EFKE 4x5 Infrared 820 Aura film - first try

So I tried out infrared film for the first time and the attached print is my first effort. This was just my first check print - not an attempt at a final print by any means. Metered at ASA of 6 and exposed with a #87 filter. Exposure time was 30 seconds (about plus 5 stops) in mid day sun with no clouds or haze in the sky. Film developed in PMK Pyro in trays.

Negative is pretty low in contrast. This print is done with a #4 filter on Ilford MCMulitgrade FB Warm Tone paper.

One thing that I'm wondering about is that there is some blotchyness/streaking in the sky on the left side of the image and some lightness in the water lower left. Have any of you used this film before and is it unpredictable regarding areas of no detail to have minor problems like this? I don't know if it is something related to the film or my processing (in PMK Pyro). Perhaps this fllm doesn't like Pyro very much. I'm interested in anyone's thoughts/recommendations towards developer if in fact this problem is due to the PMK Pyro that I used.

I love the look that Infrared film gives. Image looks very eerie looking as expected. Note that the print looks much better than the scan image.

I think the title needs changing, Ilford don't make this film ? It's made by EFKE.

Ian

Hi Dan

I have been using this film for a while now and process it in Rollo Pyro. I exposed it at 1.5 ISO and use a Hielopan RG 715 filter. This film needs and wants and good exposure and I have found negatives that are underexposed, as I think yours are, are difficult to print. I think the streaking in your negatives are either caused by under exposure, under development or both. You mentioned that the exposure time was 30 seconds, what aperture were you using? With my setup I would normally expose at F. 32 at 3 seconds to 10 or 20 seconds, depending on direction of the light and wether I feel there is plenty of infrared radiation. Do some tests with plenty of notes. This film is worth the hassle of learning its inns and out's. It is the only option if you want true infrared film. Good luck.

What was I thinking - you're right it is EFKE film not Ilford.

Michael.

The Exposure I believe was something like F16 or so, but I'm not sure on that. I did another exposure for about a minute, but that only resulted in a negative that is slightly darker overall. The sun was just about directly behind me. Perhaps that wasn't the best angle.

The development time was based on info on Digital Truth however they don't give any info for sheet film. I definitely need to do some bracketing to test it all out.

For what it's worth, the shadows in the neg are fairly dense as compared normal film negatives and the density range as measured by my densitometer is only about .3 between the shadows and the highlights.

First of all, a nice idea for a picture - there are other situations for IR film than beautiful castles

I like the look of the Efke 820 Aura more than the look of the traffic surveillance films, they don't have that 'haunted look'. But the Efke is a little bitchy. As I use 35mm only, the film base is a problem. As with all poly-something films it can cause light-piping, and I paid dearly until I learned that it is better to change the film in very dark places only. A friend of mine found out with important images that his changing bag is not IR-safe. In "IR weather" in foreign cities that can become a problem. I have no idea why Efke does not use a normal film base, that would help enormously.

The emulsion is not perfect either, in 35mm you can see some tiny white spots in large prints. It's not a big problem for me, but some people did not like that at all.

Exposure is quite simple for me: I rate it at ISO 6 and add one or two shots (+1 and -1), and that's it, but I try to avoid long exposure times over 1 second because this film requires compensation for long exposures:

From 1 sec., double exposure time.
From 8 sec., multiply by 3
From 15 sec., multiply by 4
From 30 sec., multiply by 6 and cross your fingers.

I think your negative is just underexposed. PMK Pyro is probably a good developer for this film, but ISO 6 sounds optimistic for this combo, I would start at ISO 1.5 or 3. I rate my films at ISO 6, but I develop them in XTol 1:1 to get some more shadow details.

Developing time/temp

cmo said:

First of all, a nice idea for a picture - there are other situations for IR film than beautiful castles

I like the look of the Efke 820 Aura more than the look of the traffic surveillance films, they don't have that 'haunted look'. But the Efke is a little bitchy. As I use 35mm only, the film base is a problem. As with all poly-something films it can cause light-piping, and I paid dearly until I learned that it is better to change the film in very dark places only. A friend of mine found out with important images that his changing bag is not IR-safe. In "IR weather" in foreign cities that can become a problem. I have no idea why Efke does not use a normal film base, that would help enormously.

The emulsion is not perfect either, in 35mm you can see some tiny white spots in large prints. It's not a big problem for me, but some people did not like that at all.

Exposure is quite simple for me: I rate it at ISO 6 and add one or two shots (+1 and -1), and that's it, but I try to avoid long exposure times over 1 second because this film requires compensation for long exposures:

From 1 sec., double exposure time.
From 8 sec., multiply by 3
From 15 sec., multiply by 4
From 30 sec., multiply by 6 and cross your fingers.

I think your negative is just underexposed. PMK Pyro is probably a good developer for this film, but ISO 6 sounds optimistic for this combo, I would start at ISO 1.5 or 3. I rate my films at ISO 6, but I develop them in XTol 1:1 to get some more shadow details.

Click to expand...

What developing time and temp do you use. I've had nothing but problems with this film. I've gone down to an E.I. of .75 still underexposed and developed in Acufine 68º for 14 min and it's underdeveloped. I've been searching for a good Speed/devo/time/temp/filter combo for the last 2 years. I haven't made a good neg yet.

Andy Durazo said:

What developing time and temp do you use. I've had nothing but problems with this film. I've gone down to an E.I. of .75 still underexposed and developed in Acufine 68º for 14 min and it's underdeveloped. I've been searching for a good Speed/devo/time/temp/filter combo for the last 2 years. I haven't made a good neg yet.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering what filter you are using? I've not used the Efke, but I just did a series with the Rollei IR400. With a 720 nm filter, I found the IR effects disappointing. Using a 760 nm gave much more of the IR effect I remember from many years ago with other materials. The downside was that I needed 6 or 7 stops more exposure (vs the 720 nm). That may have been a combination of cutoff wavelength and reciprocity rearing its head, the Rollei datasheet was a bit vague on reciprocity.

I mention this because compared with the Kodak material of yore, neither product goes very deeply into the infrared region. As such, it looks as though longer filter cutoff wavelengths are seriously choking off exposure, we're left working on the cutoff slope of the film spectral sensitivity. At least, that's how I account for my recent experiences.

I had serious difficulty printing a few of my shots that scanned pretty well, which also suggests the negatives are on the thin side (they look it). I was using HC110 1+31 on the Rollei stuff and got contrast out the wazoo. I expect to try even more exposure and less development next pass. I tend to be one of those intuitive "oh, I think another stop would be good here" types but am not convinced it served me too well in IR. I guess when the film and eye spectral sensitivities no longer match, some of that woo-woo stuff goes out the window.

So yes, it's different film, but i suspect the problems are similar.

Hope that might offer some ideas.

Nice picture. The film seems to work well. Traditional infrared films (and this seems to be one, though I haven't tried it) tend to be somewhat low in contrast and give somewhat higher fog than normal films. Generous development is said to help. Refrigerated storage of stock and careful handling in the darkroom are generally needed. Thanks to cmo for the reciprocity information.

DWThomas said:

I'm wondering what filter you are using? I've not used the Efke, but I just did a series with the Rollei IR400. With a 720 nm filter, I found the IR effects disappointing. Using a 760 nm gave much more of the IR effect I remember from many years ago with other materials. The downside was that I needed 6 or 7 stops more exposure (vs the 720 nm). That may have been a combination of cutoff wavelength and reciprocity rearing its head, the Rollei datasheet was a bit vague on reciprocity.

I mention this because compared with the Kodak material of yore, neither product goes very deeply into the infrared region. As such, it looks as though longer filter cutoff wavelengths are seriously choking off exposure, we're left working on the cutoff slope of the film spectral sensitivity. At least, that's how I account for my recent experiences.

I had serious difficulty printing a few of my shots that scanned pretty well, which also suggests the negatives are on the thin side (they look it). I was using HC110 1+31 on the Rollei stuff and got contrast out the wazoo. I expect to try even more exposure and less development next pass. I tend to be one of those intuitive "oh, I think another stop would be good here" types but am not convinced it served me too well in IR. I guess when the film and eye spectral sensitivities no longer match, some of that woo-woo stuff goes out the window.

So yes, it's different film, but i suspect the problems are similar.

Hope that might offer some ideas.

Click to expand...

A 760nm filter is too dark for the Rollei IR400 film as this film's sensitivity peaks at around 740nm and drops off fast after that point. While not as strong as the Efke film, Rollei IR400 should still produce good infrared effects with a 720nm filter.

Andy Durazo said:

What developing time and temp do you use. I've had nothing but problems with this film. I've gone down to an E.I. of .75 still underexposed and developed in Acufine 68º for 14 min and it's underdeveloped. I've been searching for a good Speed/devo/time/temp/filter combo for the last 2 years. I haven't made a good neg yet.

Click to expand...

I use an ISO of 50 and add 5 stops for the 720nm filter. I don't meter through the filter. I develop in Rodinal Special 1:15 for 13 minutes with agitation each minute. Works great for me.

thefizz said:

A 760nm filter is too dark for the Rollei IR400 film as this film's sensitivity peaks at around 740nm and drops off fast after that point. While not as strong as the Efke film, Rollei IR400 should still produce good infrared effects with a 720nm filter.

Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks, once I get some more film I'll have to play around some more. Maybe it was the lighting at the time, in the comparisons I did, I still didn't have the exposures sorted out too well, and the foliage effects seemed disappointing with the 720. I did in fact get some spectacular shots with the 760, two are hanging in a juried show as we e-speak, but it was slo-o-ow.

If 720 provides disappointing IR effects, but 760 is slo-o-ow, then that tells me the 720 lets in too much visible light compared to IR, because a 720nm filter is going to let in just as much or even more IR than a 760. I wonder if a 720nm filter in conjunction with a red filter might cut back the visible light, while still letting in all the IR, and provide a better speed/Wood effect relationship than either the 720 or the 760?

I just bought one of these chinese "720nm" filters to try with IR820:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180524778178&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT

Anyone had experience with these filters in particular? Has anyone tried shooting through unexposed, but processed, E6 film?

I have one of those cheap Chinese 720nm filters - Not that exact version, although I wouldn't be surprised if they all originated from the same factory. I'm reasonably happy with the results but have yet to do any direct comparisons against the gel filter I sometimes use.
If we get some decent weather, I'll try to get out and do some tests over the weekend.

This image was created using only a 665nm filter with Rollei IR400.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

A 720nm filter will produce stronger infrared effects and Rollei recommend this filter.

While a 760nm filter can be used, you will miss out on the film's peak sensitivity at 740nm and so result in extra long exposures to try and pick up the remaining films IR sensitivity which is fading fast after 740nm. See the sensitivity graph here: http://www.maco-photo.de/files/images/TA_Rollei_Infrared400_eng.pdf

I rate it at 100 ASA using Hoya R72 and then add 5 stops in bright light - mid day and 7 stops early evening. Need to bracket your shots to ensure you get the right exposure

The 2 shots here were approx 4 hours before sunset, around mid summer in Finland

Processed at 21c in XTOL 1:2 for 11 minutes in Jobo

Dan,

I double the amount of developer when processing Efke. All else being equal.

R

thefizz said:

A 760nm filter is too dark for the Rollei IR400 film as this film's sensitivity peaks at around 740nm and drops off fast after that point. While not as strong as the Efke film, Rollei IR400 should still produce good infrared effects with a 720nm filter.

Click to expand...

Nobody ever seems to use the 89 and 89B filters anymore. Why not? These have cutoffs just barely into the IR. They used to be standard for IR shots where you did not want any visible light response. The standard 25 and 29 filters were used for most work, and a 29, deep red, produced quite spectacular results with the old IR films.

I'm using a #87 filter.

DWThomas said:

I'm wondering what filter you are using? I've not used the Efke, but I just did a series with the Rollei IR400. With a 720 nm filter, I found the IR effects disappointing. Using a 760 nm gave much more of the IR effect I remember from many years ago with other materials. The downside was that I needed 6 or 7 stops more exposure (vs the 720 nm). That may have been a combination of cutoff wavelength and reciprocity rearing its head, the Rollei datasheet was a bit vague on reciprocity.

I mention this because compared with the Kodak material of yore, neither product goes very deeply into the infrared region. As such, it looks as though longer filter cutoff wavelengths are seriously choking off exposure, we're left working on the cutoff slope of the film spectral sensitivity. At least, that's how I account for my recent experiences.

I had serious difficulty printing a few of my shots that scanned pretty well, which also suggests the negatives are on the thin side (they look it). I was using HC110 1+31 on the Rollei stuff and got contrast out the wazoo. I expect to try even more exposure and less development next pass. I tend to be one of those intuitive "oh, I think another stop would be good here" types but am not convinced it served me too well in IR. I guess when the film and eye spectral sensitivities no longer match, some of that woo-woo stuff goes out the window.

So yes, it's different film, but i suspect the problems are similar.

Hope that might offer some ideas.

Click to expand...

I'm using the #87 filter

thefizz said:

I use an ISO of 50 and add 5 stops for the 720nm filter. I don't meter through the filter. I develop in Rodinal Special 1:15 for 13 minutes with agitation each minute. Works great for me.

Click to expand...

*makes note*

Will try this. I don't think it will work for my purposes as I used to make IR portraits. With the long exposures needed I may be limited to landscapes and still lifes.

nworth said:

Nobody ever seems to use the 89 and 89B filters anymore. Why not? These have cutoffs just barely into the IR. They used to be standard for IR shots where you did not want any visible light response. The standard 25 and 29 filters were used for most work, and a 29, deep red, produced quite spectacular results with the old IR films.

Click to expand...

Yes, the 89B is about a 695 nm cutoff and I own one from the glorious 1960s, the look I got with that and the Kodak IR film of the day was my goal on the last project. Alas, my old 89B is too small for the 67 and 77 mm diameter lenses I want to work with. I got a couple of filters via ePrey after discovering one of the 'name" IR filters in 77 mm sounds like my film budget for the year. The filters I was able to find at what I was willing to spend were 720 and 760 nm, so that's what I bought. The #87 stuff might be OK with the EFKE film, but I think its too deep for the Rollei, especially the 87C. I'm not positive, but I think the 720 nm filters are targeted at folks playing with their bit zappers.

Here's a synopsis of a recent shoot involving several hundred frames of Efke IR 820 and Efke IR 820 Aura in 4x5 and 120 roll film formats.

The "Aura" feature does not do much on big film as the image "halation" or "flare" is quite small. I imagine in the 35mm format where the enlargement ratios are greater the "Aura" would be more prominent. Bunches of green leaves which "glow" in the infrared tend to merge into fuzzy blobs with significant over exposure. This effect is worse with the Aura version of Efke IR 820.

There is a loose correlation between conventional meter readings and infrared exposures. My Pentax spot meter was set at EI=1.5 for sunlit scenes, EI=0.75 for sunny day subjects where shadow detail was important, EI=0.3 for cloudy overcast days. Exposures were through IR680 and IR720 filters. Surprisingly it did not matter which filter was used. The results looked much the same!

The IR680 and IR720 filters, 77mm diameter, came from China via Ebay. They cost about $20 each. It is possible, for me at least, to see through these filters and preview the infrared effect. The filter has to be held close to the eye, extraneous light carefully excluded, and the eye "dark-adapted" for about 30 seconds. I suspect that with the iris of the eye wide open looking at the sun through an IR transmitting filter would be a very bad thing indeed.

Efke IR 820 film shows significant reciprocity failure but the following corrections worked well:
1 second metered, give1.5 seconds
2 seconds metered, give 3.5 seconds
4 seconds metered, give 8 seconds
8 seconds metered, give 24 seconds
15 seconds metered, give 1 minute
30 seconds metered, give 3 minutes
more then 30 secs, give up.

Infrared focus shift is real and horrible. Everything I shot with the 360mm lens on my Mamiya RB 67 is out of focus. I suspect I have to rack this lens out about 5mm to compensate the difference between the visible and IR focii. More exact measurements are planned. Wide angle lenses well stopped down yielded sharp images but only because increased depth of focus forgives imprecision.

Some development variations were tried including hot paper strength Dektol! This was supposed to cure the reputation IR negatives have for low contrast. Cure indeed! The resulting super-contrasty negatives still made acceptable (sort of) pictures on grade#0 and grade#1 paper. Optimum development for my film turned out to be 7 minutes at 20 Celcius in straight Xtol. YMMV, naturally.

In practice Efke IR 820 like other IR films I have tried both disappoints and exhilarates. A lot of subject matter I had high hopes for yielded unremarkable schmutz but some plain things turned to visual magic. That's the deal.

The 720nm filters are very close to the Hoya R72. I'm happy with my results with a R72 and the Rollei film:

This one was the winner in the series I did (literally, it's in a show) it's the Rollei film with the 760.

PS: I'm feeling slightly guilty to the original poster that we've sort of hijacked his thread, but I hope the total effect provides some useful info. As best I can tell from my own experience, there is no substitute for careful testing and experimentation -- take good notes as you work, etc.