Rollei IR 400

[thegman]

Hello all,
I shot a roll of this at ISO 25, with an infrared filter on, which seems to be roughly what others are using. I now need to send it off to get developed, I asked my usual lab if they could handle, and they said...

"we can process this but like all infra-red films the results are
unreliable so as long as it's experimental you should be OK."

Does that sound reasonable? I didn't think infrared films were necessarily unreliable, find a different developer?

I've had good luck with these guys for C41 and E6, but never used them for B&W.

Thoughts?

Thanks

Garry

 

[oftheherd]

My experience with IR is that it is tricky to use. It takes experience to get the exposures right. Beyond that, there is nothing unreliable. So any unreliability is on the part of the photographer, not the film. That said, my only experience was with Kodak b/w and slide IR. If Rollei IR film is different in its reliability, I don't know.

They may be trying to avoid disagreement due to your testing and trying to learn how to expose it. But if they put it the way you said, they sound clumbsy in expressing that. I think they should be OK to use. As I said, I don't know Rollei film, so if it requires a particular developer or development methods, I wouldn't know.

 

[sevo]

IR exposure is in many ways a random experience - short of re-calibrating a meter to match the film's spectral sensitivity, which will need a pack of special scientific filters (probably not made any more), there is no way of metering exposure. Usually it boils down at guessing the relative IR amount by the type of visible light. The more so as modern meters (after the CdS era) tend to have IR blocking filters so that through-the-filter metering is pointless.

For me, 12-25 ISO works out for the combination of 720nm filters, Gossen Profisix and a bright, cloudless summer noon, but both the IR/daylight relation and the meter response to it do vary wildly - in spring or under a cloudy sky, I use Rollei at 8 ISO or less, in incandescent lighting metered with a Weston, it is more like 50 ISO.

 

[thegman]

Hmm, OK, I've contacted Peak Imaging and they seem a bit more confident, so I'll try them out I think. Sounds like ISO 25 is pushing it a bit, maybe I'll see how the results are and try it out at ISO 6 or something next time.

 

[Fotohuis]

E.I. 12 is normally OK for this iso 400 IR film with RG715 or R72 filters.
The problem is you will depend of the amount IR light in the atmosphere.

Always shoot a picture without filter so that you can check at least the development later.
Apart for keeping the film away from any IR source, loading and unloading in very subdue light, there is nothing on special treatment of this IR film.

 

[Moto-Uno]

Having tried this film with the 720 filter at ISO 12 , gotten ok results , however the IR glow was lacking . I've since tried an 820 filter, exposed at ISO 1 ( in bright sunlight ) and have ended up with completely clear negatives . Any ideas about exposure times ? I really don't wish to heard about shooting an entire roll at various exposures and finding no usable negatives ( in other words , anyone with actual experience with this filter,film combo ? ) Cheers , Peter

 

[znapper]

After some testing with this film, I ended up with EI 6 and 6 minutes in HC-110B.

ISO 12 and MDC times tend to block the highlights and hold no shadow detail, so I increased exposure and reduced development, which gave me the increased shadow-detail and reduced highlights I was after.

I shoot in Scandinavia, test was done in July/August with the r72.

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

The lab is correct in their disclaimer, IR can be hit and miss, ISO 25 will most likely give thinner negatives than usual, but probably usable with scanning.

 

[Chris101]

The problem is that you can't tell how much of the light affecting the meter is IR vs visible. Some sources are rich in IR, such as sunlight, fire or incandescent bulbs. Others, like CFL, LED, or some electronic flash units lack any IR component. So the lab has no idea how much IR you exposed the film to, so they will assume (usually) sunlight, or incandescent. This may lead to underexposed negatives.

 

[Moto-Uno]

^ Still curious though if any one has used this film with an 820 nm filter ? Peter