JamesT

Your guess is as good as mine!

Fascinating little critters. You've caught the iridescence beautifully. There seems to be quite a bit of multi-tasking in the first and last image.

I think it's the white grass. The last one is the one I thought looked like a snow scene.

I also took a version of #1 on normal film, with a green filter (which also usually separates foliage from bark), but it's nowhere near as convincing -- partly the light direction and also the haze which was a major problem that day.

I'm still very much learning what does and doesn't work. That's only the third roll I've shot -- great thing about doing IR on film is you don't need an expensive camera modification and the Rollei film is a similar price to most B&W films.

I had the same thought when taking the shot, but since the 40mm is the widest lens I have for that camera [*] I couldn't get any closer without losing too much of the target tree. [*] I'm not sure that there are wider lenses -- if there are they are rare and expensive.

More from Combe Gibbet / Buttermere (the one on the Berks/Wilts border not the lake) . Same setup, Bronica ETRS and Rollei IR400 A old oak (40mm lens, 1/8s, f/8) A stand of beeches -- a very strong Wood effect on this one. (75mm, 1/8, f/11) The gibbet itself -- it was used only once, in the 17-century, to display an adulterous couple who had murdered her husband. It can be seen for many miles around. (40mm, 1/15, f/11) And a tree and puddle (40mm, 1/8, f/8)

Did the focal length vary slightly according to the mount, or was there a wide variance and they measured them individually? Mine is a Kiev/Contax mount (on a Kiev 4) and is 53mm FL.

I'm not sure, I'm nowhere near as good on flowers as on birds. (And I can't smell the English variety).

A couple of the bluebells in Wytham Woods. Both taken on my last roll of FujiColor 160 Pro NS with the ETRS using the 75mm lens.

Well caught. They do tend to move.

That really looks alien.

It's not really irrelevant when the software converts that to 20 million pixels each with a full RGB value. The actual information content of the image is effectively about 6 2/3 million RGB triples, not 20 million.

King Edward II, at home (Didcot Railway Centre).

Interesting to see the results from one. The principle is hardly new, that's how colour film works. From what you say about the latitude it sounds as if the behaviour is more like colour slide film than colour print film. From what I have seen they are just as "dishonest" about the number of pixels as conventional (Bayer or X-trans) systems, in that the red and blue pixels are larger than the green, and the claimed equivalent number of pixels is the sum of the number of photosites in all the layers. IMHO the only digital camera where the number of pixels is honest is the Leica Monochrom.