Efke IR820 and "subdued" light

[Dave Krueger]

I've been reading through threads about the need to load 35mm IR film into the camera in complete darkness. Almost every explanation I've read seems to assume that it's the nature of the film's sensitivity to infrared light that makes this necessary. It is assumed that IR light passes more easily through the light trap in the cassette or through the film base via the light pipe effect.

If that's true, why not load the camera in subdued light generated by a source that doesn't emit IR wavelengths? Incandescents emit more energy in the IR wavelengths than they do in the visible spectrum, so they are obviously a bad option, but why not use subdued light from a blue or green LED that essentially emits no IR? Even phosphor type white LEDs and CFLs don't emit much energy in wavelengths longer than 750nm (although blue and green LEDs would offer more margin).

Personally, I am not convinced that the susceptibility to fogging has to do with the wavelength so much as the fact that the polyester substrate acts as light pipe for all wavelengths into the cassette and the lack of anti-halation backing permits it to pass through multiple layers of film on the spool.

Not being particularly dexterous to begin with, I am not sure I want to load my camera in complete darkness. Furthermore, in the past when I have used Kodak HIE, I just loaded the camera in very dim light. I have not yet tried the IR820, but I just got some and plan to shoot it soon.

Does loading your 35mm camera in dim light really necessarily mean you'll get fogging with this film? And is it really a matter of its spectral sensitivity?

 

[thegman]

Not sure about the Efke stuff, but I have read on ag-photographic that the Rollei IR film can be loaded in daylight without too much trouble.

 

[BetterSense]

I myself thought that it would be handy to have a green LED safelight, when I was loading my Canonet with Efke IR820 in the darkroom. But it's something I do so seldomly, and it has so few other uses, I will probably not get one.

 

[pentaxuser]

Furthermore, in the past when I have used Kodak HIE, I just loaded the camera in very dim light. I have not yet tried the IR820, but I just got some and plan to shoot it soon.

QUOTE]

If you are saying that loading Kodak HIE in dim light gave you no problems with fogging then if I have understood the relative sensitivities of each film correctly, you have answered your own question. Namely if Kodak HIE is OK in dim light then Efke Aura 820 should be as well.

The prevailing wisdom is that you ought to have had problems with Kodak in anything other than total darkness but you seemed to have proved this to be wrong.

We make many assumptions based on what we are told and accept the wisdom without I suspect checking out the assumption we are given.

pentaxuser

 

[Dave Krueger]

If you are saying that loading Kodak HIE in dim light gave you no problems with fogging then if I have understood the relative sensitivities of each film correctly, you have answered your own question. Namely if Kodak HIE is OK in dim light then Efke Aura 820 should be as well.

pentaxuser

Well, I don't know that spectral sensitivity is the only difference between Efke and Kodak, so I am not sure I want to make assumptions based strictly on my experience with Kodak which was many years ago.

In any case, it's clear that some people have experienced the fogging and I'm not interested in repeating it. My question is really about whether it's the leakage of infrared wavelengths that is fogging the film (in which case the LED lamp may be a solution) or whether the fogging is due to all wavelengths lightpiping into the cassette through the film (in which case the LED lamp is a dumb idea).

From what I gather if the data sheet is correct, it's the leakage at the IR wavelengths that are the culprit, so the LED should work. I will give it a try unless someone already has.

 

[phaedrus]

Personally, I am not convinced that the susceptibility to fogging has to do with the wavelength so much as the fact that the polyester substrate acts as light pipe for all wavelengths into the cassette and the lack of anti-halation backing permits it to pass through multiple layers of film on the spool.

My impression, too, at least with Kodak HIE. Load it in anything other than complete darkness and there's at least a little bit of fogging on the first few winds of the roll. But does Efke IR820 have a polyester base?

 

[Dave Krueger]

My impression, too, at least with Kodak HIE. Load it in anything other than complete darkness and there's at least a little bit of fogging on the first few winds of the roll. But does Efke IR820 have a polyester base?

No, the IR820 has an acetate base in 35mm. I apparently confused it with the 120 which is polyester.

 

[pgomena]

I loaded HIE in a film changing bag in the shade once upon a time. It was the last time I tried that trick.

 

[BetterSense]

No, the IR820 has an acetate base in 35mm. I apparently confused it with the 120 which is polyester.

Are you sure about that? When I recently used IR820 for the first time, I was surprised when I could not tear the film with my fingers, and I had to grope around in the dark for scissors. I assumed the film base must be polyester instead of cellulose because of that.

