Extended red sensitivity

moltogordo · Mar 28, 2015

One of those things I should know, and don't.

When a film is said to have extended red sensitivity (ie Foma 400), how does it differ visually from a film that doesn't, all other things being equal?

Thanks.

Photo Engineer · Mar 28, 2015

It begins to look more and more like an IR film.

It depends on how extended.

PE

Dr Croubie · Mar 29, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
It depends on how extended.

In general, it's marketing blurb with no real definition of what 'extended' means.
If in doubt, compare the datasheets to see how far the sensitivity goes.

Claudia Moroni · Mar 29, 2015

Ah, I didn't know Foma 400 had extended red sensitivity! it'd make sense though, I noticed on portraits the skin tones look different to most other films I normally shot with.
Personally I'm not a big fan.
Here's an example of the same person photographed on Fomapan 400 and on Tri-X

Fomapan

Tri-x

moltogordo · Mar 29, 2015

Thanks for the info, folks! Claudia, I'm not fond of Foma 400 for people, either. Glad you posted those direct comparisons. It's FP4 or HP5 for me with headshots. But it's my film of choice for landscapes and industrial shots, especially in 35mm or 35mm half-frame, which both of these below are.

I find it's grain and "look" in 35mm half frame with Rodinal, reminds me a lot of Tri-X Ortho, so I use it when I want a certain look. As I shoot mostly medium format (and now 4x5 again), grain is no issue here and I'm more likely to use HP5 if I use ASA 400, for it's smooth tonality. But it can be dazzling for certain types of scenes in medium/larfge format.

Again, thanks for posting those head shots. It certainly does let me know why I rejected it for portraiture!

nworth · Mar 29, 2015

The definition of "extended red sensitivity" seems to vary with the film and the time. Some years ago, it meant heightened red sensitivity. Older panchromatic films had a red sensitivity somewhat lower than the blue and green sensitivity. Those with extended red sensitivity were more sensitive to red, bringing the red sensitivity up to or even above the blue and green sensitivity. Some of the Kodak instrumentation films were of this sort. Later extended red sensitivity meant that the film was sensitive to somewhat longer wavelengths. This feature might or might not be combined with heightened sensitivity in the red. Many old panchromatic films, especially those from eastern Europe, had a red sensitivity that fell off to virtually nothing at around 600 nm. The extended red sensitivity films extended this cutoff to 700 nm or even a bit longer, giving more realistic tones to deep red objects and better sensitivity when using a red filter.

gone · Mar 29, 2015

Wow, the different films seem to have an amazing effect on people's hair. That's great. I'm going to stop shaving and getting my hair cut and just buy some Foma film :}

Seriously, I much prefer the second shot, but that's mostly due to the lighting (and the subject seems at peace and happy about things in that shot). It's a very nice photograph. The first photo looks like a mug shot, but again, I think that's more about that unflattering lighting than the film.

I also agree w/ what moltogordo wrote. The Foma does have its uses. Those two shots of his look like they're from a different and older world. I expect to see a giant reptile towering over those towers, and the swamp shot has me looking for a gilled man-like creature suddenly popping out of that water. Very nice. I wish more people would post photos to demonstrate their concerns. Words are fine and all that, but it IS a visual medium.

Xmas · Mar 29, 2015

See Truzi's first set of experiments...

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

Dr Croubie · Mar 29, 2015

Am I the only one who thinks (ignoring facial expressions and bad-lighting) that the Foma shot looks better? Much lighter skin and less 'flat' looking.
What filters, if any, were used on those shots? If one used red and the other used orange, for example, then that would still have had more of an effect than a few extra nm range of the film.

Claudia Moroni · Mar 29, 2015

moltogordo said:
Thanks for the info, folks! Claudia, I'm not fond of Foma 400 for people, either. Glad you posted those direct comparisons. It's FP4 or HP5 for me with headshots. But it's my film of choice for landscapes and industrial shots, especially in 35mm or 35mm half-frame [...]

You're welcome, I'm glad they've been helpful. Your shots look great! I ditched Foma 400 altogether because I shoot mainly portraits, but maybe I should give it another whirl for my panoramic landscape shots, your examples are really good.

momus said:
Seriously, I much prefer the second shot, but that's mostly due to the lighting (and the subject seems at peace and happy about things in that shot). It's a very nice photograph. The first photo looks like a mug shot, but again, I think that's more about that unflattering lighting than the film.

They were just meant to show the difference in skin tones The lighting was really flat in the second one: not the best, but not horrible either. I think it's just a pretty bad film for portraits.

Dr Croubie said:
Am I the only one who thinks (ignoring facial expressions and bad-lighting) that the Foma shot looks better? Much lighter skin and less 'flat' looking.
What filters, if any, were used on those shots? If one used red and the other used orange, for example, then that would still have had more of an effect than a few extra nm range of the film.

I think you're on your own here. The lighter skin looks pasty and pretty horrible to my eyes. I much prefer the tones of tri-x.
There weren't any filters used in these shots. I purposely chose two photos of the same person taken without filters on different films, otherwise the comparison wouldn't have made any sense whatsoever.

This is another picture of him taken on ortho film

This is another bad picture on foma 400 (notice the horrible skin tone)

These are two pictures on Tri-x, one with a red filter and one with a green filter, to see the difference (the red filter one is closer to the look of Foma without any filter, while the green filter makes it look orthochromatic)

Nr90 · Mar 29, 2015

Dr Croubie said:
Am I the only one who thinks (ignoring facial expressions and bad-lighting) that the Foma shot looks better? Much lighter skin and less 'flat' looking.
What filters, if any, were used on those shots? If one used red and the other used orange, for example, then that would still have had more of an effect than a few extra nm range of the film.

