EFKE 4x5 Infrared 820 Aura film - first try

[Cor]

Maris,

thanks for a nice write up! It mimics my experiences, I was a beta tester once for MACO when they sold EFKE AURA under their brand name. I could not get any significant halo effect out of it, I tried placing aluminum foil behind the film, white paper, and even bought a 4*5 glass plate holder to place a glass plate behind the film..nothing really helped except gross over exposure but that has problems too as you noted.

I am a bit surprised that people mention lack of contrast, I seem to obtain plenty of contrast, sometimes too much. I always soup in PyrocatHD, in my work I find the heavy stained highlights a bonus since they will print softer on VC paper.

I do not have serious problems with focus shift, but I tend to shoot around f22, mostly 90-150 mm on 4*5. I do not approach reciproke failure as careful as you did (i do take it in account, but in a vague manner) , thanks!

Best,

Cor

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.

 

[2F/2F]

Looks like you got a neat pic in the end, despite the problems you had.

On an average bright, clear, sunny day, when figuring your exposure with an 87 filter, you start with about 7 stops of exposure compensation from the unfiltered speed of the film. The unfiltered speed of the film is 100, so 7 stops takes you down to a 0.75 EI (which you will not find on any light meter I've used, so you just have to use the lowest number you can and then manually over expose to take care of the difference between that EI and the theoretical EI 0.75).

Also, the neg will be underexposed in long exposures if you do not apply compensation for the film's loss of reciprocity in this situation. This film is a vile offender in the area of reciprocity in long exposures. (See the manufacturer's data sheet for details.) The amount of compensation you need to apply is great.

I find that I have to use EI 3, give or take an EI or two, when using an R72 filter on an average bright, clear day. The 87 should require a few stops more exposure than that to start, being an 800 nM filter as opposed to a 720 nM one. So, just by looking at your super low EIs, and using the "sunny 16 rule," you can figure out that your exposures will be long (and will need compensation for reciprocity loss to be applied) if you need to stop down your lens a lot.

Also, don't forget to shift focus with this film. It makes a big difference.

 

[BetterSense]

In the Kodak HIE datasheet, they say to focus with visible light and then move the lens .25% of the focal length further away from the film than that. With a view camera and 200mm lens this is about .5mm. It doesn't seem like much if you are in the neighborhood of infinity.

Wouldn't it be great if Kodak brought out an IR-sensitized version of TMAX? No reciprocity failure, blocked highlights or popcorn grain? I can dream can't I.

 

[DWThomas]

...
The unfiltered speed of the film is 100, so 7 stops takes you down to a 0.75 EI (which you will not find on any light meter I've used, so you just have to use the lowest number you can and then manually over expose to take care of the difference between that EI and the theoretical EI 0.75).

...

I found my Gossen Digisix very useful for working with this stuff. I can set the ISO to the film rating, and mentally subtract whatever magic number I've come up with from the EV when I dial the ring around. The dial goes down to EV -4 and exposure times up to 4 minutes, so it covers a wide range as a calculator -- I don't know that the meter is quite that ambitious! A creative sort could probably make a cardboard wheel thingy to adapt readings

 

[2F/2F]

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.

Heliopan makes a few filters that cut off in the high 600 nM areas. I think they have a 665 cutoff filter and a 695 nM cutoff filter for sure. B/W has a filter that cuts off at 695 nM as well. (They also have a 715 nM filter, about like the Hoya R72.)

There must be a Website somewhere that lists all photographic deep red and IR filters that are available with the accompanying specs. If not, there really should be. How 'bout here on A.P.U.G.?

 

[stradibarrius]

This is Efke 820 Aura shot at ISO 1.6 ans I used an 89B filter. This was shot in SE United States two weeks ago. HOT full sun.

 

[2F/2F]

This is Efke 820 Aura shot at ISO 1.6 ans I used an 89B filter. This was shot in SE United States two weeks ago. HOT full sun.

Looks pretty neat, but.....them thar trees is WHITE!!!?????

 

[DWThomas]

Re Post #30:
Through some Google torment I was able to come up with some filter specs. The Maco/EFKE IR820 data sheet lists a series of filters by relative cutoff but doesn't give numbers for all. B&W, for example, lists some specs for their filters at their website. And I was able to find a fair assortment of filters. My main problem was being unable to justify to myself spending over $200 for a filter I don't expect to use often just to facilitate a spur of the moment hobby project. Priorities, priorities!

Once schooled in other arts, I've also wondered whether the slopes of the cutoff are pretty much the same or differ a lot between manufacturers, as that interacting with the film sensitivity curves could vary results a bit too. A further frustration is that I can lay two yellow filters down on a sheet of white paper and just by eye get a rough assessment of "how yellow" they are. Infrared is pretty much looking at hunks of black plastic or glass, not much room for an intuitive process.

Once I get some more IR film I will try the 720 filter again. It may be that the particular scenes I tried an A/B comparison on with it and the 760 were less than ideal for seeing the magic of infrared, or mayhaps some of my exposures were so far off the exercise wasn't too meaningful. As it was I got enough usable material to pretty much do what I was trying to do and figured I would let it go for a while. Howsomever, a friend who is administrator of a historic site has seen some of the shots and thinks I should try my luck there with the possibility of some sort of exhibit, so hey, I think I will!

DaveT