 

[MaximusM3]

I load my Leica in the wine cellar just to be safe but I would love not having to do that. More importantly, I am curious as to why the data sheet suggests that the 120 version should also be PROCESSED in the dark.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Are you sure about that? When I recently used IR820 for the first time, I was surprised when I could not tear the film with my fingers, and I had to grope around in the dark for scissors. I assumed the film base must be polyester instead of cellulose because of that.

Hmmm... Well, I'm basing that on what it says on this data sheet which is actually for the Maco IR820 film. My assumption is that the Efke and Maco IR820 films are the same, but maybe that's not true. Is there a data sheet for the Efke IR820? I can't seem to find one.

 

[MaximusM3]

Hmmm... Well, I'm basing that on what it says on this data sheet which is actually for the Maco IR820 film. My assumption is that the Efke and Maco IR820 films are the same, but maybe that's not true. Is there a data sheet for the Efke IR820? I can't seem to find one.

Here you go... yes, it is the same..http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/MACO_IR820c_AURA.pdf

 

[Dave Krueger]

Here you go... yes, it is the same..http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/MACO_IR820c_AURA.pdf

You just posted the same link I posted (for the Maco data sheet). I'm assuming Maco and Efke IR820 films are the same, but I have yet to see a detailed spec sheet with the Efke name on it.

 

[DWThomas]

I load my Leica in the wine cellar just to be safe but I would love not having to do that. More importantly, I am curious as to why the data sheet suggests that the 120 version should also be PROCESSED in the dark.

I wonder if the recommendation for processing in the dark might be a butt covering exercise in case some plastic tanks happen to pass a bit of IR? I seem to recall many years back some claims that various materials that were OK for conventional films were not opaque to IR. I would think a stainless steel tank and lid ought to be pretty bullet proof, although maybe pouring the liquids in does more light piping at longer wavelengths -- oooh, sorry I thought of that -- brain hurt!

 

[Dave Krueger]

I load my Leica in the wine cellar just to be safe but I would love not having to do that. More importantly, I am curious as to why the data sheet suggests that the 120 version should also be PROCESSED in the dark.

Yeah, that is weird. I guess I assumed they meant that you can't use a safelight, but that would also apply to 35mm film. I kinda glossed over that thinking, "Well, it's probably pretty dark inside my developing tank." They do say in the data sheet that they have not substantiated reports of plastic tanks or cameras that are transparent to IR. I suspect if Patterson tanks leaked IR, I would have heard about it by now.

I will probably be using a Nikormat to shoot this film. I don't relish trying to load that in the dark. I'm not that adept at loading in in the light.

 

[MaximusM3]

Yeah, that is weird. I guess I assumed they meant that you can't use a safelight, but that would also apply to 35mm film. I kinda glossed over that thinking, "Well, it's probably pretty dark inside my developing tank." They do say in the data sheet that they have not substantiated reports of plastic tanks or cameras that are transparent to IR. I suspect if Patterson tanks leaked IR, I would have heard about it by now.

I will probably be using a Nikormat to shoot this film. I don't relish trying to load that in the dark. I'm not that adept at loading in in the light.

Sorry, Dave..didn't notice your previous link. Maco/Efke 820IR are the same though. As far as tanks, well, I did develop my 35mm in a Paterson single roll (posted a few images in the gallery) and had no issues at all. I can't see why 120 would be any different. Loading my Leicas in the dark is no problem but I will try loading a Contax 645 back shortly and that will, I am sure, have me curse for 30 minutes.

 

[Dave Krueger]

LEDs

Well, I got three green LEDs from work, but need to also get a resistor, battery, and switch. For this experiment, it will be very crude. If it works and shooting IR turns out to be fun, I will make something more permanent.

I just got one of those super expensive $18 720nm filters from Hong Kong today and immediately took it outside to see what I could see. I find it amazing that you actually can see the IR effect with the naked eye. Some foliage is actually quite bright and the sky very dark. Of course, the entire scene is quite dark, but I never thought I would be able to see the reflection of IR by chlorophyll (albeit not as pronounced as it is on film).

If only my compositional skills matched my interest in fooling around with the tools of the art.

 

[polyglot]

I find I can quickly+carefully load IR820 in 120 in a good solid shadow outdoors and it's fine. In 135 though, you get light piping and can fog a few frames.

In terms of using LEDs, etc, keep in mind that the film is much less sensitive to IR than it is to visible wavelengths, otherwise the filter factor with an R72 would not be 7 stops. The quantity of IR from an incandescent bulb is more than from a green LED but so much less than from the sun that it's irrelevant.

