Thank you. Unfortunately, I‘ve already shot a variety of subjects, some with an IR720 filter and some without. I also rated the film at box speed, which after reading several threads, seems I’ve underexposed by a stop, at least. Can’t for the life of me think why manufacturers rate a film at 400, when most people seem to think it should be 200 or less…really frustrating for inexperienced users.
Any idea what dev times for 510 Pyro 1+100 in a Jobo CPE2 please. I’ve rated 35mm Rollei Infrared at 400 and can’t seem to find anything but stand development times.
Thank you. Unfortunately, I‘ve already shot a variety of subjects, some with an IR720 filter and some without. I also rated the film at box speed, which after reading several threads, seems I’ve underexposed by a stop, at least. Can’t for the life of me think why manufacturers rate a film at 400, when most people seem to think it should be 200 or less…really frustrating for inexperienced users.
Oops, there I go again with that word
Oops, there I go again with that word
Or listen to some music (and perhaps look at the accompanying cover photo):Your punishment is to sit in the corner and have a cuppa.
Thank you. Unfortunately, I‘ve already shot a variety of subjects, some with an IR720 filter and some without. I also rated the film at box speed, which after reading several threads, seems I’ve underexposed by a stop, at least. Can’t for the life of me think why manufacturers rate a film at 400, when most people seem to think it should be 200 or less…really frustrating for inexperienced users.
What people think has nothing to do with the research and development that the film manufacturer has done. Some justify a lower speed to get more shadow detail, some do the Zone System testing to get their personal EI, and many blindly reduce the film speed based on no logical thoughts, but for all the histronics none of them will ever know as much as the film manufacturer. There is a lot of crap on the internet that is not true, research and verify.
Thank you. Unfortunately, I‘ve already shot a variety of subjects, some with an IR720 filter and some without. I also rated the film at box speed, which after reading several threads, seems I’ve underexposed by a stop, at least. Can’t for the life of me think why manufacturers rate a film at 400, when most people seem to think it should be 200 or less…really frustrating for inexperienced users.
What people think has nothing to do with the research and development that the film manufacturer has done. Some justify a lower speed to get more shadow detail, some do the Zone System testing to get their personal EI, and many blindly reduce the film speed based on no logical thoughts, but for all the histronics none of them will ever know as much as the film manufacturer. There is a lot of crap on the internet that is not true, research and verify.
Maco is not a manufacturer.
The one without the filter will probably turn out fine taken at ISO 400 .
The issue with IR photography is your light meter is designed to meter light that is visible to humans .
Some meters are sensitive to infrared light more than others .
The meter in my Dynax 9 gives correctly exposed negatives at ISO 320 when metered threw the r720 filter , other cameras may vary . Some act up with red filters , others don't .
Also it's not just the five or so stops of light by using an 720nm IR pass filter , the scene is different to regular B&W .
If your a landscape shooter with all that fresh green growth coming out now, it's reflects lots of IR light and for the typical IR shot it's like shooting a snow scene with regular B&W .
That's why you typically meter at ISO 6 .
The same as you add an extra stop or so when shooting snow , unless you like grey snow .
All that's about taking shots though , not developing .
Your options are to use a developer that has the information available to use it in a rotary processor, or experiment yourself .
If you've images on this film you want to keep , get another roll to experiment with .
It might be your developer isn't suitable for rotary processing if the only information is for semi stand .
Seems strange that if it were suitable , no one has posted the information on the website .
It'll be up to you to let us all know one way or the other .
If you do get good results, inform them at MDC .
A film which I do not use. I only use major film manufacturers, but my statement still stands that manufactures know more about the film any of us ever will.
What people think has nothing to do with the research and development that the film manufacturer has done. Some justify a lower speed to get more shadow detail, some do the Zone System testing to get their personal EI, and many blindly reduce the film speed based on no logical thoughts, but for all the histronics none of them will ever know as much as the film manufacturer. There is a lot of crap on the internet that is not true, research and verify.
Maco put the “Rollei” stamp on Agfa Aviphot.
...and some of us who do use the Zone System to get a personal EI, usually by reducing the film speed, do not do so blindly or without logic. One could easily say that there are those who blindly use box speed with no logical thoughts... and say it without a condescending tone.
I am not talking about people like you who have carefully worked out their personal EI, I am referring to people to read something on the internet or pick up in a discussion who derate the ISO and have not thought it through themselves.
Still the research and development has been done while the film was being designed and quality control still have more knowledge than any amateur knows.
So you don't use the film in question ? Ever ?A film which I do not use. I only use major film manufacturers, but my statement still stands that manufactures know more about the film any of us ever will.
Again , here's where experience comes in of a particular film , meter , camera and filters combination comes in .Metering through a darker filter of any color will not be accurate because the meter's spectrum does not cover the complete visual spectrum evenly. The filter's and the meter's spectrums are different and readings are inaccurate. Always use the manufacturer'e filter factore.
Except they don't know how that amateur is planning on using , exposing and developing their product , and what with .Still the research and development has been done while the film was being designed and quality control still have more knowledge than any amateur knows.
Sometimes hard to tell which is which though .I am not talking about people like you who have carefully worked out their personal EI, I am referring to people to read something on the internet or pick up in a discussion who derate the ISO and have not thought it through themselves.
Can’t for the life of me think why manufacturers rate a film at 400, when most people seem to think it should be 200 or less…really frustrating for inexperienced users.
Why should I? I have the films that I like and work for me.So you don't use the film in question ? Ever ?
Try it , experiment . Then you'll have some experience with this film that you can share .
