Efke IR820

bigdog

bigdog

Established
Local time
4:20 PM
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
144
Location
Maine, USA
View My Gallery
Anyone have any experience with the new Infrared film from Efke? I ordered 3 rolls and just sent off my first roll to the lab for processing. I rated it at 50 and shot as I normally would using the camera's built in TTL metering with a B+W 090 light red filter attached and letting the camera select the shutter speed trying to stay around F8 and no compensation for infrared focus shifting.

I have read that a light red filter may not achieve dramatic wood effect. Has anyone else shot this film? If so, what kind of results would you anticpate shooting in the manner described? I plan on heading out to shoot another roll tomorrow. I do not want to shoot too many rolls at $20 a roll with processing in my learning curve with this new emulsion.

How are you handling this film and what kind of results are you getting?
 
You need a true IR filter with a T50 of 695-720 nm (because there is no 'green gap') and I find that I get the best results with a hand-held meter set to EI 3 or 6. More exposure is better, usually, if you want that 'dripping with light' effect. What you'll get with a through-lens meter depends on the meter response.

You MUST load and unload in complete darkness or you will get some degree of fogging on the leader. In fact I suspect that the tubs are not totally IR-opaque because I got some fogging even when I did this, so keep the boxes & tubs in subdued light too. Warn the lab that it is to be handled ONLY in darkness. Send it to them wrapped in aluminium foil.

It's tricky stuff but it's probably the best IR game in town now that Kodak's giving up.

Quite honestly, though, SFX is a lot easier to handle; only about a stop slower; and for many (far from all) subjects, very nearly as good with the white foliage effect.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I don't think you'll get what you are looking for with a red filter. I use this in 120 with an R72 and tripod, rated about ISO 3 - bracketed when I am in other than bright sun. In 120 it is easy to handle and can be loaded in very subdued light. I develop in T-Max myself and it is not so expensive.

I have a good bit in my freezer and look forward to shooting it this summer....


main.php
 
It's indeed very slow IR film (iso 3-6) with the IR filters you need to get the 'wood' effect. Indeed: RG695-RG715 or 72R (720nm).

Make an exposure measurement with an external light meter. (iso 3, R72 filter or iso 6 with the 89B or 88A IR filter) and always make an exposure without filter (iso 100) so that you can check at least your film development later.

Best alternative: Rollei IR 820/400, an iso 400 IR film, made by Gevaert in Belgium for the Rollei/Maco company.
Use this film also with above mentioned filters: iso 12-25. This film you can load and unload in your camera in subdue light.
It's also available in 35mm, 120 roll film and 4x5"sheet film.
 
Since I do not want to spend money on the recommended large and expensive 77mm IR filter for my Canon 24-105 lens, would stacking my light red filter with a polarizing filter be of any advantage. Would that not block out more of the visible light while allowing increased IR light to pass through on a given exposure?

I miss Kodak's HIE. I was able to get at least a moderate glow and shoot at hand holdable speeds. I think I actually shot it at f8 with a 20mm lens and set the ISO at 250 or 400 and the look is not too bad.

I only shot a roll or two of film but I got a few keepers I put on my website... a pond, boat in grass, big indian, and whale bone all off of a roll of HIE.
 
bigdog said:
Since I do not want to spend money on the recommended large and expensive 77mm IR filter for my Canon 24-105 lens, would stacking my light red filter with a polarizing filter be of any advantage. Would that not block out more of the visible light while allowing increased IR light to pass through on a given exposure?
Click to expand...
No.

Sorry.

Cheers,

Roger.
 
cheaper alternative for filter - cokin system with their 89b. the filter is $45, and you can get a holder, adapter, and even a grad ND for $55.
 
I can confirm, after shooting my first roll of the IR820, that the B+W 090 light red filter has no wood effect ...at least when rated at ISO 25-50 range and I doubt that shooting with more exposure will make any difference.

I will have to investigate the resin filter option. I believe I have a cokin holder that adapts a 77mm round filter ring to hold a Cokin filter holder and my Hi-Tech 4x5" rectangular ND filter. I think that will hold the CokinP007 infrared filter but that will still run me about $75. Still better than the 77mm glass/round filter options which are expensive!

I like using my Canon IS lens which is 77mm because I can normally handhold at very slow shutter speeds with the IS feature. I may also have to investigate using a smaller diameter IR filter and go with my VC 35mm Ultron and use a tripod. Should have stocked up on Kodak HIE when I had the chance!
 
Regarding your Canon system - you will probably have problems if the body has IR sensors for film advance counting/functions, it may fog the edges of IR film. If you are using a model that doesn't have them (I bought a EOS 630 for just this reason) you should ignore this warning.


I would stick to the RF and tripod - the 35mm should be great. I don't know the filter size, but a 49mm is about $30 - http://cgi.ebay.com/Hoya-49mm-Infra...photoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262

Good luck..
 
Unfortunately, I'm not about to drop $40 per roll. I have 2 Elan 7E bodies and I have been able to use them with just slight fogging at the very bottom of the frame which is easily cropped out so that has not been an issue for me.

The rangefinder does have the benefit of small filter size and blocking out visible light without blocking the viewfinder so that may be my solution.
 
If the EOS Elan 7E body is the European Eos 30 (E) version you will not have any problems with the Rollei IR 820/400 film. However for most Eos lenses the diameter is big so the IR filter rather expensive. For a R.F. the diameter is much smaller and indeed an advantage when shooting.
The polymer 007 filter from Cokin (89B) will also work on this film. I had one (A-version) for Eur. 20,00, cutted into pieces for mounting in the Horizon 202 panorama camera. 🙂
 
This is Efke820IR or is it EfkeIR820? I used E.I. 1 but should have used .5 or even lower. I developed in HC110h (Massive's recommendation), 14 minutes, 30 seconds agitation to start and then 3 inversions per minute, 68 degrees F. I also use a HOYA 72 filter, on my Topcon Unirex.

2864099778_347573876c.jpg


2863266969_3f30a9a9b8.jpg


2864099718_56855656e7.jpg


I hope this helps anyone interested in doing IR B&W.
 
Manfromh, I have done this with unexposed but developed negative film. In other words the leader. I have only done it with my P&S digital camera, and it did work. I suppose you could try it with film, but this film is expensive and bracketing makes it even more costly. Frankly, of the many IR films I have tried the EfkeIR820 with a Hoya 72 filter is the best. I know it is horribly slow but HIE and Rollei and some others were a gigantic hassle. Here is a Digital P&S with C-41 as explained in front of it:

 
manfromh said:
I think I heard somewhere that unexposed and developed slide film will work as a IR filter. Is this true?
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. It usually takes two layers of film to really get the job done since a fair amount of visible light still makes it through one. I just developed a sheet of unexposed slide film then cut discs that I snap into the filter threads on my lenses. It does seem to have a pretty negative effect on image sharpness, but if you're shooting IR film you may not be too concerned about it.

Another option is a gelatin IR filter. They're usually substantially less expensive than glass versions.
 
Okay, thanks! Now only if i could find IR film somewhere. I've had my eye on Rollei Superpan 200 which has extended red sensitivity, and is supposed to have tiny grain when for "normal" pictures.
 
hm. I don't want to be unpolite or something, so i apologize everyone in advance, but .. could someone show me/point me to a place with/ IR images that are really interesting beyond the wow factor of bright foliage? I find the most of them either just that, bright tree leaves, or cheesy with the halo around people in the sun. Probably my ignorance but never seen a really interesting one yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom