asianhombre
Member
So:
I thought I had used all of Ilfords films at one point or another, but this one is new to me.
I had some limited experience years ago with Kodak HIE in photography class, (though now I guess it's no more), but IR film is kind of a hassle and I read that the SFX gives near IR results without the normal issues, ie pressure plate problems, infrared sensors, having to load the film essentially in a darkroom, etc...
I'm curious if anyone has used it, and can comment on any issues they've had. The Ilford SFX tagged group on Flickr shows some extreme high-contrast shots. I actually thought this would be fun to throw into my Hawkeye.
-M
I thought I had used all of Ilfords films at one point or another, but this one is new to me.
I had some limited experience years ago with Kodak HIE in photography class, (though now I guess it's no more), but IR film is kind of a hassle and I read that the SFX gives near IR results without the normal issues, ie pressure plate problems, infrared sensors, having to load the film essentially in a darkroom, etc...
I'm curious if anyone has used it, and can comment on any issues they've had. The Ilford SFX tagged group on Flickr shows some extreme high-contrast shots. I actually thought this would be fun to throw into my Hawkeye.
-M
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
First off, SFX isn't really true IR film. It's sensitivity doesn't reach true IR, but it has extended red sensitivity. Its similar to the old extended red panchromatic films. SFX is pseudo IR film.
I had shot on it years ago (I think some time after it first came out), getting a couple of rolls thinking that it would be a good Kodak IR substitute. But it wasn't. Using a deep red filter over it made skies really look dark, and contrasts in foliage dramatic. But the 'glow' cast by objects like leaves and other 'hot' objects typical of IR shots wasn't there on SFX.
Using it without deep red, red, or orange filters -or no filter on the lens at all- would give tones similar to conventional BW. Only thing is some red or orange objects, or even skin tone comes out pale.
Contrast will be what you do with it. Filters or none; developing and processing; exposure will all determine how its contrast rendering will be.
I had shot on it years ago (I think some time after it first came out), getting a couple of rolls thinking that it would be a good Kodak IR substitute. But it wasn't. Using a deep red filter over it made skies really look dark, and contrasts in foliage dramatic. But the 'glow' cast by objects like leaves and other 'hot' objects typical of IR shots wasn't there on SFX.
Using it without deep red, red, or orange filters -or no filter on the lens at all- would give tones similar to conventional BW. Only thing is some red or orange objects, or even skin tone comes out pale.
Contrast will be what you do with it. Filters or none; developing and processing; exposure will all determine how its contrast rendering will be.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I'm running though a roll now, my first. I'm using a red filter, let us see your results with no filter. It is hard to see which is non filtered on flickr by using tags. I'll post mine on Flickr with all details.
fidget
Lemon magnet
I like SFX, it gives an "other-worldly" photo style. I found true IR to be quite extreme.
It responds well to red filtration and is best with the SFX filter. Be aware that some of the classic IR filters available could cut off giving no red.
This one was done with a R25 red filter.
And this with the SFX filter (under exposed in this case)
(both on Yashicamat 124)
Can be very nice indeed. Wait for good light, spring foliage is best, they say.
Good shooting....
It responds well to red filtration and is best with the SFX filter. Be aware that some of the classic IR filters available could cut off giving no red.
This one was done with a R25 red filter.
And this with the SFX filter (under exposed in this case)
(both on Yashicamat 124)
Can be very nice indeed. Wait for good light, spring foliage is best, they say.
Good shooting....
Last edited:
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Red extended into the invisible is infrared. But while the bulk of previously available IR films were crop diagnosis/camouflage detection films, with as much IR sensitivity as practicable, SFX is a respooled traffic camera film, where the only purpose for IR is to use a nonblinding, almost invisible flash - and as any increase in IR bandwidth increases the likelyhood of fogging when the film is subjected to hot weather inside unattended cameras, the film is only sensititzed for a relatively narrow band beyond human vision.
zgeeRF
Established
It's a great film. Even without a deep red filter, but just a regular red, it has a certain look in the tones it produces. Its main disadvantage is its price...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/2683203638/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/2683203638/
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Fidget, I just bought a Yashicamat 124. Don't have a red filter for it though. Been shooting a lot of 35mm b/w the last year but there is so much more to try... You have some great shots there!
fidget
Lemon magnet
Thanks, I'm pleased that you like them...
I don't have any dedicated filters for the 124. I glued an old 52mm filter ring to a hood and fit normal filters. It didn't work so well with the SFX filter as it managed to get an internal reflection between the filter and the chrome bezel of the lens. Now I mask off the chrome, or perhaps I will paint it mat black for future efforts.
Fotohuis
Well-known
SFX is going around 730nm in the IR area. Rollei IR-820/400 is going till 750nm and then rapidly down in sensitivity till 820nm.
For both films you need the minimum of an 89B (695nm) IR filter or an 88A (715nm) IR filter or the Hoya 72R (720nm) to get the wood effect. The SFX filter is also an 89B.
These "black" IR filters means that your sensitivity of the film is going down by 5F stops for SFX iso 6-12 for the Rollei IR 820/400 film around iso 12.
More to compare with SFX is the new Rollei Super Pan 200, also sensitized till 740nm.
The only film in production which is going more straight to 820nm is the Efke IR 820 film. But the regular iso speed is iso 100 (based on the Efke 100) so with above mentioned filter it's really slow: iso 1,5-3. Further the emulsion of all Efke single layer films (Efke 25-50-100) is rather soft.
For both films you need the minimum of an 89B (695nm) IR filter or an 88A (715nm) IR filter or the Hoya 72R (720nm) to get the wood effect. The SFX filter is also an 89B.
These "black" IR filters means that your sensitivity of the film is going down by 5F stops for SFX iso 6-12 for the Rollei IR 820/400 film around iso 12.
More to compare with SFX is the new Rollei Super Pan 200, also sensitized till 740nm.
The only film in production which is going more straight to 820nm is the Efke IR 820 film. But the regular iso speed is iso 100 (based on the Efke 100) so with above mentioned filter it's really slow: iso 1,5-3. Further the emulsion of all Efke single layer films (Efke 25-50-100) is rather soft.