I'm with you

Bill Burk · Mar 29, 2015

moltogordo said:

moltogordo,

I really like the way the light falls in this shot!

Xmas · Mar 29, 2015

Nr90 said:
I'm with you

Could just as easily be both unfiltered in different light colour temperature, like you would get with your M8, do you remove the IR cut filter and shoot black fabric material in tungsten lighting?

The Fomapan400 is like the M8 down load the technical data sheet.

http://www.foma.cz/en/catalogue-fomapan-400-action-detail-272

destroya · Mar 29, 2015

do a quick google search on rollei retro 80s. lots of cool info on that film. it has quite a bit of extra red sensitivity. looks cool but takes some time to get used to it. coming up with an EI when using an orange or red filter takes a little time as its not the linear stops down results (does that make sense?) like a normal film. with an IR720 filter its normal though. landscapes get some real great results with it.

here is a nice review of the film

http://www.martinzimelka.com/pages/Rollei_Retro80s.html

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 29, 2015

IMO, it's more complex than just comparing film spectral sensitivity to use of filters because filters can only 'block' certain wavelengths of light. If a film can never see a certain color of light then no amount of filtration can 'add' sensitivity to that color.

For instance, a deep red or short spectrum IR filter (approx. 600-700nm) can produce some Wood effect with most extended red sensitivity films but when used with panchromatic films there is only foliage darkening, not lightening. One may not get a usable image at all when using IR filters with pan films.

Extended red and IR films are the only ones that have the ability to simultaneously darken sky 'and' lighten foliage. Extended red films just do this more subtly than true infrared films. I've never liked infrared but I often like extended red very much for certain subjects.

Photo Engineer · Mar 29, 2015

moltogordo said:
Thanks for the info, folks! Claudia, I'm not fond of Foma 400 for people, either. Glad you posted those direct comparisons.

Again, thanks for posting those head shots. It certainly does let me know why I rejected it for portraiture!

I agree that long or extended red is not good for portraits, HOWEVER, none of the pictures posted are "direct comparisons" by any stretch of the imagination. A direct comparison is the same person, exposure and lighting on the same day and as close to the same time as possible.

PE

moltogordo · Mar 30, 2015

momus said:
I also agree w/ what moltogordo wrote. The Foma does have its uses. Those two shots of his look like they're from a different and older world. I expect to see a giant reptile towering over those towers, and the swamp shot has me looking for a gilled man-like creature suddenly popping out of that water. Very nice. I wish more people would post photos to demonstrate their concerns. Words are fine and all that, but it IS a visual medium.

Thank you! That "from a different and older world" is the look I've been trying for since I got back into film. The answer to my quest was Foma 400 in Rodinal at 1:25 or 1:50 with an Olympus Pen FT. And it becomes a very nice landscape film in Xtol at 1:1 - especially in 120. I've been using it in my rollfilm backs on my 4x5.

I'm going to try SFX in Rodinal as well, but right now I have my fingers in too many pies!!

moltogordo · Mar 30, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
I agree that long or extended red is not good for portraits, HOWEVER, none of the pictures posted are "direct comparisons" by any stretch of the imagination. A direct comparison is the same person, exposure and lighting on the same day and as close to the same time as possible.

PE

I'd agree . . . but it was nice to see them side by side. The appearance was consistent with what I've experienced.

Your posts have led me to wonder what Foma 400 would be like with a deep red filter exposed at about ASA 25. Any enlightenment? Inquiring minds want to know!

Ricardo Miranda · Mar 30, 2015

Try it! Better use an IR filter and ISO 1.5.
See: https://www.flickr.com/groups/foma/discuss/72157645492731603/

I like that shot of the guy in F400. It is great.

Xmas · Mar 30, 2015

Also see post #8
Truzi will help...

smieglitz · Mar 30, 2015

Claudia Moroni said:
Here's an example of the same person photographed on Fomapan 400 and on Tri-X

It would appear that Fomapan 400 also has extended-beard sensitivity.

pentaxuser · Mar 30, 2015

smieglitz said:
It would appear that Fomapan 400 also has extended-beard sensitivity.

Nice one

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Mar 30, 2015

We should start a list of film with extended red sensitivity. Don't TMY-2 and Delta 400 fall in this category?

NB23 · Mar 30, 2015

I thoroughly dislike fomapan's 400 red sensitivity. It ruined many portraits that I would have loved.

I have a trix320 framed 20x20 portrait of my older son and another fomapan 20x20 of my younger. The tri-x is amazing. The foma is apaling. No lips, funny eyelids. Man, what a waste.

Ricardo Miranda · Mar 30, 2015

Man, what a waste.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Extended red sensitivity

moltogordo

Photo Engineer

Dr Croubie

Claudia Moroni

Attachments

moltogordo

nworth

gone

Xmas

Dr Croubie

Claudia Moroni

Attachments

Nr90

Bill Burk

Xmas

destroya

Old-N-Feeble

Photo Engineer

moltogordo

moltogordo

Ricardo Miranda

Xmas

smieglitz

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

NB23

Ricardo Miranda

Extended red sensitivity

Attachments

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency