.

File: wood's glass from tanning bed (uv+~800nm ir).jpg (409KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 750x1000px

>>3033393
>what did he mean by this

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD
Camera Model	C2020Z
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	0000:00:00 00:00:00
Focal Length	6.60 mm
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
ISO Speed Rating	100
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
F-Number	f/2.0

File: _DSC1531.jpg (127KB, 666x1001px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 666x1001px

>>3033393
>>3033434
That's true for the digital colour ones but b&w IR is pretty much how the OP pic looks from the start. annoyingly, Photoshop doesn't want to set WB cold enough to get good IR colours, so I gave up on shooting raw format.

File: Scan-140520-0005.jpg (330KB, 1001x680px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1001x680px

>>3033443
This is b&w film IR. Rolley 400IR specifically, with an R72 filter. Pretty much no editing.

File: IR.jpg (259KB, 1001x666px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1001x666px

>>3033445 I meant Rollei. Sorry.
Have another one.
Still Rollei 400IR. This in 6*9 format.

File: _DSC1545.jpg (267KB, 666x1001px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 666x1001px

>>3033447
And a very edited digital IR. From a converted D70s

>>3033434
>>3033443
My bad I misread op, I thought we were talking about digital ir. Ignore my post then

>>3033472
No problem, we all make mistakes.

>>3032882
The Rollei 400IR I have posted here was shot at f/16 and one second on bright sunny days. I don't bother metering at all really, since it's only worth shooting in sunshine anyway, so I just always shoot at f/16 and 1 sec, or equivalent.

File: 350D 2006-02-16 059.jpg (4MB, 3435x2290px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3435x2290px

https://www.flickr.com/photos/linebrell/albums/72157655870900760
I'm using DIY converted 350D. Feel free to ask questions.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Windows)
Photographer	unknown
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:05 18:11:10
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	1.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3033485
so 1/25 would be too fast?

>>3034203
You can try, but I get good exposures at one second, so I assume 1/25 is too fast, yeah.

>>3034226
you use an r72 filter too? I just know i'm gonna waste this film

>>3034509
Yeah, that's with an R72 filter.
It's probably fine. These films have some margin for error and being a stop off in either direction should still give you negatives you can work with.
Just accept that the first roll won't be perfect, write down exactly how you shot each frame and what the lighting conditions were, and learn from it.
It's just a roll of film. There's plenty of it out there and how much does it cost anyway? The same as a pint or two at the local pub? You can afford that.

File: ir1.jpg (196KB, 1001x673px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1001x673px

>>3034786
Another one.
Sunny weather, f/16, exposed for 1 second.
There was almost no sunshine on my trip there and I only shot like 4 frames of IR over an entire week.
I'll have to go back later.

>>3034788
As you can see, the sky it pretty bright compared to some IR photos. Yeah, half a sec would probably have been fine too. Or even 1/4