Last night, I picked up two just-processed rolls of Kodak high-speed infrared black-and-white film. I shot the rolls in 2000 and then threw them into deep freeze immediately. Some of the results were stunning, to say the least, while others will need some Photoshop work. But the old maxim of "get more than one good shot in a roll and you've made up for the poor shots" qualifies here. This was one particular example, shot in a cemetery on an overcast day (and with a b/w "red" filter):

Click to view attachment

These days, film is quietly vanishing from mainstream use, but this infrared film is still being made (much to my relief, actually). At the same time, there are companies that offer (permanent) conversions for your own DSLR (some comparative examples are provided here by a company called LifePixel). By doing this, of course, you commit your camera body to being exclusively an IR camera, but for a cheap DSLR, like a Nikon D50, it might well be worth it for a few photographers.

There's also an IR filter one can buy which looks opaque black, requires no camera body conversion, and is what has been used for many years with IR film shots (namely those "black sky" shots on sunny days). The downside of this, naturally, is using the TTL viewfinder isn't possible, and focusing can't really happen unless you swap filters first with previewing through a clear (or no) filter.

So I was thinking about IR application to our area of study and research. I don't think I've seen many uses of it, if any at all, as it relates to field study. In the past, this might have had something to do with the cumbersome nature of IR light with specialized film, in that most shots had to be deliberately planned and framed carefully, eliminating much hope for bona fide spontaneity. But with converted DSLR cameras, one can view in real time what the shot will look like.

Objects that reflect IR light in spades are leaves and foliage generally -- this is why they appear whitish and ghostly, whether an IR filter is used or (as in the case of IR film with only a b/w "red" filter) not. Trunks, fur and other objects that largely absorb IR energy end up looking dark, even black (particularly if an IR filter is used). In a forest, this might make it easier to distinguish hair or a hair-covered body from the leaves -- in daylight, that is. Even that alone might be useful in certain situations where a sighting

But with an IR speedlight (flash), I'm wondering if shooting in darkness might be of benefit or utility. Using an IR flash might keep photographers at night from being blinded while yielding candid shots that take subjects a bit off guard. Or maybe not.

In any event, I'm curious if it might end up being useful for sasquatch field work. What are some of your thoughts on using this shooting medium?

I use to fool around with IR B&W film for reasons other than what you've described here, and wonder what your purpose was for photographing a cemetery? Hans Holzer was using B&W photography way back in the early 60s for photographing spirits, and if you ever get a chance to browse through his book "Spirit Photography" take a look at it. You'll see some pretty interesting stuff in there as well as some photos of hoax's. I think one of his most intriguing photos using this medium was of the Monks in a Cathedral that were not there during the photography session. My suggestion is you take some shots of common wildlife in natural settings just to see exactly how much contrast there is between the foliage and their bodies.

If it's not quite to your liking see if you can find a supplier of high contrast standard B&W film, I know Porter's use to carry it but not sure if they still do. Just stay away from their 2 Color (Which is just BLACK and WHITE no grays between them) Super High Contrast because the results will look more like a sillouette cut-out than a photograph. Also if you get a chance to play with some IR Color film that's fun to play with as well. Due to the "False Color", examples green foliage comes out red and water and sky anything from green to purplish black the results can range from curiously strange to gaudy. I took some pictures of my yard years ago when I lived in a heavily wooded area and was surprised to see some of the tree foliage came out the typical deep ruby red while other trees had pink foliage. I checked around and found out that the Forest Service use to, not sure if they still do, photograph forests with the IR Color film. Any trees that showed the pink foliage were sick and most likely in the process of dieing. The next spring that proved true as every tree that had shown pink foliage was dead. WARNING!!!! DO NOT take pictures of PEOPLE with the IR Color Film. At least not if you want to be complimented on your photography skills. Usually their skin will come out a pasty green, and if they have shallow veins those show up as dark blackish lines against their pasty green complexion. If they are hypochondriacs they'll make a beeline for the nearest doctor's office to see what's wrong with them regardless of what they see in the mirror!