The trouble is , especially with a specialist type film , when you deviate from the manufacturers intended use , to get the results in a way that you prefer , the manufacture doesn't tell you how to do that .
Their data sheets guide you how to get the best of it in what they consider it's intended use only . YMMV .
Again , here's where experience comes in of a particular film , meter , camera and filters combination comes in .
That's a very general statement that's often true , but not always 100% accurate in real world use .
An example of which is my use of Rollei IR film .
I mostly use it in 120 and 5"x4" where I use a Minolta Spot meter and the filter factor of the filter in use ( I use several ) .
However , if I'm using the Rollei IR in 135 , I typically use it in my Minolta Dynax 9 ( Maxxum 9 in the states ) , typically with a Minolta 24mm f/2.8 lens attached , and with a B&W 092 or Hoya r72 filter attached and the ISO set to 320 , it gives consistent reading to my Minolta Spot meter with the filter factor adjusted taken into account by setting the ISO the equivalent extra stops needed .
Other camera/lens/filter combinations might not give consistent readings .
Except they don't know how that amateur is planning on using , exposing and developing their product , and what with .
Sometimes you've got to work it out for yourself .
Shooting a few test rolls first answers most of your questions before you start using it proper .
Sometimes hard to tell which is which though .
I'm not sure if you've misunderstood what you've read .
I've never seen Rollei IR being recommended being exposed as an ISO 200 film , with or without an IR filter .
That doesn't make sense .
Without a filter for standard B&W photography it exposes correctly at ISO 400 . I've done mixed IR and non IR shots on the same roll , and exposure is consistent with the figures I use .
If using a 720nm IR pass filter you can use the filter factor to correct expose when metered at ISO 400 .
If you want to avoid doing maths each time you take a meter reading you can just set the meter to a lower ISO to give you the final figure .
This is when you are not metering threw the filter .
With infrared film , your mid grey target that you meter off for regular B&W film , don't always work for IR .
A lump of old weathered gritstone will be fine for either , so meter set to ISO 25 if spot metering off it ( i.e. a reflective spot meter reading ) or using a hand held light meter ( non reflective ) .
But for landscape shooters ( in Europe anyway , not an American desert ) green grass is like metering off snow with IR , so meter typically set for extra exposure ( like a snow scene in regular B&W) if your metering reflected light , i.e with your cameras centre weighted meter and without a filter attached , or if your using a spot meter and you've only light green foliage to meter off ISO 6 takes care of that . Some people prefer to take a reading as ISO 12 . YMMV .
As said , with an IR filter attached to the lens on my Dynax 9 with is ISO set to 320 , the meter readings are consistent with the above , that's where the 320 comes from .
Other cameras might not work like that or give inconsistent readings .
I've used manual focus cameras for Rollei IR film too , but can only see the meter readings without a filter attached .
@"super_claret" , I hope that makes it clearer for you where these numbers other than ISO 400 come from .
Again , shoot a few rolls of the film and form your own opinion rather than just what a data sheet tells you .
The roll of film you've already exposed will wait for development until you try a few test pieces of a test roll developed in the 510-Pyro , but you might just want to get a different developer for this that you can use in your rotary processor .
Or for the sake of one roll , try the semi stand method on MDC .
Why should I? I have the films that I like and work for me.
I worked at Kodak, so I probably know a lot more about film than you will ever know. Which film companies have you worked for? Any? A big zero?
Funny that .
It seems I've a lot more experience about the film being discussed than you as you apparently have absolutely no experience with it , nor do you have any willingness to learn .
Unfortunate that as your making posts that are arrogant and condescending , as you've nothing to be arrogant about .
With all your experience you were either unwilling or unable to help "super_claret" . Shame .
Here's a quick iPhone shot of the roll. Having had a bit more time to analyse it, the first strip (highlighted green) seems to be not too bad. These were spot metered, using the in camera spot meter through the IR72 filter. The 3 shots to the right, were bracketed at 0, +1 and +2 stops. The last strip (highlighted red) was without filter and spot metering from a mid grey area. The 3 shots to the right were again 0, +1 and +2Before doing anything, I would suggest taking some photos of the negatives on a lightbox to show both them .
Are you sure the thin negatives are under exposed rather than under developed ?
If the denser negatives were over exposed but under developed , that's why they might look better .
Have you printed or scanned the negatives yet ? How do they come out ?
I wouldn't recommend shooting the film at ISO 100 though for unfiltered shots , especially on a mixed roll .
When I've done a mixed roll ( IR filter & unfiltered ) I've left it either at box speed of 400 if manually metering or left it at at ISO 320 depending on the camera I'm using ( as in the film in my Dynax 9 ) , and both come out fine .
I'm typically developing in Rodinol , but it's come out fine in other developers I've used .
If you were to treat unfiltered film as ISO 100 , what figure would you meter the IR filtered film as ? If you did the same then those shots would become overexposed .
It's sounds like the problem is with your developing and could be why there are no suggestions for using Pyro with it other than the semi-stand method.
Try exposing a roll at ISO 400 and applying the filter factor for the filtered shots . Don't forget to add the extra exposure like you would a snow scene if your shooting fresh green foliage , as explained above . Otherwise the grass and leaves will come out a mid grey like regular B&W film .
It depends on how you meter though .
Then develop as recommended on MDC and see the results then .
You'll have a bench mark sample then as you start to experiment.
And for your final question in the post , yes , using a different developer would IMO be a good idea .
Check the list of developers on MDC for use with that film , and see if any matches your development technique and go with that.
If not , you need to change your developing methods for this film .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?