ILFORD SFX200 Experience & Tips ?

[Ray Rogers]

mine ....please feel free to collect it...I have never had anything of mine become a collectors item

Maybe your luck has just changed!

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I've used the SFX a fair bit. I had problems with exposure until I took the advice of a friend on APUG.
Set the meter to iso 200, use a rangefinder, put the filter on the lens, (I use the b&w 092), set the meter to auto and take the photo. Once I started using this method my results greatly improved. Previously I was always testing and not getting anywhere.

-Rob

 

[Ray Rogers]

Set the meter to iso 200, use a rangefinder, put the filter on the lens, (I use the b&w 092), set the meter to auto and take the photo. Once I started using this method my results greatly improved. Previously I was always testing and not getting anywhere.

-Rob

I don't really follow.
What were you doing before, that is different here now, (other than testing)?

 

[Ray Rogers]

I got excellent results in D76 1+1 for 11 mins.

What tempeature were you working at?

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I couldn't get the metering right. When using a handheld meter and filter factor I found the shots way to thin. So I thought I would try a test.... set the lens to F16 and shoot a pic at 1 sec. 1/2 sec etc. Once I found out my settings.... next time I tried them they weren't near right... way too over. After going back and forth for a while I started shooting with the little rangefinder and it worked way better.
Today I shot a roll on the rollei twin lens.... I have TTL Metering but I could tell it was giving me the wrong reading with the filter on... so I'm going back to the 35mm rangefinder.

I've also tried the efke in 8x10 but have never gotten a printable neg.

-rob

 

[Ray Rogers]

I couldn't get the metering right. When using a handheld meter and filter factor I found the shots way to thin. So I thought I would try a test.... set the lens to F16 and shoot a pic at 1 sec. 1/2 sec etc. Once I found out my settings.... next time I tried them they weren't near right... way too over. After going back and forth for a while I started shooting with the little rangefinder and it worked way better.
Today I shot a roll on the rollei twin lens.... I have TTL Metering but I could tell it was giving me the wrong reading with the filter on... so I'm going back to the 35mm rangefinder.

I've also tried the efke in 8x10 but have never gotten a printable neg.

-rob

I don't know anything about rangefinders... so when you are using one, are you using a hand held meter or a TTL? If you used the rangefinder's meter - set to auto... what could be the reason behind your improved success over using a hand held meter or another camera's ttl?

I guess I still don't know what you mean::confused:

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I'm using auto on the camera... through the lens and the 092 filter which is almost black but really just very dark red. If I put the filter on an slr I wouldn't be able to see anything.... so with the rangefinder I can still see the subject but the filter is in place for metering and shooting.

 

[aparat]

I have used this film with a Hoya R72 filter. I found that I had to rate the film at ISO 12 or even ISO 8 to get the best results. It's a lovely film.

 

[Toffle]

Hm... I thought I had responded to this already...
I have shot this with the Ilford/Cokin SFX filter, and with similar results, an R-72. After my first couple of rolls, I settled on ISO 6, maunally metered. http://tomoverton.images.googlepages.com/IR-creek.jpg/IR-creek-full;init:.jpg I find the IR effect quite pronounced at this exposure, while still producing pleasing mid-tones. I actually think this might be a nice portrait film. In 35mm, the grain is a little much, but not too obtrusive in 120.

Cheers,

 

[Ray Rogers]

I settled on ISO 6, maunally metered

with the filter on the camera?
(not in front of the meter) so that you are just metering normally,
for normal light, at EI 6 ???

Then you use that data to shoot through the camera with the filter in place.

Sorry I am so dense- it has been a long week!

 

[Leon]

I did a review of the film for Black and White Photography mag a few years ago when it was re-introduced. I shot in various situations etc with slrs, yellow filters, red filters, the ilford SFX filter etc. I rated the film at 160 which seemed about right and developed in ID-11 (home-brew equivalent) at 1:1 for the manufacturers recommended times . All worked well. I did find that the ilford sfx filter actually needed a +5 stop compensation (if you're metering without it). the first example here is with no filter, then with a Lee 23 red filter, then with ilford sfx filter.

 

[Leon]

and here's a few more. first hand held with SFX filter on a MF Rangefinder @ f 5.6 (about 1/30 IIRC), the second 2 in low light with no filter at all

 

[Leon]

and 3 more for luck! again, no filter, Lee 23 red filter and SFX filter respectively

 

[xtolsniffer]

Usually you rate the film at the low ISO, then meter, then put the filter on the lens, then take the shot. If you set the film to ISO 6, then metered through the lens, the combination of low ISO and lack of light coming through the filter would give you an exposure of about a week (ok slight exaggeration). It can be confusing, it is often hard to work out whether the meter reading is with the filter on, and the ISO setting with or without filters etc. The way I think about it is that a low ISO with either TTL metering without the filter or with an external meter will give you a long exposure. Why? Because you are shooting infra-red where the film is not as sensitive (for some emulsions anyway), and you have a filter on the front that cuts out most of the light. You could rate the film at ISO 200 then meter with the filter in front of the lens and you get a long exposure. Why? Because the filter cuts out most of the light. So same result, different method. The only problem is that camera or lightmeter sensors may not really measure infra-red, so the metering without the filter in place will give you an idea of how much infra-red there is based on the amount of visible light and assuming there is a correlation between them. So from this starting point you get an idea of the likely exposure value and you bracket. I used to bracket -1 +1 and +2 stops but in the end I gave up the -1 bracket as I always have to give more exposure than I thought I would need.

 

[Willie Jan]

A very interesting characteristic of this film, aside from the obvious extended red sensitivity, is how flat the spectral sensitivity is, according to the graph in the data sheet. It appears as if the film responds pretty much equally to all colors of visible light. Given this combined with the fact that this film responds to the entire visible spectrum make it seem like this film should provide the tonal relationships that are most like the human eye sees them, and should theoretically also be an excellent choice for shooting color separation negatives.

That was also an aspect why i bought this film to test it out. Shoot landscapes (without filter) to obtain more details in the sky sections without having to burn the print. Is on my to do list.

 

[Ray Rogers]

and 3 more for luck!

Thanks !
Pictures are worth a million words...

I like that you compared the 3 options... very useful.

I wonder if you have any images of people ?
or statues, taken with the filters...
---

 

[Ray Rogers]

More Questions!

Could you (Leon) or someone, post a picture or link to a proper, good negative made with say the SFX filter ... I used to make nice IR pctures years ago, but then something went haywire and I started getting foggy overexposed results and I never tracked down the problem... possibly IR leak somewhere
(canon eos/patterson tanks) or the thing I was shootin was an IR generator! but their was image bleed off onto other frames, foggy edges etc.; I was shooting plants on a farm...

Anyway, I'd just like to see what the negatives of others look like.

Also, another question: Is any one adjusting their focus at all with this film?

 

[Shangheye]

You don't need to adjust focus for SFX, it is a near Infra Red film not true IR.

Rgds, Kal

 

[Leon]

ray - the best advice anyone can give is to suggest you get a few rolls and try it out As Shangheye said, it is not an IR film so you dont have to worry about all the extra steps that come with them .... for interests sake, here's what Howard Hopwood from Harman Tech told me about the history of the film for the article:

SFX originates from production tests for a far red sensitive Aerial Film by ILFORD. One of film designs considered was based on the HP5 Plus emulsion and was suitable for another possible use in European traffic speed cameras. This proved to be very successful and further tests were made to investigate it’s use in creative photography although, as the product was coated on a Polyester base, it was not really suitable for use in 35mm cameras. A coating was tried out on a Triacetate base and this became the product now known as ILFORD SFX. Additionally, the SFX filter was developed to maximise the special effect that was available.

 

[Ray Rogers]

ray - the best advice anyone can give is to suggest you get a few rolls and try it out As Shangheye said, it is not an IR film so you dont have to worry about all the extra steps that come with them .... for interests sake, here's what Howard Hopwood from Harman Tech told me about the history of the film for the article:

I intend on doing just that! Unfortunately, there will be no time for practice

I appreciate the difference between this and regular IR films; I have used both types before.
Actually, Ilford mentions the necessity to control focus with non APO lenses when using this film...
I was just wondering what people were really doing.

I take it by your comments that you just focused normally.

Thanks for including the comments of Mr Hopwood.

It is curious that films of this sensitivity seem to be geared to exposure at 5.6

 

[Leon]

I intend on doing just that! Unfortunately, there will be no time for practice

Ar eyou doing some paid work with it or something? No offence meant, but it's a bit foolhardy to use a film out of necessity when you're not used to it's foibles.

I appreciate the difference between this and regular IR films; I have used both types before.

are you saying you have used SFX before? in you OP you said "I am going to try SFX200 for the frst time pretty soon" So I assumed that meant you hadnt used it before.

Actually, Ilford mentions the necessity to control focus with non APO lenses when using this film...
I was just wondering what people were really doing.

I should think that, unless you're shooting at f1 - f2.8, any DOF should correct the focus difference?

Dont forget you can get all the faux IR effect with placing the IR or Red filter over a flash if you're doing studio work.

 

[c6h6o3]

The few rolls I shot with it seemed to fog more easily than other films. Anyone else note this?

 

[Ray Rogers]

The few rolls I shot with it seemed to fog more easily than other films. Anyone else note this?

I am particularly interested in this as well.
What sort of fogging... do you mean from age or something else?

 

[Ray Rogers]

Ar eyou doing some paid work with it or something? No offence meant, but it's a bit foolhardy to use a film out of necessity when you're not used to it's foibles.

No Offence taken- and you are correct, nothing beats experience... but sometimes we are confdent enough to take a certain amount of risk. esp. when there are no other viable options.

are you saying you have used SFX before? in you OP you said "I am going to try SFX200 for the frst time pretty soon" So I assumed that meant you hadnt used it before.

Correct. I have never used this film.
I have used another near IR film, now discontinued. It was made by Konishiroku, or Konika. I forget its exact name and can't hunt it down just now, but it had the number 750 in its name... from its sensitivity.

It too could be used w or w/o a filter. I have the data on this film but as I said, it is now long off the shelves

 

[Leon]

it's been 2 years since I used the film abut IIRC, the antihalation layer with this film in 120 is integral to the base (as in 35mm) so does does not get removed by the developing washing process as with most other 120 films. So the developed film will look fogged, but isnt - they do have a bluey tint like 35mm with integral anti-halation layers.