Efke IR 820 disaster

Papageno · Jun 24, 2008

My 4x5 Efke IR 820 films from recent trip to Southwest are ALL UNDEREXPOSED BY ABOUT 2 STOPS (my estimate). Developed in Clayton F76+, 1+9, 20 deg C, 18 min (MDC recommends 14min). Exposures were taken on a bright day with Hoya R72 filter and light meter set to 3ASA. Exp. time was usually ½ or 1s.
One exposure taken without a filter when I run out temporarily of regular BW film shows also signs of underexposure (meter set to 100ASA).
I was simultaneously shooting Foma 200 at ASA 100 and these shots came out fine. I do not see any possibility of mistake on my side, but maybe I am wrong. Efke 820 datasheet recommends ASA 6-9 (I shoot at ASA 3) and the film was overdeveloped anyway.
I would like to hear what are others experiences with Efke 820, especially 4x5 film bought in the beginning of this year.

2F/2F · Jun 24, 2008

I'd read the data sheet a bit better. It is a 100-speed film only when developed in "special speed-increasing developers". I imagine this is Rollei's equivalent of D-19, or something similar.

Also, take a look at its S curve. Very interesting. It needs to be "overexposed" quite a lot (about three stops) for the range of luminances at the scene to be placed in a location on the curve that will somewhat render "normal" contrast...in general. You can place them wherever you would like depending on what you would like.

Additionally, the R72 cuts five stops, and kills anything that is not in direct sunlight.

So, say it is actually EI 25 in a D-76-type developer. Say it is five stops slower than that with the R72, making it EI 0.75. Say you want to place the range of luminances higher on the S curve to achieve less contrast, adding three stops to do this. Rate your film at EI 0.1, or simply reduce shutter speed by 10 full shutter speeds from the one you would use at ISO 100.

Then, factor in Swarzschild effect, or loss of reciprocity. The data sheet has a chart.

Read the data sheet. It is your friend.

Finally, like, T-max, a good neg. on this film looks about a stop underexposed.

Travis Nunn · Jun 24, 2008

I use a 89b filter (cuts about 6 stops), rate the film at 100 and meter through the filter and then develop in D-76 for 8 minutes at 20 degrees. Works for me...
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Whatadame · Jun 24, 2008

I generally rate the Efke at iso 6. Meter for that. Add the R72 filter. Bracket, bracket, bracket.

PHOTOTONE · Jun 24, 2008

You should ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS test a film, filter and developer combination before taking once in a lifetime shots.

ntenny · Jun 24, 2008

Papageno said:
My 4x5 Efke IR 820 films from recent trip to Southwest are ALL UNDEREXPOSED BY ABOUT 2 STOPS (my estimate).

I guess what I'm about to say is technically out of bounds for APUG, but it sounds like this is an emergency...I've had good luck *scanning* negatives from (the Maco version of) this film that were incredibly thin. You might be able to salvage something that way (e.g. by printing to digital negatives and using those for "analog world" processes). I apologise for my heresy in suggesting this.

But it seems weird to me that this problem occurred---it sounds like your exposures were more than adequate. Any chance it's a problem with the soup rather than the exposure? You mentioned other rolls from the same trip coming out fine---were they developed in the same batches of the same chemistry?

-NT

2F/2F · Jun 24, 2008

I'm telling you...just look at the S curve and it will tell you all you need to know about thin shadows...

msage · Jun 24, 2008

Papageno said:
My 4x5 Efke IR 820 films from recent trip to Southwest are ALL UNDEREXPOSED BY ABOUT 2 STOPS (my estimate). Developed in Clayton F76+, 1+9, 20 deg C, 18 min (MDC recommends 14min). Exposures were taken on a bright day with Hoya R72 filter and light meter set to 3ASA. Exp. time was usually ½ or 1s.
One exposure taken without a filter when I run out temporarily of regular BW film shows also signs of underexposure (meter set to 100ASA).
I was simultaneously shooting Foma 200 at ASA 100 and these shots came out fine. I do not see any possibility of mistake on my side, but maybe I am wrong. Efke 820 datasheet recommends ASA 6-9 (I shoot at ASA 3) and the film was overdeveloped anyway.
I would like to hear what are others experiences with Efke 820, especially 4x5 film bought in the beginning of this year.

Papageno
I shoot a bit of this film (4x5), with a Heliopan RG715 filter processed in Rollo Pyro. I rate it at 1.5-3 ISO. Since the meter doesn't read IR light it is always a educated guess on the exposure.
I feel your disappointment though.
Michael

Papageno · Jun 25, 2008

Thank you all for replies. That comment on Efke IR 820 unusual characteristic curve was especially valuable. I read data sheet, but did not pay much attention to characteristic curve.

I still have a couple of sheets from this batch left in the box. If it shines, maybe I will find time during this or next weekend to make some exposures, trying to get to the steep part of the curve. For this purpose I wish I had a light meter calibrated in logH values though. And I will use different developer, just in case.

Another my observation was that Efke 820 is really grainy, like no other film I had a chance to use. Maybe its an effect of overdeveloping, but still I cant believe that people who shoot 35mm can go beyond 4x6 with their enlargements.

IR effects were not much more pronounced than those I used to get from Ilford SFX. I dont know whether the emulsion lost its IR sensitization (stamp on the box says: develop before 07/2009), or just pines and junipers dont reflect so much IR radiation. Or just my judgment based on very weak negatives is wrong. But I will not know that until I test that film one more time.

Domin · Jun 25, 2008

IIRC conifers do not reflect much ir. You need healthy green leaves.

So it might be bad choice of target. Many things don't look much different than shot with normal film with red filter. Pine with overcast sky would be one.

Doug Webb · Jun 26, 2008

Just to mention a couple of issues with the use of IR film based solely on my experience: I have never been able to get pine tree shots with white pine needles in any situation other than bright sun and long exposures of the IR film, I don't know what the equivalent of a Hoya R72 filter is but if it is similar to a Wratten 87 you should be able to get white leaves on most trees and vegetation with EFKE IR at an EI of 3 without a problem if you are shooting on a very bright day witout any significant cloud cover and a filter such as 89B, 88A, or 87, I have never gotten black skies in the shots unless the sun was more or less behind the camera, on days when the sun is not really blazing and relatively high in the sky I have always had to use longer exposures, when the sky was overcast or my subject was in shade I have had to add at least 3 stops of exposure to get an infrared effect, EFKE IR is grainy when compared to some non-IR films but underexposed shots look much more grainy and have very little if any IR effect.
Good luck with your next EFKE IR outing
Doug Webb

Peter Williams · Jun 26, 2008

I have had the same experience with this film rated at ISO 3 with the R72 filter. I now set my handheld meter to ISO 3 and then increase exposure by 2-3 stops depending on the brightness of the sunlight. Developed 10 mins in Rodinal at 1:50 on Jobo works well. As you mentioned, still very grainy - but nice.

Efke IR 820 disaster

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency