mjc925 Loc: SF Bay Area

Old image from 2002 or so if I recall. Shot with Kodak IR film (and red filter). This was the shoot I learned that IR film can really make tattoos contrast well on lighter skin. Including the second photo, which is almost the same shot, same time (different camera) using Agfa APX 100 film just to show the difference vs. IR film and the tattoo. Suppose that knowledge has no useful application in the world today, but it is taking up space in my head none the less.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I like the way the background is more blurred in the 1st photo compared to the second. But the tat is somehow confused with her hair in the 1st photo; the second separates them better. A more blurred background on the 2nd photo would have been really nice.

mjc925 Loc: SF Bay Area

The second image I consider a throw away image that never would have seen the light of day except as a contrast in this particular situation. I am sure I had to jack up the f-stop on image two to use fill flash as it was a VERY bright day so had to get an ISO 100 film down to a 1/200 synch speed. The IR film was usually shot at like ISO 6-12 plus the dark red filter, so very different camera settings.

toxdoc42

I guess i am weird, but the tattoo confusion "makes" the image. My eye spent more time on this image than most.

J-SPEIGHT Loc: Akron, Ohio

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Interesting.

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

Tattoo, a beautiful body ruined.

fhayes Loc: Madison, Tennessee

Second one! That is some NICE IR !

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Ya, really, she looks angelic!! yep sure does... beautiful indeed. She would bring out the devil in me.

But wondering, the IR film gave quite a contrast, wondering if IR converted will do the same. "An Infrared film- I must point out that Ilford SFX is considered a near infrared film having "extended red sensitivity" meaning it is on the edges of the strongest part of the infrared spectrum." Old lenses had an IR focus marking, that I did not know, but I did know that focus was a problem with mirrored conversion digital. However, I just DIY converted a Nikon 1 J1 and in reading found out that since Nikon 1 is mirrorless the focus is determined by the [1"] sensor.

Now all I need is a Tattooed-Nude.

mjc925 Loc: SF Bay Area

I never really considered SFX a true IR film, it was (as they claimed) extended red sensitivity. Only Kodak HIE gave me the cool, moody look I liked. SLR's did need to have focus compensated a bit, that could be an issue sometimes. True IR filters (R72) you could not see through, so had to focus and then put the filter on (so obviously really only good for landscapes on a tripod). Mirrorless does not have that focusing issue, which is nice. I have a converted Olympus EM5.2 camera that is fun to play with, but still doesn't give the same effects as Kodak HIE. It is the grain pattern and halo/glow effects that a converted camera doesn't seem to capture well (maybe someone really good a post processing can replicate, I never could.) Converted cameras can really capture stark contrast between skin and veins under the skin that can be interesting..or jarring. Never had that with film, probably did not resolve enough detail for that issue to occur. For fun, take your converted camera out with an R72 filter and shoot in light to moderate fog. The fog disappears, which I believe was the original purpose of Kodak IR film, for aerial photography, shooting through clouds and fog. Most probably know this about IR film, you had to load it in complete darkness (and unload). The ISO was not set, is was completely dependent upon the amount of sunlight, but it was very slow typically, but you were always just guessing. My Canon EOS 5 used an IR beam to track film advancement (counting the film spokes) that would fog/ruin the bottom 2-3% of each frame. Later, my Canon 1n did not have this problem.

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

Very nice! Thanks!

philo Loc: philo, ca

looks like it was done on Ink Master

denoferth Loc: Portsmouth, NH

When I see a beautiful body used to display someone's graffetti I'm reminded that there are those addicted to tattoos and those repelled by tattoos and neither cares what the other thinks.