EFKE Infrared 820c Test images

[georg16nik]

Peter, the lens needs to be stopped down at least 4 stops from wide open.

 

[ZugPhoto]

Thanks, all. These are great tips!

 

[Maris]

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.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Apart from the amount of IR radiation as a light souce, IR films render pretty flat photos in overcast weather. My better shots with this film all have one thing in common, and that is contrasty light:

This is one of the better images I have seen coming off Efke Aura, however experimentally the exposure was handled. IR film requires a lot of experimentation and nobody should expect stirling results on the first roll. General consensus holds that bright, sunny weather with full foliage yields the best result, as the image above shows.

I've always been a little averse to the idea of sticking a Chinese $20 filter on a $1,900 lens, but then realistically, IR sallies the world in a warm, fuzzy glow a bit like a pinhole, so in retrospect, I probably will pick up a few Chinee-IR filters, one for my Zero Image pinhole and the other for the Canon TS-E manual focus. Maris, how long was the delivery time from the supplier??

 

[cmo]

This is one of the better images I have seen coming off Efke Aura, however experimentally the exposure was handled.

1/2, 1/4 and 1 second, that was all.

I've always been a little averse to the idea of sticking a Chinese $20 filter on a $1,900 lens, but then realistically, IR sallies the world in a warm, fuzzy glow a bit like a pinhole, so in retrospect, I probably will pick up a few Chinee-IR filters, one for my Zero Image pinhole and the other for the Canon TS-E manual focus. Maris, how long was the delivery time from the supplier??

I use a Cokin IR filter and it works fine most of the time. It's okay for occasional IR shots, and I was happy with it for a while, but before the next IR season I will buy a very good, coated, B+W IR glass filter, and I want to tell you the reason.

The cheap filter ruined some important shots - I was too stingy. IR sometimes creates strange reflections between the non-coated filter and the lens. I strongly recommend not to waste money on cheap filters.

 

[tokengirl]

I've always been a little averse to the idea of sticking a Chinese $20 filter on a $1,900 lens, but then realistically, IR sallies the world in a warm, fuzzy glow a bit like a pinhole, so in retrospect, I probably will pick up a few Chinee-IR filters, one for my Zero Image pinhole and the other for the Canon TS-E manual focus. Maris, how long was the delivery time from the supplier??

Before you spend $20 on a cheap filter for your Zero Image, try sandwiching a piece of developed but unexposed E-6 film behind the pinhole.

Then take that $20 you saved and use it as a down payment on a nice B+W filter for your TS-E lens.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

1/2, 1/4 and 1 second, that was all.
I use a Cokin IR filter and it works fine most of the time. It's okay for occasional IR shots, and I was happy with it for a while, but before the next IR season I will buy a very good, coated, B+W IR glass filter, and I want to tell you the reason.

The cheap filter ruined some important shots - I was too stingy. IR sometimes creates strange reflections between the non-coated filter and the lens. I strongly recommend not to waste money on cheap filters.

Excellent. The obvious lack of coating on those filters is what I find aggravating
As you've observed, and as we all have through time, it only takes one rued stuff-up to send you back to your roots with filters matched the the optical qualities of the lens one uses. I am not at all convinced the Chinese filters have any redeeming qualities about them despite the price. Given the imminent price increase on B+W filters here in Australia coming up, it's likely I'll hedge toward Hoya's IR filter.

Thanks for the E6 film trick, tokengirl. This is probably the best way given that a glass IR filter has to be literally destroyed to create a tiny rectangular piece for the ZI. Hang the expense of a downpayment on a B+W in lieu: 'tis the season to start stuffing myself with some chocolate as a year's end celebration!

 

[Maris]

Lone Snow Gum, Kangaroo Ridge
​

Gelatin-silver photograph on Fomabrom Variant 111 VC FB, image area 21.4cm X 16.3cm, from an Efke IR820 negative exposed in a Mamiya RB67 camera with a 50mm f4.5 lens and a IR680 filter.

The Chinese IR680 filter, 77mm diameter, A$21.28 in hand, 11 days delivery, did not compromise sharpness or flare in this photograph. Of course hiding the sun behind the tree does make a difference!

 

[stradibarrius]

This shot was taken about a month ago.
Rb67 EFKE 820 AURA, ASA1.6 89B filter.

 

[2F/2F]

Peter, the lens needs to be stopped down at least 4 stops from wide open.

Why?

 

[georg16nik]

Why?

Because, at least from my experience, the halo effect is more pronounced when the lens is stopped down.
For Efke IR820 I use Heliopan RG715 filter and on a sunny day if open the aperture to the widest.. lets say f/2.8 and shutter speed to 1/30, the hallos are weak, while if I set f/16 and shutter speed 1 second then the halo effect is stronger.
For me, it works that way, exposure from 1 sec and below and respectively closed aperture.
I am attaching a few shots from today, in the snow. Zorki 1, Jupiter 12, Heliopan RG715, handheld, exposure between 1 and 2 seconds
developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 17 min - 1 min agitation, then 1 inversion each 30 seconds for the 1st 9 minutes then 1 inv each 1 min.

 

[2F/2F]

Because, at least from my experience, the halo effect is more pronounced when the lens is stopped down.
For Efke IR820 I use Heliopan RG715 filter and on a sunny day if open the aperture to the widest.. lets say f/2.8 and shutter speed to 1/30, the hallos are weak, while if I set f/16 and shutter speed 1 second then the halo effect is stronger.
For me, it works that way, exposure from 1 sec and below and respectively closed aperture.
I am attaching a few shots from today, in the snow. Zorki 1, Jupiter 12, Heliopan RG715, handheld, exposure between 1 and 2 seconds
developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 17 min - 1 min agitation, then 1 inversion each 30 seconds for the 1st 9 minutes then 1 inv each 1 min.

If you are hand holding at 1 and 2 sec., it would certainly explain why you are getting more "halos" than at '30. What you are seeing is camera shake, IMO, not haloing.

A wider aperture will give more broad haloing. Narrower apertures will "tighten" the halos.

Peter sounded to me like he was not getting the IR tonality in general, not haloing specifically. My guess would be that he shot the film in overcast weather, shade, or some other situation that is low in IR.

 

[georg16nik]

You are right about the overcast weather, lets see what Peter will share
I have a very firm arms, the halos are not due to shake or something..
However, You might be right about the apertures. I am just sharing what I have observed as a 35mm RF user.

 

[2F/2F]

I have a very firm arms, the halos are not due to shake or something.

I would beg to differ. I see more camera shake than haloing in those pictures. In fact, I see very little IR haloing. Though they are very stable looking for exposures that long, nothing in any of them is really tack sharp. "Very firm arms" or not, you are not going to have tack sharp images hand holding at those shutter speeds.

Now, if you had used a wider aperture, you might have more haloing, and sharper pictures.

P.S. Did you remember to shift focus for each shot?

 

[2F/2F]

Nothing made now will give you the hand holding ability of HIE, especially with an SLR. The beauty of HIE was that it gave a fairly heavy IR look with a transparent red filter, with little or no focus shift required. This gave one a lower filter factor, thus faster shutter speeds and/or smaller apertures, and allowed one to view and focus TTL.

To try hand holding IR film now, I would use the Rollei with an R72, in a rangefinder camera. I would also use a monopod if possible. The Efke is EI 100 unfiltered, and IME, the fellow who posted 1 sec at f/16 is pretty right on in bright, clear weather with an R72 filter. This translates to '125 at f/1.4 or '60 at f/2. With a 50mm lens, both of these are hand holdable for most people, though one still has to concentrate on holding the camera still. With a wider lens, you will be even sharper at those speeds. You will get plenty of IR effect, shallow D of F, and lots of blooming, especially with the Aura variation of the film. Use the Rollei and you will get a bit less of an IR look, but you will be shooting two full shutter speeds faster and/or two f stops down.

One must remember to shift focus with these films. It is important at any aperture, but extremely critical when shooting with the wider ones.

The Rollei is very sharp and has high resolution, similar to a T-Max film. The Efke gives a more grainy, grungy look.

 

[georg16nik]

Thanks!
Actually, those shots are thru Jupiter 12 35mm, that is wide angle for RF.
Yes, I shift the focus a bit on some shots even thou I am using wide angle lens and rangefinder. Those shots were scanned with entry level Plustek 7400 scanner that outputs much softer images than, lest say Nikon or Minolta etc etc Also its adds a grain of its own to the image.
I was thinking to give Rollei a go, so I will try it and share how is it going.

 

[georg16nik]

We all have to gather and convince Kodak to resume production of HIE

 

[cmo]

Use the Rollei and you will get a bit less of an IR look, but you will be shooting two full shutter speeds faster and/or two f stops down.

One must remember to shift focus with these films. It is important at any aperture, but extremely critical when shooting with the wider ones.

The Rollei is very sharp and has high resolution, similar to a T-Max film. The Efke gives a more grainy, grungy look.

Sorry, but this is not correct. The box speed of such traffic surveillance films is officially higher, but only for visible light, not for infrared light. Traffic surveillance films have an extended red sensitivity, but they do not go a long way into the IR spectrum, and their sensitivity for IR light is very low in general. With these films you end up with the same speed as the Efke 820, get significantly less of an IR effect and get a look that is more Tmax-like than HIE-like.

I did use the Efke film handheld, with a Leica M and a f4.5/21mm lens which has an IR index. In bright sunlight I exposed it 1/30 at f4.5. It worked, but what is it really good for? Most people photograph landscapes and similar things with IR film, and landscapes don't run away when you setup a tripod. You save some weight without a tripod, but you have to take care not to shake the camera, you can't use an SLR, with a standard lens focussing is difficult, and with a telephoto lens it's guesswork - until you stop down, and then you need a tripod.

 

[georg16nik]

cmo, could You share how is the light falloff with the f4.5/21mm+filter for IR?
I was thinking to get the slim version of Heliopan RG715 49mm for my wide angle pancake.

 

[cmo]

cmo, could You share how is the light falloff with the f4.5/21mm+filter for IR?
I was thinking to get the slim version of Heliopan RG715 49mm for my wide angle pancake.

Hi, I used a Cokin A series filter and had no light falloff at all except on some images where I had rotated the filter holder in the wrong way

With a screw-in slim filter you will probably not get any additional light falloff.

 

[georg16nik]

Alright, sounds great!
Thanks, cmo!

 

[ntenny]

I did use the Efke film handheld, with a Leica M and a f4.5/21mm lens which has an IR index. In bright sunlight I exposed it 1/30 at f4.5. It worked, but what is it really good for? Most people photograph landscapes and similar things with IR film, and landscapes don't run away when you setup a tripod.

I like it for portraits too, though you'd never mistake an IR portrait for a "normal" portrait. Adult human subjects usually will hang around for a tripod, but small children and animals won't necessarily. And it's nice not to *have* to carry a tripod while wandering around in the field (or for travel photography; I wish I had a good tripod that would fit in a carry-on).

So I think it's nice to know that it *can* be used down there at the limits of handholdability if the need arises. I've used it with about that same exposure, in late afternoon sun when the ratio of IR to visible is pretty high, and gotten decent results.

-NT

 

[cmo]

cmo, could You share how is the light falloff with the f4.5/21mm+filter for IR?
I was thinking to get the slim version of Heliopan RG715 49mm for my wide angle pancake.

By the way, did anyone here ever try the RG715 vs. the RG780? The latter probably creates a stronger IR effect and longer exposure times. As these filters are not exactly cheap I don't want to buy both to try on my own

 

[georg16nik]

Good question. Looking at the characteristic curve of the film, it looks like it might work.
They recommend the same base speed (ISO 6/9°) for RG 645, RG 665, RG 695, RG 715 and RG780 as for the last 2 its ISO 6/9° to ISO 3/6°, so the effect should be more pronounced with the later 2 filters in comparison to the RG 6XX ones..
Since I shot the RG 715 as ISO 1°... I guess we are gonna jump into tripod zone with RG 780 : )))
I will report back with results if I decide on the RG 780 for my wide angle.

 

[cmo]

The other problem here is, I can't take any typical IR photos these days to try myself... the trees show a wood effect without a filter:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,735270,00.html