Infrared Film Metering- Rollei IR400s/ M7

Moogie77 said:
Hi everybody,

I have similar challenge.

I would like to shoot infrared and planned to use the following combination:
Leica M6 (classic), CV 35mm color-skopar, Rollei Infrared 400S, Leica HOOET 13126 D Infrared-Filter. Alternatively I would also have a light red filter available. HC-110 developer.
I'd like to shoot in bright sun, forest with light coming through and also give night shots a try.

Do you have any recommendations for the f-stop, shutter speed, ...

Wish you all nice Sunday.

Thanks and best regards, Miguel
Click to expand...


Miguel, [FONT=&quot]the sensitivity of [FONT=&quot]the Rollei 400 [/FONT]extends just barely into the near infrared, unlike [FONT=&quot]some of the older films [FONT=&quot](like HIE) that[/FONT] people are thinking of[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]which went [FONT=&quot]significantly [/FONT][/FONT]further out. [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]This film's sensitivity [FONT=&quot]is already [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]"[FONT=&quot]falling off the edge" [FONT=&quot]by [/FONT]wavelengths i[/FONT]n the [FONT=&quot]low 700nm region, [FONT=&quot]and that [/FONT]is right about where [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]the[/FONT] good stuff of infr[FONT=&quot]ared imaging[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]starts to kick in (especially the Wood effect or "glow" that foliage exhibits)[FONT=&quot].[/FONT][/FONT] To capture that the filter[FONT=&quot]'s [/FONT]characteristic cut-on wavelength [FONT=&quot]has to be matched just right in order to get a [FONT=&quot]reasonable [/FONT]infrared effect[FONT=&quot].[/FONT] If it is too low (a r[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]ed filter [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]for example) you [FONT=&quot]will [/FONT]get images [FONT=&quot]that are[FONT=&quot]n[/FONT]'t [FONT=&quot]m[/FONT][/FONT]uch different [FONT=&quot]from what [/FONT]any "normal" B&W film would produce with [FONT=&quot]the same[/FONT] filter[FONT=&quot]. But [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]going [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]too high [FONT=&quot]in [/FONT][/FONT]cut-[FONT=&quot]on[/FONT] wavelength[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]will [/FONT]quickly get[FONT=&quot] you [/FONT]to the point of [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]getting no [FONT=&quot]image at [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]all due to [FONT=&quot]sensitivity being so poor[/FONT].
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For [FONT=&quot]any of the [/FONT]Rollei films [FONT=&quot]a filter [FONT=&quot]of around [/FONT][/FONT]720nm is usually recommended. That would include [FONT=&quot]filters like [/FONT]the Hoya R-72 (and others with "72" in the name), Cokin 007, and Wratten 89B equivalents. Unfortunately I don't know [FONT=&quot]wh[FONT=&quot]ether[/FONT][/FONT] the 13126 D filter you mentioned falls into that category or not.

As for exposure, [FONT=&quot]I've always used a version of t[FONT=&quot]he [/FONT][/FONT]"sunny-16" [FONT=&quot]approach[FONT=&quot] ([FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]in sunny conditions at[/FONT] f/16 set the shutter to the reciprocal of the [FONT=&quot]film speed value)[FONT=&quot] in which [FONT=&quot]I use [/FONT]a[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=&quot]much [/FONT][/FONT]reduced effective film speed[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]which accounts for the effect[FONT=&quot] of[/FONT][/FONT] [/FONT]the filter. With the Rollei 400 and a 720nm filter [FONT=&quot]a good starting poi[FONT=&quot]nt for [/FONT][/FONT]this effective film speed would be in the range of 10 to 25[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT] All of this depends a lot on the developer though[FONT=&quot], so you are going to have to experiment a bit[FONT=&quot] to get it dialed-in.

[FONT=&quot]For [FONT=&quot]aperture [/FONT]and shutter speed you could of course use any combination that [FONT=&quot]gives the same equivelent exposure as the sunny 16[/FONT] calcu[FONT=&quot]lation[/FONT]. [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]But [FONT=&quot]with [/FONT]the [/FONT]potential for focus shift [FONT=&quot]when working in [/FONT]the infrared [FONT=&quot]there is a tendency to [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]lean towards smaller apertures [FONT=&quot]so that depth of field will cover any error in focus. [FONT=&quot]So for 35mm we're looking probably at something around say, f/11 and 1/[FONT=&quot]25 [/FONT]second, assuming a [FONT=&quot]bright sun-lit [/FONT]scene. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT]
 
Moto-Uno said:
I'm hoping to pique the interest of any member that's used Rollie IR 400 film specifically . The bloom effect I've failed at getting when I used a 720 filter and exposed
at ASA 12 and developed in HC-110 . Any suggestions on your experiences that produce this would be much appreciated . Peter

I'm using it in 120 format in my GL690
Click to expand...

Peter, I've struggled with this too. My reference for a good Wood effect was what I obtained with Efke IR820 film. When that was discontinued I started enjoying the Rollei films as a replacement, and while they offered many nice features which the IR820 couldn't match, the classic IR "look" wasn't one of them! I think that fundamentally the difference is that the Rollei film just doesn't go far enough into the infrared and thus is not capable of achieving quite the same effect.

Nevertheless, there are a few things I've done to try to combat this. One is to underrate the film even more, i.e., to expose even longer. This intensifies the brightness of the foliage, but at the same time makes them a little flatter.

Another thing I've done is to try to use a developer which lessens the otherwise high contrast of the film. This doesn't give the desired look by itself, but I find that the more reasonable contrast on the negative gives me more flexibility when processing the image to steer it in that direction. I guess this only applies if you are scanning. But still, it is nice to beat down the contrast with this film however you can in my opinion. Oh, and the developer I used was Atomal 49.

Finally, I figured that using a filter with a longer wavelength than the standard R-72 might help. Looking at the choices available I decided that the Hoya IR-76 or Wratten 87 were really just too far out there and I probably wouldn't be able to capture anything. There is however one which is intermediate between the R-72 and these; the Wratten 88A. These are unfortunately very hard to find, but after a lot of looking I finally found a gel filter version and have since tested it out. My result is that it does actually seem to get things closer to the classic look. Unfortunately it requires about another 2 stops in longer exposure,. But it may be worth it.

Jeff
 
Thanks so much Denverdad,

So first thing I need to find out then is the 13126D filter's nm value.
A very good explanation.

Have a nice weekend, Miguel
 
med_U41336I1554261937.SEQ.1.jpg


Hallelujah , finally some Wood effect after all this time ,Rollie IR400 , IR720 filter ,
HC-110 ( 1:63 ) , 8 min , bright day between 1 and 2 o'clock . Am I a happy camper.
I used an ISO of 3, Peter
 
Last edited:
U41336I1554261936.SEQ.0.jpg

Another example of the "Wood" effect , which is another way of saying the infrared blooming that's possible with the Rollei IR400 film . PeterI've been trying unsuccessfully for a few years now to get this bloom and ASA 12 was too high , ASA 3 or even less seems to work now . Something else about this film I discovered (a knuckle head event ) is this film gave a scanable image when it was 7 stops over exposed ! Yeah I was still holding onto the filter when I took the pic . :) Peter
 
I never used a meter. But I have never used Rollei IR. I used Efke IR with an R72 filter. My method for this film was F11 @ 1 second for full sun. And F11 @ 10 seconds for open shade. Anything other than those two scenes was a guess: like cutting a stop for full sun but after 4:00 PM. Or indoors with no sun on the scene f11 @ 2 minutes.

Here are a couple of my shots:

Mission San Miguel by John Carter, on Flickr

Efke IR820 HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom