Ilford SFX 200

[StoneNYC]

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.

Thanks this is great info!


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MFstooges]

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.

I shot SFX200 at ISO50 can you advise me what will be the estimated developing time with HC-110?

 

[DWThomas]

I shot SFX200 at ISO50 can you advise me what will be the estimated developing time with HC-110?

Hmmm -- the short answer is no. (I am assuming you shot at two stops over exposure -- with no filters, etc.) In my page of examples linked above, I quoted EI values, but those all included filter factors figured in.

The longer answer is B&W film is remarkably tolerant and you could probably just go with normal development without the negatives getting overly bullet proof, but I have hardly ever done that with any film and have no experience with SFX200 beyond the one roll in that quoted post from which to draw any ideas. Were I faced with your situation I might reduce developing time a little -- maybe 10%, but to go into any larger changes I would tend to think about running some carefully done tests on another roll of the film first (especially if I really wanted to optimize what I had on the original roll).

Perhaps someone else will chime in here.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I shot SFX200 at ISO50 can you advise me what will be the estimated developing time with HC-110?

Did you shoot it with a filter? If so, which one?

 

[MFstooges]

Did you shoot it with a filter? If so, which one?

No I didn't but can't find the data of ISO 50 on masterdev chart
What's the tolerance for over/under of this film?

 

[Rick A]

Develop it normally. I shot a test roll using no filters through yellow, green, orange, red, and Hoya 72, All negatives came out properly exposed. . I shot some negatives at ISO 100 without filters are a bit dense but very printable. If you shot no filter at ISO 50, reduce development by about 20%.

 

[pentaxuser]

With a bit of luck and given how many here rate films at less than box speed and use HC110 someone has used this combo and will respond. Wouldn't you know it when you need the info, even the MDC doesn't give times for less than its box speed in HC110

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Do what Rick suggests. You should end up with easily printable negatives.

 

[MattKing]

One thing to note - the film is fairly grainy.
Perceptol would be an excellent choice to help deal with both the over-exposure and the grain.

 

[pentaxuser]

One thing to note - the film is fairly grainy.
Perceptol would be an excellent choice to help deal with both the over-exposure and the grain.

Good point Matt. I have only ever shot this stuff in 135 format once without a filter and I found it to be really grainy as a "straight" film. It was just about OK with a red filter on a very bright sunny day but other than using it with the correct IR filter which is how it is meant to be used, it is a very "second best" film in my experience.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Oh contraire!
From a print from an Ilford SFX negative that I entered in the Ilford and APUG contest that Harman ran in the late 2000s.
Earned an "honourable mention" and display on the Ilford website, IIRC.

 

[MFstooges]

I ended up did it in rodinal for 10.5 minutes at 18.5 C It is grainy and bit contrast. I'll try again next time.

 

[NB23]

Same as SFX200 is foma400 or arista edu 400. Works well with B+W 092 and Hoya r72 near infrared filters.

Half the price.

 

[pentaxuser]

NB23, it would seem that Foma 400's extended red sensitivity( just short of 700nm )does not appear to stretch quite as far into the red range as does Ilford SFX( about 740) from the graphs produced by both companies. However in shots I have seen Foma 400 certainly looks to be on a par with SFX although the same level of effect with Foma seems to require a lower E.I.

However there is no arguing with your statement on price

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Foma 400 looks stunning with a 092 filter. Great for street photography with a film noir look, while not on “infareddish” side.

NB23, it would seem that Foma 400's extended red sensitivity( just short of 700nm )does not appear to stretch quite as far into the red range as does Ilford SFX( about 740) from the graphs produced by both companies. However in shots I have seen Foma 400 certainly looks to be on a par with SFX although the same level of effect with Foma seems to require a lower E.I.

However there is no arguing with your statement on price

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer Rollei IR 400 with the Red 23, Red 25, Red 29 or 720 filter. My favorite are the Red 29 and 720.

 

[MFstooges]

I like Rollei IR400 but sadly cannot buy no more