Tree and Arch, overexposed Rollei IR 400

In asking this question I may appear to be rude or provocative but I cannot see what IR film and a Hoya 72 filter has done that another "normal" film would not have. What is it about this picture that indicates an IR look? It might be the scan but it looks more grainy than I'd expect say a D400 or TMY-2 400 would look so the Rollei IR might be delivering the worst of both world?

Thanks

"What is it about this picture that indicates an IR look? " . . . nothing

I like it because the graininess gives it a very old look. Those that are not overexposed do exhibit the IR effect on leaves and grass. The conditions were not ideal as there was overcast (very hazy) sunlight . . not clear blue sky. As I indicated in my comments above, this was a test roll to get a feel for this film. Not sure Rodinol is the best choice for this film, I may trio Microdol X on my next roll.

this image is underexposed:

@pentaxuser . . . in this video you will see the same type of failure when this film is overexposed with the IR 720nm filter . . can any of the experts here speak to why?

What the video seems to show in terms of underexposure looks a little different than your first pic. I think you are saying that this first pic was underexposed and the second pic is also underexposed. What was the difference in underexposure as the two are different?

To get an explanation it makes sense to make a thread with both your pics and the link to the video

The graininess is not something I like. I'd want an IR film to look like IR but everyone to his own taste.

@pentaxuser the first pic (gallery pic) was considerably OVER exposed with a very dense negative. I think the graininess is an artifact of the scanning process (The scanner struggling with such a dense negative), the second pic was UNDER exposed. The conditions were difficult for IR film . . very bright overcast, IR reflects everywhere.