Experimentation, basically. I lived just blocks from a really well-kept, pretty cemetery, and I wanted to try foliage shots (where I could have contrast with non-natural objects, like headstones). Otherwise, it would have been city street shots, and I wasn't exactly inclined to waste what I thought might have been a one-time opportunity to try this film (I experimented with whatever E-6 and b/w variations that I could find at the local pro camera shop). Another roll, which didn't turn out as dramatically, were of glassblowers handling white-hot globs of glass, taking them in and out of a kiln. And there are a few rolling prairie farm shots, but this is a digression.



Intriguing on the Holzer book, which for sake of photography in itself I'd be interested to peruse. Cheers!

On the wildlife front, I did shoot at the edge of a farmstead where I saw cattle. The image itself needs contrast adjustment, and also, this was largely a cow under tree shade on a sunny day. The leaves, of course, are very light, while for the most part, the details of the cow don't appear all that different. But given the three primary ways to shoot IR with digital SLRs, I hope to get a chance to at least play with experimentation that way and take it with on a local hike trail, shooting whatever animal life I stumble into. Unfortunately, this won't be happening anytime soon.



It's a bit humbling how much in the way of film variety has fallen by the wayside since the takeover by digital. I used to shoot all my E-6 with Fujichrome MS100/1000 multi-speed film, and I was absolutely in love with it. Then around 2001, it was discontinued, much to my devastation.

And yes, super-high contrast is for a very specific application -- something which I might expect a Man Ray fan to use for experimenting (well, that and solarization).



That makes total sense, and I find it quite fascinating. I've not shot with colour infrared film, and I'm not liable to, since Kodak have discontinued it (scroll to the last discontinued film).




Oh, THAT SOUNDS TRÈS COOL (yes, I raised my voice). It sounds like a more dramatic surreality effect to, say, cross-processing E-6 film with C-41 chemicals (something which a friend of mine used to do, and had the access to facilities that didn't get cranky about it). I'm sure that with colour IR capability with DSLRs that inevitably some "scary" shots of people will become more common.

I used to love shooting infrared B&W for the very same reasons. Black skies, white foliage and pale skinned people. Never shot the color film since it wasn't my thing. Don't see it being too helpful in BF research, but I only was into it for the arty aspect, not technical, so who knows.
Nice shot, accozzaglia.

Thanks, Squonksquatch. Actually, I'm thinking of this possible scenario: use a DSLR body equipped with the IR conversion. Once that is set up, the LCD screen will let the user preview in real time everything through the lens as seen in infrared light waves. This utility alone in a way enables our eyes a little more access to the EM spectrum we ordinarily can't see. But it's the real time monitoring that makes this option an intriguing new tool.

Though inconclusive, some reports and researchers seem to suggest that -- atop having a larger eye for capturing more light photons -- sasquatch may have the means to detect light in the IR or near-IR range. That said, having a DSLR preview in IR light space might offer a slightly better vantage point for differentiating objects that otherwise look camouflaged in visible light -- meaning that one might be able to better distinguish the contrast between a tree trunk (which tends to be markedly darker than with visible light photography) and a hair-laden animal (which, if I'm not mistaken, tends to not do so -- particularly where bare skin is exposed). In other words, the camouflage is stripped away somewhat.

All things considered, and based on the accumulation of research suggesting such, they all but probably sense when humans are within their purview, so having an IR DSLR with real time preview isn't likely in many situations to change things. The utility of IR photography, however, might offer a few more moments to get a photo or two when a sasquatch is upwind and hasn't yet caught on to a nearby human presence. And that might be all it'll take to get beyond the blobsquatch refrain.

But until IR photography is in the hands of more people (like a mere function control on future digital camera, including point-and-shoot), then these chances are, while not futile, pretty isolated.

In other words, what you said.

Just found this online, and sorry to hear they've discontinued the color IR film. Here's a side-by-side of an outdoor scene showing what it looks like when shot in color IR film then with normal color film.

