Ilford SFX 200

lightwisps · Jul 13, 2013

Has anyone ever tried Ilford
sfx 200? I am wondering how close it is to Kodak HIE. Does it even come close to the same infra red effects? Thought I would try it on the property here this afternoon with all the trees the barn way in the background, and with any luck big fluffy clouds. Will my R60 filter be strong enough? Worked great with HIE. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Don

AgX · Jul 13, 2013

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/infrared_film_004.php

markbarendt · Jul 13, 2013

It's an extended red film, not true IR, but it is still fun and gives decent effect with the filter in place.

lightwisps · Jul 13, 2013

Thanks great information. Don

hoshisato · Jul 13, 2013

Make sure to use a proper IR filter like the Hoya R72; I tried this film first with the Ilford supplied SFX200 filter but wasn't impressed. With the Hoya filter I got much more dramatic results with this film.

With the Ilford filter: http://monochrome.me.uk/blog/infrared-gunnersbury-park-in-front-of-the-temple/
With the Hoya R72 filter: http://monochrome.me.uk/blog/infrared-bridge-over-the-grand-union-canal-4/

lightwisps · Jul 13, 2013

My filter is a Nikon and worked great with the HIE. Don't really want to buy new filters unless it will really make a hell of a difference.

markbarendt · Jul 13, 2013

Go shoot.

losheng · Jul 13, 2013

The signature look of HIE comes from the lack of anti-halation layer, and that gives a dreamy effect. I don't see that with the SFX200.

David Brown · Jul 13, 2013

lightwisps said:
Has anyone ever tried Ilford sfx 200?

Yes.

Not trying to be one of the "why didn't you search first" guys, but if you do search "SFX 200", you'll find many prior apug threads on this film. Happy reading.

markbarendt · Jul 13, 2013

losheng said:
The signature look of HIE comes from the lack of anti-halation layer, and that gives a dreamy effect. I don't see that with the SFX200.

Could use a bit of Vaseline on the filter.

whlogan · Jul 13, 2013

I use the R72 and get super results.... late in the evening works good, too. I have had good results, but not like HIE(RIP), but good enough. It is a good film, you;ll get good results with the proper filter...
Logan

lightwisps · Jul 13, 2013

Thanks to everyone, the response is mind boggling. Now if I could just sell my 2 extra enlarging lenses.

StoneNYC · Jul 13, 2013

hoshisato said:
Make sure to use a proper IR filter like the Hoya R72; I tried this film first with the Ilford supplied SFX200 filter but wasn't impressed. With the Hoya filter I got much more dramatic results with this film.

With the Ilford filter: http://monochrome.me.uk/blog/infrared-gunnersbury-park-in-front-of-the-temple/
With the Hoya R72 filter: http://monochrome.me.uk/blog/infrared-bridge-over-the-grand-union-canal-4/

I don't see any "supplied" SFX200 filter on the ilford site... but I often miss stuff... I thought the intended filter was supposed to be a normal red 25 filter, and that the R72 (or B+W 91) was only for true IR and that the SFX200 wouldn't work well with the true IR filter because the spectrum was so small on the low end... what EI did you shoot it at with the R72?

StoneNYC · Jul 13, 2013

Also, in theory... couldn't you wash the film (and anti halation later dissolves) then let it dry and re-roll it and then shoot it and get a more HIE glow effect?

MattKing · Jul 14, 2013

In response to both of Stone's last two posts:

1) The R72 is very close to the filter that Ilford did at least at one time sell for use with SFX 200. Either version will give you at least some of the IR (Wood) effect when used under the right conditions, and with the right exposure. The cutoff presented by the R72 means that at least some of the light transmitted by the filter is within the range of sensitivity of the film. It isn't nearly as strong an effect as with Kodak HIE or even the Efke 820, but it is there.

2) If you wash away the anti-halation dies, you are just as likely to wash away some other good things (sensitization dies?) as well.

StoneNYC · Jul 14, 2013

MattKing said:
In response to both of Stone's last two posts:

1) The R72 is very close to the filter that Ilford did at least at one time sell for use with SFX 200. Either version will give you at least some of the IR (Wood) effect when used under the right conditions, and with the right exposure. The cutoff presented by the R72 means that at least some of the light transmitted by the filter is within the range of sensitivity of the film. It isn't nearly as strong an effect as with Kodak HIE or even the Efke 820, but it is there.

2) If you wash away the anti-halation dies, you are just as likely to wash away some other good things (sensitization dies?) as well.

OK so what about the exposure index for it with the R72? I know with the Rollei IR 400 film I was told about 6 stops difference. So is this MORE because it's less sensitive?

bdial · Jul 14, 2013

Ilford recommends 4 stops for the ILFORD SFX, B+W RG665, B+W 092, Heliopan 695and 715, Hoya R72 and Kodak Wratten 89B filters.

The whole story is in the data sheet at their website; http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20129101343411444.pdf

StoneNYC · Jul 14, 2013

bdial said:
Ilford recommends 4 stops for the ILFORD SFX, B+W RG665, B+W 092, Heliopan 695and 715, Hoya R72 and Kodak Wratten 89B filters.

