IR film

[jpa66]

"Almost" IR
sfx 200

I'm curious at what speed you rated the film when you shot it, and how you developed this film ( as well as which type of filter you used ).

There's a big difference between your images and the one shown by Carter, and I'd be interested to know the differences between the two.

And Chris: watch that uranium - you may wake up to find yourself sporting an unusually healthy "glow"!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Thanks Tom - I had forgotten about that! I'll give it a try. I ain't scared of mercury - I'm currently doing uranium toning. Now THERE is a heavy metal!

The Film Developing Cookbook gives a detailed description of how to do hydrogen intensification using peroxide and metal film developing tanks. It sounds fairly easy from thier description.

 

[sevo]

Freestyle has only 3 listed: Ilford SFX200, Efke IR820, and Rollei IR. The last two have the same sensitivity.

Not really. Rollei IR 400 extends to 750nm, not that much more than the 740nm of Ilford SFX - but due to its high initial red sensitivity and gentle slope it only gets slower than Efke at 780nm.

Efke nominally reaches 820nm, but it really is a blue sensitive film with very little red/infrared sensitivity added on. Its red/infrared sensitivity is overall so low that I never succeeded using it with a 87C filter (starting at 800nm) - reciprocity runs away with it in European outdoor spring light (which is where I want to use it - IR film is not really my tool of choice for tropical noon sun). In my experience, it does not exceed 6 ASA with a gentle 89B filter, where Rollei IR already is at 50ASA.

Kodak HIE was in a very different class than anything currently available and actually peaked in the 800-900nm range, so that it had a whopping 10-12 ASA with 87C filter.

Sevo

 

[charjohncarter]

I've never used Rollei so I know nothing about it, but this is what Freestyle says about it:

Single Roll of Unboxed Rollei Near-Infrared 400 film from
12 Roll Pack. Film labeled with Expiration Date and Batch Code.
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Special infrared film with sensitivity stated by the manufacturer up to 820 nm and an ISO of 400 without filtering. Excellent tonality and resolving power of 160 Lp/mm. Contrast is normal to high.[/FONT]


I use Efke IR820 all situations, but I like Efke in shady light and Half shade and Half sun. That high noon sun in the summer here in CA can be difficult especially if there is a lot of white in the scene. As I've said before I shoot it at .365-.5 EV and then under develop to to bring out the shadows.

 

[sevo]

I've never used Rollei so I know nothing about it, but this is what Freestyle says about it:

Single Roll of Unboxed Rollei Near-Infrared 400 film from
12 Roll Pack. Film labeled with Expiration Date and Batch Code.
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Special infrared film with sensitivity stated by the manufacturer up to 820 nm and an ISO of 400 without filtering. Excellent tonality and resolving power of 160 Lp/mm. Contrast is normal to high.[/FONT]

The 750nm they previously quoted (and which Agfa Gevaert still lists) are more real. Maybe the film only gets slower than Efke by 820nm, but the least sensitive IR film ever hardly is a benchmark, and in any case that is not the way film sensitivity is determined - by their own chart it goes past the threshold at 750nm.

 

[charjohncarter]

I really don't understand IR very well. But Ilford's chart says it peaks at 720 and extends to 740. From what I've seen of the Rollei; it seems to be more sensitive to IR than SFX. Am I wrong or are the different filter types causing my confusion.

 

[dovevadar]

Hi, I shot with B+W 092 deep red filter (guess that explains the much deeper blacks), lens used was Elmarit 24mm asph (explains the vignette) then the negatives was developed in Istanbul itself which I have no control. Scanning was done on Epson V700.

Hope the info helps 😉

Now will anyone be kind enough to tell me what speed to rate Rollei 400 with Hoya IR72 filter? Thanks!

I'm curious at what speed you rated the film when you shot it, and how you developed this film ( as well as which type of filter you used ).

There's a big difference between your images and the one shown by Carter, and I'd be interested to know the differences between the two.

And Chris: watch that uranium - you may wake up to find yourself sporting an unusually healthy "glow"!

 

[sevo]

I really don't understand IR very well. But Ilford's chart says it peaks at 720 and extends to 740. From what I've seen of the Rollei; it seems to be more sensitive to IR than SFX. Am I wrong or are the different filter types causing my confusion.

It is overall more sensitive - however, its characteristics are different. It peaks at 680 (at a higher sensivity than SFX at any point of its curve) and takes a steep dive at 730, to extend gently at a low level way beyond 750. In terms of 700-740nm sensitivity they are quite similar.

 

[charjohncarter]

It is overall more sensitive - however, its characteristics are different. It peaks at 680 (at a higher sensivity than SFX at any point of its curve) and takes a steep dive at 730, to extend gently at a low level way beyond 750. In terms of 700-740nm sensitivity they are quite similar.

sevo, thanks for that answer, I'm not sure it is that important for my photographs, but it is nice to know what is going on. Today, I will go back and look at the curves and see what I missed. Let's hope we will be able to discuss these questions for many more years. We've lost so many IR films, even SFX was lost and then they decided to bring it back.