Click to view attachment

Actually infrared photography will have a major influence in Bigfoot research, most people just don’t know it yet. I didn’t think anyone in the BFF was interested in the wavelengths of light we as humans cannot see. I’m glad to see you guys are interested. I have been working on a job that involves ultraviolet, visible, near infrared and longwave infrared imaging.

You would be surprised what we are learning from nature. I will post some of my initial results on this BFF topic in the near future. Much of my testing involved viewing fabrics, plastics and other camouflage painted objects.

Here is a site to a book that is tops on my list.
http://www.alienvision.org/

Here is a link to a UV-camcorder I was able to purchase. It records in Ultraviolet, visible and near infrared. Its worth it weight in Gold!

http://www.oculusphotonics.com/

Here’s just a hint of what I was able to uncover using the UVcorder in near infrared spectrum. Crows (the bird) looks all black to the naked eye, but when it’s viewed in the near infrared spectrum, you can see that white patterns emerge on their feathers, giving them markings that are different from each other. This means that crows are most likely able to see into the near infrared spectrum and that’s how they may tell each other apart.

I will be posting some of the photos sometime in the next week or so. As long as there is interest in this thread I will keep posting the results.

William Dranginis
Lead Technologist-Science, Special Projects
Northrop Grumman-Mission Systems
Reston, VA.
www.VirginiaBigfootResearch.Org

Absolutely, please do! I don't really have as much applied experience with UV photography. I'm not sure if there was a 35mm UV film counterpart to the IR film offerings of the day. In terms of aesthetic effects, I find the results of IR photography to frequently have a surreal quality, while that which I have been shown in the UV b/w range (like those on that site you linked to which sells the digicam add-on) to be just strange. But not in a negative way. Rather, it does a quicker job of underscoring the notion of altered perceptions against what our eyes (or more probably, our brains) are adapted to. It's really easy to forget about UV radiation when going outside, while we are reminded of IR radiation, particularly so in the longer-wave ranges where we sense it more in terms of heat than light.

I'm not sure how UV videography or photography would assist in sasquatch study. Any thoughts or possible applications?

What's really cool about this side-by-side is how foliage was chemically rendered by the film emulsion to appear as bright pink in positive transfer space, whereas the DSLRs default the foliage to the whitish colour more often found with b/w IR results. Also, with this above example, it's intriguing to see the "cooler" shadow to the left and below the rightmost peak, even though in the visible light comparison it is being illuminated by sunlight. Chances are, it was taken at a time of day when the sunlight had just reached a high enough angle to illuminate the shadow side of the mountain, where temperatures (and thus IR light/heat reflection) were much lower.

Thanks for sharing that example!

I've long suspected that these creatures could possibly see into the near infrared spectrum, hopefully some of the work I'm doing may show us what the creatures may be able to detect if they can see into the near-infrared. Ultraviolet photography has always seemed to be just out of the reach for most photographers, but this new UVCorder makes it really simple to view and record images/video in the UV, visible and near-infrared spectrum. I have been viewing and recording things like camo gear and clothes people use for hunting. One example of a near-infrared experiment demonstrated that a black Harley Davidson motorcycle jacket is actually white when viewed in the near-infrared.

So if the Bigfoot creatures can see into the near-infrared, wearing black in an attempt to elude them may have an opposite effect. Fabric dyes are often the reason why the near-infrared rays are reflected from the object. I am presently investigating the reflected near-infrared properties of fabrics as the sun sets and how long after sunset the near-infrared rays are reflected off the fabrics. I am also looking into how camo-tape and game-cams reflect near-infrared waves. I already know the game-cameras emit ultrasonic sound possibly alerting the creatures of the game-cams presence. I am hoping to identify how man-made materials look when viewed using the UV, visible and near-infrared cameras, then come up with a way to counteract the effects and eliminate the possibilities and prevent the creature to see and hear things like game cameras and the clothes we use when we are researching in wooded environments.

William M. Dranginis
Manassas, VA.