I took a couple of rolls of Konica IR film and the Yashica 124 to the beach last Saturday. I had managed to convince a red filter to stay in place over the lens. I shot at 1/30, f11 in bright, haze-free sunlight, which corresponds to an effective film speed (after filter correction) of about 8 or 15 (by the sunny-16 rule) -- pretty darned slow film. I was worried that the combination of 85mm lens and the slow shutter speed would result in pretty severe camera shake. However, the TLR seems to tolerate slower shutter speeds than an SLR does -- most of the soft images were of children that couldn't stay still for 1/30s. They moved, not the camera. I didn't attempt to compensate for the IR focus shift; I just hoped that the depth of field at f11 would be large enough to compensate. As it turned out, I didn't see any blatently mis-focussed shots.
Anyway, I took a chance and ran the film through the Kodak Direct Positive processing kit, designed to produce B/W slides out of T-max film. I didn't know if the chemistry was appropriate for the Konica, but it's all just an adventure, right? Anyway, the first roll was very disappointing. The images were ruined; blotchy and stained. (But they weren't so bad that I couldn't see the potential in some of the shots of the kids playing in the surf. Damn, I wish that roll had come out.) Anyway, there I was, with one badly developed roll, not knowing if the failure was due to month-old chemistry or due to some fundamental incompatibility between the emulsion and the process. Anyway, I mixed up new chemicals and took a chance on ruining the second roll. Results? Wow. They came out great. The images are really cool with dark skies and very soft glowing skin tones -- basically, the in-your-face IR effect. The guys down at the pro photo shop were pretty impressed. (As an aside, one commented on the sharpness of the images and asked if I had used a Hasselblad. No kidding.)
Okay, once you get past the sexy attraction of a glowing transparency illuminated on a light table, the flat print will break your heart. I asked the lab to print a few of the images on type R (color positive) paper, but I'm not holding my breath. Most of the other prints I've made from slides have been huge disappointments.
Summarize the direct positive process? Pros -- looks cool on a light table, really cool. Cons -- expensive, very sensitive to temperature and time, lots of potential for error with six different solutions (first developer, bleach, clearing bath, redeveloper, fix, rinse), difficult to print (positive papers simply don't exist in the wide contrast ranges of negative paper). But on the other hand, it looks SO good on a light table...
A few remarks about the process itself: I followed the T-max 100 instructions exactly, making no changes in the development times. Initially, I considered adjusting the times by the ratio of standard development times for the two emulsions, but since I don't really understand the fundamentals of the chemistry involved, I decided not to introduce any more variables. I added approximately 23 grams of anhydrous sodium sulfite to the first developer. This is about half of the amount recommended by Kodak to increase the contrast of the T-max image. A final note -- the processed film comes out of the final rinse with a VERY soft emulsion. If you attempt this process, be extremely careful not to handle the film any more than is absolutely necessary until the film is dry. I found that the gelatin would get wiped off of the backing very easily. However, after drying overnight, the emulsion seemed very stable and scratch-resistant. Do NOT sqeegee this film. Remove it from the reel VERY carefully and do not handle it until it is completely dry.
Good luck,
Dave
Last Updated: Friday, July 9, 1999