Infrared film and Filters

[AllenBaxter]

I am experimenting with Rollei IR 400 film. I am using the Hoya R72 filter and have gotten good results. I was wondering what affect other B&W or polarizing filters would have on the images. Does anyone have any experience with using additional filters with IR filters and IR film?
Thanks

 

[ambaker]

The higher the cutoff point of the filter, the stronger the IR effect, to a point.

My highest filter is 1000 nm, no visible light gets through. But the Rollei film can't see that high.

I've tried circular polarizers, and I cannot say that I really saw any difference in the results.

 

[DarkroomExperimente]

would the polarizer work differently at different wavelengths?..or is it designed for a certain range??

http://www.dimagemaker.com/2007/08/...ing-filters-for-digital-infrared-photography/

 

[bsdunek]

I had an 87C IR filter I picked up at a camera show. My exposures, to get anything worthwhile, ran to several minutes using EFKE IR film. I finally bought a R72, and things are better. Typical sunny day exposures are f16 at one second. Just my experience.

 

[pstake]

I am experimenting with Rollei IR 400 film. I am using the Hoya R72 filter and have gotten good results. I was wondering what affect other B&W or polarizing filters would have on the images. Does anyone have any experience with using additional filters with IR filters and IR film?
Thanks

Allen, this may not be helpful to you but it will hopefully be helpful to someone later on —*and it's apropos to your post. My apologies if this is interpreted as hijacking!

I was looking for information about IR filters a few months back. I bought an Opteka R72 (inexpensive Hoya knockoff) from 47th Street Photo on evilpay. It was about $22 shipped, new. It claims to block everything below 720nm. After I ordered it, I found this post: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

... and not much else in the way of user reviews. The person in that post claimed that the Opteka R72 was not a true 720, but rather it cutoff much higher. His efforts with the Opteka R72 and Rollei IR, failed. Blank negatives. He concluded that it was because the Opteka's IR cutoff lay beyond the sensitivity of the Rollei (820?).

I had already bought the Opteka filter (55mm) so I wasn't really gambling. I gave the filter a go last weekend and just processed the negs. They came out fine, about a stop underexposed.

I was using Ilford SFX200 — which, as you probably know, has much lower sensitivity to IR than does the Rollei. It cuts off around 740nm. For each frame, I metered a middle gray at 12 iso, focused with the filter off, re-attached the filter, adjusted the focus for IR and released the shutter. I was using a tripod in full spring sun right around the magic hour in the evening.

ISO 12 is four stops under box speed of 200. I also shot a few frames without the filter, metering for ISO 200, to use as a benchmark.

My impression is that I should have metered for ISO 6 with the filter, and ISO 320 without the filter. The benchmarks look dense. Souped in Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes.

I haven't made prints yet but the negatives look sharp. I am still sans-scanner / full analog ... so everyone reading this will just have to imagine beautiful, dreamlike infrared landscapes — because I have no way to post them.