The whole story is in the data sheet at their website; http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20129101343411444.pdf

Thanks... Why the heck can't everyone use the same damn number??? ("Wratten" number) they have to be different for no reason... Lol

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

brianmquinn · Jul 14, 2013

They use different numbers because these filters ARE different.
They pass amounts and types of light.

DWThomas · Jul 14, 2013

I think the Wratten numbers go back almost to the Bronze Age when a certain amount of mystery was part of the game! Trust us, you don't need to know!

Somewhere a year or two back I saw data showing a cutoff of 695 for the Wratten 89B, so that would be a little bit more generous in exposure than the R72. I have some SFX here with the intent to try it, but as with many things of late, haven't gotten around to it. I believe the old Kodak film had a broad notch in some of the visible region response in addition to going way farther out in the IR region. That would likely make its results less affected by the specific cutoff, as well as usable with cutoffs in the 800s.

StoneNYC · Jul 14, 2013

I just meant, the red 25 for example, should be that number everywhere... And why is it a 92 or 91 for B+W and a 72 for Hoya (the 72 I thought meant 720 cutoff so theirs at least makes sense, could be wrong?).

I dunno, a lot of photography stuff makes no sense to me and just seems poorly thought out.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Truzi · Jul 14, 2013

Each company might have their own set of standards for their own reasons. They may not want to use a competitor's standards, and sometimes that could even cause legal (anti-trust) issues. Some of the reasons are good, some of the reasons are bad.

This isn't restricted to photography. Ever notice how different laptop manufacturers have the power connection in different spots? Different connectors even? Read up a bit on the web browser wars and w3c standards, and try to imagine why certain web-page tools include features that do not follow standards (reminiscent of the Seattle FilmWorks issue).

It would be nice for end-users if general standards were more globally accepted and correctly followed, but this issue goes on in every field, not just photography.

MattKing · Jul 14, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I just meant, the red 25 for example, should be that number everywhere... And why is it a 92 or 91 for B+W and a 72 for Hoya (the 72 I thought meant 720 cutoff so theirs at least makes sense, could be wrong?).

I dunno, a lot of photography stuff makes no sense to me and just seems poorly thought out.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

And what is the slope of the cutoff for the R72?

May as well ask why two different automobile engines with similar "horsepower" numbers have such different response with respect to torque at different rpm.

It is because they were designed by different people, pursuant to different criteria, and manufactured on different equipment.

Most quality manufacturers have at least internal consistency through their lines.

At one time, competition was quite intense between companies like filter manufacturers, and any "standardization" would have been resisted.

And there would have been a certain amount of snobbery - German manufacturers and US manufacturers and Japanese manufacturers and UK manufacturers would all most likely resist anyone who argued that one system was better than theirs.

Sort of reminds you about cel phones, doesn't it?

StoneNYC · Jul 14, 2013

MattKing said:
And what is the slope of the cutoff for the R72?

May as well ask why two different automobile engines with similar "horsepower" numbers have such different response with respect to torque at different rpm.

It is because they were designed by different people, pursuant to different criteria, and manufactured on different equipment.

Most quality manufacturers have at least internal consistency through their lines.

At one time, competition was quite intense between companies like filter manufacturers, and any "standardization" would have been resisted.

And there would have been a certain amount of snobbery - German manufacturers and US manufacturers and Japanese manufacturers and UK manufacturers would all most likely resist anyone who argued that one system was better than theirs.

Sort of reminds you about cel phones, doesn't it?

Your example is poor as I could easily answer the horsepower example. But I get what you're saying, still, the compensating color for tungsten film is sort of a constant right? Just saying... Regardless of manufacture, the color tone remains the same, or should.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

DWThomas · Aug 1, 2013

For the two cents it's worth, I just put up some negative scans from my first roll of SFX200, shot at a favorite local test site and picking the best out of two exposures with each filter. Actually, I shot four with the 89B at EIs ranging from 16 down to 3 (incident readings with the Sekonic L-508). Any of the latter four appear usable.

And I was impressed, there is a noticeable brightening of the foliage between the red and the infrared filter. In general it seems like a nice film. I would probably avoid it for use not requiring the special spectral range, as it's pricey, although quite a bit cheaper than the IR400.

I used HC110 Dilution E (1+47) for 13:30 at 69ºF, continuous agitation (and thumping to loosen bubbles) for the first 30 seconds, then 3 inversions every 30 seconds. For a first try with it, I'm pleased.

I also discovered some annoying vignetting with the El Cheapo Bay 1 filters I have, so that was good to know -- guess I'll be using a recently acquired Bay 1 to 52 mm adapter in the future.

Ilford SFX 200

lightwisps

AgX

markbarendt

lightwisps

hoshisato

lightwisps

markbarendt

losheng

David Brown

markbarendt

whlogan

lightwisps

StoneNYC

StoneNYC

MattKing

Moderator

StoneNYC

bdial

StoneNYC

brianmquinn

DWThomas

StoneNYC

Truzi

MattKing

Moderator

StoneNYC

DWThomas

Ilford SFX 200

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency