Developing MACO IR 820 / 400 Professional

[modafoto]

Hi

I have ordered this film along with some of you here at APUG.
Anyone up for discussing the development of the film?
I will (of course) soup at least one roll in Rodinal, but what will YOU do?

Morten

 

[Pete H]

Rodinal of course!

I recently developed some Maco 820c Aura (5x4) in Rodinal 1+25, 9 min at 20C (per Massive Dev Chart). Here is a neg scan: Dead Link Removed
Shot through a Heliopan 715 filter, metered at effective EI of 5.

 

[skahde]

I started with Rodinal 1+50 and went on to Pyrocat-HD. Both work well. Much more important in my experience is the right filter and the right exposure. An R29 will give you dark skies, nice wood effect aso. without much halation and with more open shaddows. With a very dark filter you need very long exposures (starting point 3-6 ASA), get lots of halation in the highlights and will loose the shaddows. You may like either one better depending on your expectations but the lighter filter is much easier to work with.

 

[colrehogan]

I will probably try and develop it in D76 stock.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I recently developed some Maco 820c Aura (5x4) in Rodinal 1+25, 9 min at 20C (per Massive Dev Chart). Here is a neg scan: Dead Link Removed
Shot through a Heliopan 715 filter, metered at effective EI of 5.

Pete, This is a beautiful image and I would like to ask how you came to an EI of 5?

 

[martin@jangowski.de]

Pete, This is a beautiful image and I would like to ask how you came to an EI of 5?

I tried the Maco 820/120 (the plain film, not Aura) with my Rolleiflex 3.5F with the original Rollei IR filter (equivalent to 695?). I rated it 4 ASA and used D76 1+1 13:00 at 20 deg. with continous movement (Jobo ATL). This gave good negs for an diffusion enlarger. Metering was with an unfiltered incident meter (Gossen Lunasix 3)

One thing to know is that the meter isn't measuring the IR light. I had excellent results with one scene (landscape with blue skies and about 50% white clouds), but the next scene on the same film (clear blue sky, no clouds) gave about 1 - 1.5 stop underexposure. So bracket interesting shots. BTW., I had no problems with standard Jobo 25xx-drums.

Martin

 

[Pete H]

Pete, This is a beautiful image and I would like to ask how you came to an EI of 5?

Thank you Bruce. The Maco tech sheet is available at Retro Photographic:
Dead Link Removed
It recommends an EI of 3-6, so for a very sunny day (as that was) I tried 5. It's the first time I've used the Maco 820, so it was a lucky guess really. Later in the day there was less direct sun and I switched to EI 4. Those negs also seem to have worked well. With the 715 filter, you can hold it up to your eye and, after an adjustment period, see where the IR reflectivity is high. It helps with composition as well as giving a feeling for how much IR light is around.

 

[Robert Hall]

Pete, This is a beautiful image and I would like to ask how you came to an EI of 5?

As an aside, I shoot Maco at an EI of 1/2. It has to do with developer (PMK) and how much shadow detail one wants.

 

[kaiyen]

So what filters are you guys going to be using with this film?

allan

 

[Ole]

I'll be using a Heliopan IR 695, since it's one of the few available in 39mm (I'll be using a Bessa L with 21mm Skopar lens). I may also try it with a lee filter in a 35mm back on my Bronica, with 40mm wide-angle lens for some 24x56mm "panoramas".

The IR820's I've used I have developed in Pyrocat-HD. For 35mm I'll try Beutler's.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

As an aside, I shoot Maco at an EI of 1/2. It has to do with developer (PMK) and how much shadow detail one wants.

Bob, Is that E.I. 0.5? Not 1/2 the box speed (800)? May I ask your Time/Temp for PMK for normal development?

 

[kaiyen]

Ole

which Lee filter will you be using? And I assume the Heliopan has the 50% cut-off at 695? So that's kind of close to an 89B, isn't it?

just wondering.
allan

 

[modafoto]

So what filters are you guys going to be using with this film?

allan

As I do not have any very dark (somewhat opaque) filters I will be using a B&W Orange/Red and a Red Filter.
I hope it will give me some effect. If it doesn't I will head out and find one that I can borrow from one of my photo buddies in the photo club.

Morten

 

[skahde]

As I do not have any very dark (somewhat opaque) filters I will be using a B&W Orange/Red and a Red Filter.
I hope it will give me some effect.

Morten, I found this on Wolfgang Moersch's homepage and it has been done with an R29 filter. http://www.moersch-photochemie.de/bilder/pic/pic_9867508324.jpg
To me this is a nice balance between effect/sharpness/tone.

 

[Robert Hall]

Bob, Is that E.I. 0.5? Not 1/2 the box speed (800)? May I ask your Time/Temp for PMK for normal development?

Yes, 1/2 ASA so I give 2 seconds at f/16 (although I shoot at f/32 - f/64 most of the time) And may add reciprocity on to that. My standard shot is 30 Seconds at f/64 (to a minute if there is no wind) and I just last night cut down my pmk amount to 1.5 times the reccomended amount from twice the usual. So I used 1.5 + 3 + 100 and in a jobo at 24C (warmer than regularly stated) for 13 minutes with the rotation at 25rpm. I've used higher, but I get streaking on the film. This prints on Pt/Pd well or on silver at about a grade 1.5 to 2, but I usually contrast mask the neg and print much higher (like a grade 4).

I use acid stop, acid fix (have found no problems with this at all BTW) and use HCA not the leftover developer as it only adds to base fog, not overall stain.

 

[Robert Hall]

As I do not have any very dark (somewhat opaque) filters I will be using a B&W Orange/Red and a Red Filter.
I hope it will give me some effect. If it doesn't I will head out and find one that I can borrow from one of my photo buddies in the photo club.

Morten

My experience with this film, is that anything less than a deep red (695nm cut off or greater) will yield little ir effect.

 

[Ole]

Ole

which Lee filter will you be using? And I assume the Heliopan has the 50% cut-off at 695? So that's kind of close to an 89B, isn't it?

just wondering.
allan

That's what I'm assuming about the Heliopan too - I hope we're right.

The Lee filter is an 87, transmission above 720nm. It is a little on the "dark" side for MACO 820c, in my experience. But it gives a wonderful "wood effect", I've shot it at about EI 3 with this filter. I'm hoping the Heliopan will be better suited for 35mm photography, maybe even handheld.

 

[Ole]

I've got the filter, I've got the film, I've got the camera - and I've even got around to exposing it!

I guessed at EI 12 with this filter, based on what I've seen from the 820c film. Turned out the Bessa L's meter agreed with me, which is a first!

I've also ordered some Rodinal, since it might be a good idea to try a developer that someone else uses too
Film will be developed as soon as the Rodinal arrives.

 

[colrehogan]

I posted this in a different place, but I'll put it here too sincei it's relevant. I exposed my first roll of this film at ISO 400. I used a range of filters over the course of the roll (Lee 25, Wratten 89B, Harrison 88A, Lee 87), under bright sunlight and cloudy, pre-thunderstorm conditions, and developed as follows in a Patterson tank.

1 minute prewash (2 changes of water, 1st was dark blue, 2nd was light blue). I used D76 stock for 11 minutes. I agitated for 10 sec. once every 30 sec. (does that make sense)? I used a 30 sec. water stop, a 3 min. fix and final water wash (5 inversions of the tank, empty, refill, 10 inversions, empty, refill, and finally 20 inversions).

 

[Ole]

Diane, any quick visual estimates of how the negatives look? Clear or black? Hard or soft? "Thin" or "thick"? Shadow tonality or clear film? Just so we can have a chance of guessing how to adjust development

 

[colrehogan]

Clear or black? If you're referring to the emulsion color, then clear with black lettering.

Hard or soft? I have no idea. What is the difference between hard and soft in regards to film?

Thin or thick? Probably on the thick side. But I had no problems loading a plastic reel.

There was some shadow tonality although I'm going by memory at the moment.

If you have developed the previous emulsion with good results, you may want to start with those conditions.

 

[Ole]

If you have developed the previous emulsion with good results, you may want to start with those conditions.

Ehr - I have, but I did that by inspection. 4x5" in trays. And I have no idea of the time, as any darkroom worker will verify.

So the negatives aren't completely clear, since you say there is some tonality. "Thin" and "thick" also refer to the density of the image, and mean respectively almost clear (underdeveloped) and almost black (overexposed and probably overdeveloped too). Same with hard and soft, but they refer to the contrast of the negative and are a consequence of development only.

 

[colrehogan]

Ehr - I have, but I did that by inspection. 4x5" in trays. And I have no idea of the time, as any darkroom worker will verify.

So the negatives aren't completely clear, since you say there is some tonality. "Thin" and "thick" also refer to the density of the image, and mean respectively almost clear (underdeveloped) and almost black (overexposed and probably overdeveloped too). Same with hard and soft, but they refer to the contrast of the negative and are a consequence of development only.

Sorry, you can tell I'm not a darkroom worker. All my developing is done in the daylight.

Yes, the negatives are clear. I mistakenly thought that you were asking if I could see tonality in the shadow details. Oops.

As for thin and thick, if I exposed it properly, then the neg looked good to me. I did have some thin and thick ones as I was bracketing to see what it took to get the IR effect with each filter. I finished scanning them last night and can post some of them later after I get home from work. The writing in the film rebate looked like it was in bold print, but it was legible.

Okay, I'm at home and I've looked and the stuff in the film rebate looks like it should and isn't bold. I will post some pics tomorrow from work (much faster connection).

 

[colrehogan]

I've posted a few pics from my first roll of the film in my gallery. The camera was set to ISO 400 when all shots were taken. I left my notes at home, so I don't have any exposure details at the moment. All my shots taken with a Lee 87 filter were blown out and I'll have to try that one again, I suppose.

 

[Ole]

Great!

I'll see if I can get my film developed today, and printed - one of these days (I don't have a TF film scanner, it only likes 6x6 and up).