Developing IR

[sidearm613]

After searching and looking around APUG and eBay, I have finally gotten HIE film. I'm also heading to freestyle to get some Efke IR. I have looked about the web for advice on how to meter and focus for infrared light. A few questions remain unanswered so I figured I would throw them out on APUG.
1) I know that the film must be handled in complete darkness, but once i get the film in a tank, can I walk into the light so i can see where I am pouring my dev and fix?
2) My camera is a Canon EOS SLR with one of those pesky grooved pressure plates and a date imprinting hole. To make matters worse, I think it has an IR sprocket counter. Will these two features mess with my film to the point that I will be wasting my money to even load the film in the camera, or do the effects look cool, like an exaggerated halo effect? Also, if the pressure plate is a big issue, how do I work past it? One idea i heard was to cover the pressure plate with the black backing paper from 120 film.
3) Has anyone here tried to process HIE in Clayton F76+? I asked Lowell Huff what the dev times were and he said to develop as if the film were Tri-X. This seems a bit sketchy to me, even if it comes from Huff. Any Ideas?

Thanks!

 

[tcboucher]

theres some HIE developed in ID-11 and shot through a canon ELAN (IR film counter)

 

[Jason Mekeel]

1.) They say that some tanks are not IR safe, however I have yet to encounter a tank that isn't. Jobo tanks advertise they are IR safe in normal daylight. All metal tanks are accepted to be IR safe in normal daylight. Once you get your IR film in a tank you can walk into normal light and process as normal.
2.) An IR codex reader is a problem for IR film. I would not do it. You can get a 35mm camera from a pawn shop for $20. You can get a brand new Vivitar 35mm camera for $150
3.) I have not tried to develop in Clayton 76+. I have developed HIE in D76, HC-110, Ilfotec HC, Rodinal, and Adox ATM49. Those worked great.

 

[Toffle]

1.)
2.) An IR codex reader is a problem for IR film. I would not do it. You can get a 35mm camera from a pawn shop for $20. You can get a brand new Vivitar 35mm camera for $150
3.) I have not tried to develop in Clayton 76+. I have developed HIE in D76, HC-110, Ilfotec HC, Rodinal, and Adox ATM49. Those worked great.

I have shot quite a bit of IR on my N80, which has an IR frame counter. The extreme edge of the rebate is fogged, usually about 1/2 way through the sprocket holes. I have yet to see any effect on the image area of the film.

I have had good results with HC-110, though some people find it produces unpleasant grain.

Cheers,

 

[Jason Mekeel]

Well there are a couple of issues here:
I think some codex readers, that use IR light, are stronger than others. He may or may not experience the exact fogging you do. It may be stronger or it may be weaker.
The other issue is: I have seen HIE go for $50 a roll on ebay. I don't think it is a good idea to experiment with IR codex readers on such a rare and expensive film and hope for the best.

Jason Mekeel

 

[sidearm613]

Well there are a couple of issues here:
I think some codex readers, that use IR light, are stronger than others. He may or may not experience the exact fogging you do. It may be stronger or it may be weaker.
The other issue is: I have seen HIE go for $50 a roll on ebay. I don't think it is a good idea to experiment with IR codex readers on such a rare and expensive film and hope for the best.

Jason Mekeel

Ah, but therein lies the problem. I believe that the other IR films, not of which have as high sensitivity as HIE, aren't plagued by the sprocket counter nearly as much. Also, other IR films have an anti-halo layer, which should help them. I am going to try out the other films because I do not want to waste what HIE I have. My camera is a (relatively inexpensive) Canon EOS K2. I really can't afford a new camera, much less buying in to an entire new lens family, so any help with my current situation would be helpful

 

[2F/2F]

Tanks are IR safe, metal or plastic. The process is like any normal b/w film. You can develop in the light once it is loaded.

Not sure about the film counter issue. I guess you'll find out soon enough!

You don't have to load Efke in complete darkness in 120, though you might want to if it is 35mm. The problem is IR-leaky felt on the cassette more than anything else.

The film is just as X-ray safe as any film: as long as it is a carry on X-ray, it is fine, but not checked baggage x-rays. Efke state that the issue of concern is IR fogging through the felt from taking out your cassettes in the light, not X-rays. They say it is better to leave your film in your dark bag and let it be x-rayed than it is to have it visually inspected.

Your Efke IR with a 25 filter will look like a normal pan film with a 25 filter. You need something way heavier to get anything HIE-esque from the Efke. Hoya R72 in a small size seems to be the cheapest.

To use the Efke with an R72 filter, rate it at EI 1.5 at the most, and bracket as if it was even slower. Then I would develop in a speed increasing developer. Bake the hell out of your film. Do not be afraid to overexpose that emulsion! It is slow as molasses, and has about the flattest characteristic curve you will ever see.

 

[aleckurgan]

I managed to buy some HIEs from fotoimpex in Berlin last summer. They were quite expensive (20 euro each) so I decided to master my IR technique with the closest cheaper analog which is Efke.
I used Canon EOS50 and developed the film in Ilford DDX 10mins @ 20C. Results are as follows:
- Efke in 35mm format should be loaded and unloaded in complete darkness;
- there's little or no IR effect with 25 filter. 89B (R72, 007) works great;
- Efke is not sensitive to radiation from the IR frame counter and bumps on the pressure plate however the date imprinting hole always left a clear mark. Putting some black tape from the back side didn't help a lot as the plate itself is rather thick;
- with Efke and 89B filter (and DDX - as think this one is considered to be a speed increasing developer) one can fully rely on Canon's TTL metering system in sunny weather but needs to bracket in + when cloudy or in the shadow.

 

[ntenny]

To use the Efke with an R72 filter, rate it at EI 1.5 at the most, and bracket as if it was even slower. Then I would develop in a speed increasing developer.

This approach clearly works well for some people, but I haven't been that thrilled with it---perhaps it depends on the subject and how extreme an IR "effect" you're looking for, but I've generally liked the results I get from rating it at EI 6-8 (developing in HC-110; I haven't dialled in dev times I like with PC-TEA yet). The Wood effect is obvious, portraiture has the "soft skin and deep dark eyes" IR look, but there isn't an extreme "glow" like HIE.

Souping it in Diafine is interesting, by the way. The IR "look" becomes much more subtle, grain is relatively fine (by IR standards), sharpness is good; I've used this combination to get some landscapes with a subtly-surreal look rather than the over-the-top appearance of many IR landscapes.

It's a fun film to play with; people get a huge variety of desirable results with different approaches to it. Do something totally new and see what happens.

-NT

 

[sidearm613]

Your Efke IR with a 25 filter will look like a normal pan film with a 25 filter. You need something way heavier to get anything HIE-esque from the Efke. Hoya R72 in a small size seems to be the cheapest.

To use the Efke with an R72 filter, rate it at EI 1.5 at the most, and bracket as if it was even slower. Then I would develop in a speed increasing developer. Bake the hell out of your film. Do not be afraid to overexpose that emulsion! It is slow as molasses, and has about the flattest characteristic curve you will ever see.

2F,
My camera won't let me go lower than EI 6.
I have seen shots of the Efke film with a 25 filter, and they seem to possess the same amount of IR effect as HIE with a 25.

 

[kaiyen]

weird - Efke shouldn't show much with a Red 25, but I could be wrong. I have only shot with an 89B.

You can always set your compensation so that you get a lower ISO setting, essentially.

 

[2F/2F]

2F,
My camera won't let me go lower than EI 6.
I have seen shots of the Efke film with a 25 filter, and they seem to possess the same amount of IR effect as HIE with a 25.

Forget your in camera meter. You are better off with your head. Also, just because your camera meter is not able to go any lower than EI 6 does not mean you can't use it. Get a reading at 100, put the filter on, add 12 stops to it, and shoot a shot. Then bracket: add 11 stops, 10 stops, 9 stops, 8 stops, etc.

Also, I can assure you the pix you saw on Efke with a 25 filter look nothing like HIE, but pretty much look like a normal b/w film with a 25 filter. The response of HIE and Efke IR820 are totally different, both in the IR range and in the visible range. Using a 25 filter on IR820, you barely tickle the film with IR.

Nonetheless, waste your expensive film if you would like. You can't assume anything at first. You have to just do relatively controlled tests, which is why the extreme bracketing I listed above is a good idea for a couple of rolls.

 

[2F/2F]

This approach clearly works well for some people, but I haven't been that thrilled with it---perhaps it depends on the subject and how extreme an IR "effect" you're looking for, but I've generally liked the results I get from rating it at EI 6-8 (developing in HC-110; I haven't dialled in dev times I like with PC-TEA yet). The Wood effect is obvious, portraiture has the "soft skin and deep dark eyes" IR look, but there isn't an extreme "glow" like HIE.

Souping it in Diafine is interesting, by the way. The IR "look" becomes much more subtle, grain is relatively fine (by IR standards), sharpness is good; I've used this combination to get some landscapes with a subtly-surreal look rather than the over-the-top appearance of many IR landscapes.

It's a fun film to play with; people get a huge variety of desirable results with different approaches to it. Do something totally new and see what happens.

-NT

My first test roll I used an R72 and assumed EI 3 based on the data sheet. I also used a 25 filter and assumed EI 12, I believe, and bracketed two stops each way. I bracketed two stops each way in the sun, and every negative was thin, even the EI 0.75 ones. Too thin to even print. (I tried! All I could get was a very platinum-esque print on a 4-1/2 filter.) The developer was HC-110 as well. It is not that the IR effect was not apparent, but exposure was simply lousy and the negs were flat. So then I tried adding more and more exposure, and changing developers, and exposures got better and contrastier.

The speed varies dramatically based on the lighting conditions. You get the most speed and the most IR effect in direct sunlight, and the film is very dead in the shade.

The main point is that everyone needs to waste a few rolls on bracketing.

In what light did you shot your portraits? What filter did you use? What was your exposure?

 

[eye_of_wally]

FWIW here are some side by side examples of shooting Efke IR820 with a Hoya R72 and with a regular Red #25 filter

first the Hoya R72

and then the Red #25

both were shot in full sun, on medium format film with a cheapy Holga Camera exposure was around 1 second. They were developed with Diafine, but I have also had great luck with semi-stand 1:200 Rodinal. I have also never had any issues developing many hundreds of rolls of IR film using plastic tanks either Patterson, or the generic AP brand that Freestyle sells under their house "Arista" brand.

Also I would not waste HIE by shooting it with a Canon SLR. You will just ruin the film. I know I tried. Ironically I have had great luck shooting HIE in a cheapy $5 fixed focus Vivitar camera using the red lens from an old pair of 3D glasses from a comic book as the filter. I taped it inside of the camera over the film mask.

also one last tip with the Efke film (and the Ilford SFX, and Rollei IR) if you do not have a Hoya R72 or similar filter you can stack a Red #25 with a 3 stop or deeper ND filter and it will work the same. The red filter will filter out everything but the red and IR and then the ND filter will filter out most of the visible red light while letting all of the IR pass since in IR ND filters are pretty much transparent

 

[ntenny]

My first test roll I used an R72 and assumed EI 3 based on the data sheet. I also used a 25 filter and assumed EI 12, I believe, and bracketed two stops each way. I bracketed two stops each way in the sun, and every negative was thin, even the EI 0.75 ones. Too thin to even print. (I tried! All I could get was a very platinum-esque print on a 4-1/2 filter.) The developer was HC-110 as well. It is not that the IR effect was not apparent, but exposure was simply lousy and the negs were flat. So then I tried adding more and more exposure, and changing developers, and exposures got better and contrastier.

Interesting---you didn't feel like you started to lose the highlights? With the rolls I've rated the slowest, I've felt like regions with a lot of highlights started to lose some detail. Maybe I'm overdeveloping?

The main point is that everyone needs to waste a few rolls on bracketing.

I'd agree with that. Probably a good practice anyway, but really, with IR film you're shooting in light that you can't see---small wonder if the results are a little difficult to predict and manage, I guess!

In what light did you shot your portraits? What filter did you use? What was your exposure?

Unfortunately, I rarely get organised enough to take notes, but I've always used it through a Hoya R72, and most of the portraiture happens in full sun, but in the late afternoon or early evening (we have a nice western exposure in the yard that makes this work well). Red and infrared attenuate less in the atmosphere than shorter wavelengths, of course, so the available light should be "more infrared" then than it is at high noon.

I'm targetting a scanner rather than a wet print (heresy!), which means I can get away with thinner negatives than you can, but I just went back and looked at some of them and they don't look unreasonably thin to my eye, certainly printable.

I append an example (scanned, of course, but what can a person do?). It's not the best of the bunch, but that one has boobs in it and might scare our American readers. As far as I remember this was about EI 6, taken on a sunny evening with an R72 filter and a Rolleiflex.

-NT