All that really matters is that you make sure there is no sunlight anywhere. A paterson tank is OK if you're in indoors and there are no windows. A paterson tank (or vinyl-lined cloth changing bag) outdoors is insufficiently opaque to IR from the sun. A stainless tank will be completely opaque but your changing bag might not be, so you still have to be indoors in a preferably-windowless room when spooling for development.

 

[2F/2F]

I load my Leica in the wine cellar just to be safe but I would love not having to do that. More importantly, I am curious as to why the data sheet suggests that the 120 version should also be PROCESSED in the dark.

Are you sure the data sheet says this? I have not read it in some time, but I remember the sheet going out of the way to state that processing in plastic tanks was perfectly safe, and that they had actually tested as much.

The data sheet does say that while 35mm ought to be loaded and stored in total darkness (and that for this very reason, it is better to have it scanned by a carry-on baggage scanner than it is to have it hand checked), 120 can be loaded in subdued light. They state that this is because 35mm light traps are not IR safe. The end seals of medium format film are, however.

I am referring to the Maco data sheet for the emulsion that become Efke IR 820. This is the data sheet that Freestyle links one to if they want to download the sheet from the Freestyle site.

From the sheet:

"It is technically impossible to seal the felt trap of a 35-mm cartridge
against IR radiation. Also, the film base will act as an optical waveguide
for IR radiation. It is because of these facts that MACO IR 820c
and MACO AURA 35-mm films must be taken from the storage container
and loaded into the camera in complete darkness (i.e. in a
changing bag or in a darkroom). Films taken from the container under
light (daylight or artificial) can be expected to be fogged up to about
half the film length (frame 12 to 18)."

and:

"120 roll film should be loaded into the camera or camera
back under subdued light.
Complete darkness is required when loading 35-mm cartridges
into cameras and when loading cut sheet film
backs."

and:

"Plastic Cameras and Development Tanks

"Reports that cameras with bodies made of plastics are not IR-safed
have not been substantiated to date. It could be shown, however,
that the bodies of, e.g., Minox 35 cameras (thin makrolon) and the
Russian panoramic camera Horizon 202 are perfectly suitable for use
with IR film. The same holds for development tanks.
All steel tanks are suitable for developing IR films. The same could
be shown for the development tanks of JOBO, which are made of
makrolon. Problems with other brands are not anticipated. Should
you fear that your tank is not IR-safe, it is recommended [1] that you
wrap it in aluminum foil."

and:

"X-ray Baggage Check at Airports

"X-ray machines at airports, when labelled »filmsafe«, could be shown
not to have any detrimental effect on films, even in case of multiple
exposures (up to 5 times). Fogging during manual checking is much
more likely, though, as the film is taken out of the canister and
exposed to light (see Clause 5). Problems must also be expected
when films are transported in checked baggage. The intensity used
to x-ray this piece of luggage will be increased automatically if it contains
any object that is not easily penetrated by low-intensity x-rays
(such as a.c. adaptors of electronic devices). The higher dose used
in this case may not be film-safe any more. It is therefore recommended
to transport films in your cabin luggage."

P.S. I found what you were talking about. It is there.

"120 roll film and sheet film must be processed
in complete darkness."

This is a side note in the paragraph that talks about loading tanks, and I think it really was meant just to clarify that even though the warning about keeping 35mm in the dark was repeated, that all formats must also be loaded in the dark. A little lack of clarity from the translation, I believe. You will be fine to process 120 in a tank with the lights on.

"Processing

"Loading of the Film into the Development Tank

"As was mentioned in Clause 5, the 35-mm film cartridge must never
be exposed to light. This also applies to the light emitted by darkroom
safelights. Only open the film canister in a completely dark darkroom
or changing bag.

"120 roll film and sheet film must be processed
in complete darkness.

"Prewashing/presoaking

"MACO IR 820c has a clear base and a water-soluble anti-halation
(AH) backing. In order to remove this backing, for higher actual speed,
and for more uniform development, it is recommended to presoak
films for 30 s in tap water prior to development. Agitation should not
be excessive (Invert once every 2,5 to 3 s.), and use water at approximately
the same temperature as that intended for subsequent processing
steps.

"Note: Having resolved the water-soluble AH backing, the wash water
will be deep blue when poured out of the tank. This is normal. One
washing cycle, as described above, is sufficient. It is not required to
wash until the wash water does not show any more signs of dyes."

 

[MaximusM3]

Are you sure the data sheet says this? I have not read it in some time, but I remember the sheet going out of the way to state that processing in plastic tanks was perfectly safe, and that they had actually tested as much.