 

[footephoto]

Rollei Infrared 400s in D-76

Rollei Infrared 400s in D-76

Shot on a Minolta Hi-Matic 9 with 25A filter. Developed in D-76 1:1

Tempe Town Lake and my girlfriend. Hi-matic was set to auto exposure.

 

[ZeissFan]

I've shot with the Rollei IR film and was very pleased with it.

Although the filterless ISO is 400, once you slap an IR filter onto it, the effective ISO drops sharply to between 12 and 25. The IR effect also depends on the angle of the sun, time of year and even a little bit of luck.

Contax IIa, 35mm Biogon

I had an extra filter ring and then a lens shade, which caused vignetting.

 

[Bob Michaels]

ANY EI dialed into a meter designed to measure visible light will be meaningless in determining proper exposure for IR sensitive film.

Long ago I shot a lot of Kodak HEI, both 35mm and 120. That film is sadly gone but what I learned about EI, meters, and exposure is still valid. Initially I bracketed, took notes, and analyzed. The results regarding EI were inconsistent. Finally I concluded that whatever EI gave me f8 1/250th using a 25A filter was the correct one for that particular day. So I gave up on EIs and visible light meters and always shot at f8 1/250th with a 25A on a sunny day. My results were amazingly consistent. I did learn to mentally compensate slightly (1/2 stop) for subject luminance.

So don't frustrate yourself with EIs and meters designed for measuring visible light. Simply learn the exposure that works for your film and your filter in a normal situation (ala f16) and use it.

edit: there is no correct exposure for IR film. Different exposures give you different looks, none right, none wrong. There is no standard as with normal film. It is whatever you want your photos to look like.

 

[raid]

This is correct. I used color IR transparency film about thirty years ago. There is no orrect exposure, but there is a range of aceptable exposure settings that result in slides that can still be used. I experimented with color filters, and I wrote down the exposure and a description of the environment and time of day for eac iage. I still have the litte notebook with my own guidelines. I recall getting back 32 very nice looking slides from my first IR color film.

 

[HHPhoto]

Just for your information:
There are more options for excellent IR photography than discussed here in this thread so far:
Besides Ilford SFX (which has the lowest IR sensivity of all IR or near IR films) and Rollei Infrared you also have

- Rollei Retro 80S ( = current Agfa Aviphot Pan 80 aerial film, made by Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium www.agfa.com )
- Rollei Superpan 200 and Rollei Retro 400S ( = current Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 aerial film).

By the way, Rollei Infrared is also Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 film.
So, Rollei Superpan 200, Rollei Retro 400S and Rollei Infrared are all the same film: Agfa Aviphot Pan 200.
That is officially confirmed by Maco Photo Products.
And if you compare these films under identical test conditions, you see it at once.
There is only one difference:
The Rollei Infrared in 120 roll film is finished by Ilford (and therefore more expensive), whereas the Superpan 200 and Retro 400S roll films are finished / confectioned by Foma.

There is no finishing difference in 35 film: They are all finished by the same German specialised finishing company Photostar.

With Rollei Retro 80S, Superpan 200, Retro 400S and Rollei Infrared you get the best infrared results with an 715 / 720 nm infrared filter.
Excellent films, highly recommended. And very versatile: You also can get excellent results in reversal development, getting outstanding BW slides.
For those of you who can understand German:
In the current edition ( III-2014) of the excellent German classic film photography print magazine "PhotoKlassik" (www.photoklassik.de
https://de-de.facebook.com/PhotoKlassik ;
they do ship internationally), which is a photo magazine for film photography only (no digital inside),
there is a very detailed article about these films and all other BW films suitable for reversal processing. Excellent read.

Cheers, Jan

 

[znapper]

To answer the question. You probably could shoot at the higher ISO and then pull process, resulting in a flat negative, which would then require compensation when printing or scanning.

This is a classic mistake.
Shooting at a higher ISO, would cause underexposure of the film, which means one has to push-process it, and then your shadows will be gone.

I've shot Rollei 400IR with Hoya r72 at 25 and 12, but found that at ISO 6 and PULL processing, I had shadow-detail and controlled highlights.

I made two entries in my blog, regarding both EFKE and Rollei with the Hoya R72.
http://helino-photo.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/infrared-shooting-what-you-cant-see.html

and

http://helino-photo.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/infrared-shooting-what-you-cant-see.html

In my experience with these films, the Rollei beats the EFKE into a pulp, concerning grain and resolution, the EFKE is really low-resolution and quite grainy. The EFKE-Aura however, cannot be replaced, the halo-effect cannot be replicated by any other IR-film.

To the OP, if you want to be able to shoot normally with IR, I suggest getting hold of a converted DSLR from Lifepixel or similar, I have one and it's very neat.
Here are some photo's I've taken, using the digital alternative (converted Canon 550D): http://helino-photo.blogspot.com.es/2013/12/digital-infrared-mystifications.html