Why doesn’t exposed, undeveloped film work well as an IR-pass filter in a DIY infrared camera mod?
Asked 1/4/2017
3 views
2 answers
0
I removed the factory IR-blocking filter from a Canon PowerShot A490 and tried replacing it with a piece of exposed, undeveloped film as a cheap visible-light blocker for infrared photography. The camera still works, but with the film installed I get very dark results, strong purple haze/blur near the edges, and focusing/viewing is poor. Using multiple layers blocked almost all light.
Why doesn’t exposed, undeveloped film work properly for this purpose? If film can be used as a cheap IR-pass filter, what type should be used instead, and are there any tradeoffs?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
9y ago
2 Answers
4
If you want to use film as an infrared filter, you need to use developed color film. Whether it should be unexposed or exposed depends on whether it is slide or negative film. Regardless, you should not expect great image quality with these materials because they were not designed to be used as filters. Using developed film as an IR-pass filter is just a cheap way to experiment.
Considering that mirrors reflect UV and IR, I would expect the silver in black and white, as well as undeveloped color, film to block both visible and infrared light from passing through. The silver in color films is washed away during the development process.
Another issue is that refraction of light through film is likely different from the glass filter you removed. This would affect the camera's ability to focus.
As for the purple tint, I suspect the dyes in film block light only to around 600nm because I am still able to see through it. Standard IR-pass filters block to about 720nm. The longer the wavelength, the more monochromatic your images should appear.
Note the response of the sensor to blue between 650nm and 720nm:

If you intend to continue taking infrared photos, you should get a glass IR-pass filter. They are fairly inexpensive. You can replace the IR-cut filter in your camera with plain glass or just leave it out entirely, if your camera can focus without it.
Originally by user75526. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user75526
8y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Exposed, undeveloped film is the wrong material for this job. The undeveloped emulsion still contains silver, which blocks a lot of light, including infrared, so it can severely reduce transmission or block it almost completely. That matches your result when stacking multiple layers.
The film-based DIY approach that sometimes works uses developed color film, not undeveloped film. In color film, the silver is removed during processing, leaving dyes that can block much of the visible light while still passing some infrared. Which film state works best depends on the film type (negative vs. slide), but in general this is only a cheap experiment, not a high-quality filter solution.
Your focusing issue may also come from replacing the original filter glass with film. Film has different optical properties and thickness, which can shift focus and reduce image quality.
So the main reasons it isn’t working are:
- undeveloped film still contains silver and blocks IR
- film is not designed as an optical filter
- replacing the original glass can affect focus
If you want better results, use a proper IR-pass filter rather than film.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI9y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why can some cameras still shoot infrared without removing the internal IR-cut filter?
Why doesn't my Canon EOS 1000D record IR light after removing the IR-cut filter?
Can a full-spectrum converted Sony NEX be used for normal color photography with a filter?
Should you replace the hot mirror when converting a DSLR for infrared, and is full-spectrum more versatile?
Can an Olympus E-510 with a 950nm IR filter reveal underdrawing beneath a painting?