The data sheet does say that while 35mm ought to be loaded and stored in total darkness (and that for this very reason, it is better to have it scanned by a carry-on baggage scanner than it is to have it hand checked), 120 can be loaded in subdued light. They state that this is because 35mm light traps are not IR safe. The end seals of medium format film are, however.

I am referring to the Maco data sheet for the emulsion that become Efke IR 820. This is the data sheet that Freestyle links one to if they want to download the sheet from the Freestyle site.

From the sheet:

"It is technically impossible to seal the felt trap of a 35-mm cartridge
against IR radiation. Also, the film base will act as an optical waveguide
for IR radiation. It is because of these facts that MACO IR 820c
and MACO AURA 35-mm films must be taken from the storage container
and loaded into the camera in complete darkness (i.e. in a
changing bag or in a darkroom). Films taken from the container under
light (daylight or artificial) can be expected to be fogged up to about
half the film length (frame 12 to 18)."

and:

"120 roll film should be loaded into the camera or camera
back under subdued light.
Complete darkness is required when loading 35-mm cartridges
into cameras and when loading cut sheet film
backs."

and:

"Plastic Cameras and Development Tanks

"Reports that cameras with bodies made of plastics are not IR-safed
have not been substantiated to date. It could be shown, however,
that the bodies of, e.g., Minox 35 cameras (thin makrolon) and the
Russian panoramic camera Horizon 202 are perfectly suitable for use
with IR film. The same holds for development tanks.
All steel tanks are suitable for developing IR films. The same could
be shown for the development tanks of JOBO, which are made of
makrolon. Problems with other brands are not anticipated. Should
you fear that your tank is not IR-safe, it is recommended [1] that you
wrap it in aluminum foil."

and:

"X-ray Baggage Check at Airports

"X-ray machines at airports, when labelled »filmsafe«, could be shown
not to have any detrimental effect on films, even in case of multiple
exposures (up to 5 times). Fogging during manual checking is much
more likely, though, as the film is taken out of the canister and
exposed to light (see Clause 5). Problems must also be expected
when films are transported in checked baggage. The intensity used
to x-ray this piece of luggage will be increased automatically if it contains
any object that is not easily penetrated by low-intensity x-rays
(such as a.c. adaptors of electronic devices). The higher dose used
in this case may not be film-safe any more. It is therefore recommended
to transport films in your cabin luggage."

Hi 2F/2F..yes, actually on page 7 of the data sheet it is boxed and bold
"120 roll film and sheet film must be processed in complete darkness". Can't figure out why really, since it is kind of contradictory with other statements in the sheet.

 

[DWThomas]

After mulling it over, I believe that's just a generic bit of advice to not attempt to develop by inspection. I looked for a data sheet for some of their regular pan film, curious as to what it might say, but I couldn't find one. The Rollei IR400 sheet has a similar " ... must be processed in complete darkness!" statement. And the Kodak Tmax sheet says "Do not use a safelight. Handle unprocessed film in total darkness. Do not develop these films by inspection." Whereas the TriX sheet describes how to develop by inspection if one must.

 

[2F/2F]

Hi 2F/2F..yes, actually on page 7 of the data sheet it is boxed and bold
"120 roll film and sheet film must be processed in complete darkness". Can't figure out why really, since it is kind of contradictory with other statements in the sheet.

Hi. Yes; you are correct. You never made it down to the post script, I guess.

 

[Dave Krueger]

In terms of using LEDs, etc, keep in mind that the film is much less sensitive to IR than it is to visible wavelengths, otherwise the filter factor with an R72 would not be 7 stops. The quantity of IR from an incandescent bulb is more than from a green LED but so much less than from the sun that it's irrelevant.

As I said, the idea to use the LEDs is based solely on the presumption that the leakage occurs at the IR wavelengths as explained in the data sheet. If the leakage is happening in visible wavelengths, the LEDs will obviously do nothing to prevent the fogging.

 

[thefizz]

I have loaded/unloaded Efke IR 35mm film in subdued light with, at worst, just a little bit of fogging on the first frame but sometimes no fogging at all.

Efke 120 film is even safer in my experience, once the film is wound tightly then its fine, even in sun light.

I think Efke are just covering themselves as someone mentioned already.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I have loaded/unloaded Efke IR 35mm film in subdued light with, at worst, just a little bit of fogging on the first frame but sometimes no fogging at all.

Efke 120 film is even safer in my experience, once the film is wound tightly then its fine, even in sun light.

I think Efke are just covering themselves as someone mentioned already.

That's the kind of news I was hoping for. I don't plan to load the camera outside, but under very dim light inside. Just enough to see where the slot is on the take up reel.

I will be trying the 120 size film as well, but I plan to shoot the 35mm first.

Thanks for the info!