StoneNYC
Allowing Ads
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.
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.
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.I shot SFX200 at ISO50 can you advise me what will be the estimated developing time with HC-110?
I shot SFX200 at ISO50 can you advise me what will be the estimated developing time with HC-110?
No I didn't but can't find the data of ISO 50 on masterdev chartDid you shoot it with a filter? If so, which one?
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.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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?