Infrared Film not as expected

Daniel Huiting · Aug 21, 2016

Hi, I recently bought this film: Dead Link Removed
from Film Photography Project, and I used a 25A filter as directed by them, I even stacked a polarizer on top to get more contrast in the sky, and to my surprise the photos turned out looking pretty much like normal black and white film, not the "white trees, black skies" that I was hoping for.

I'm wondering:

Should I have used an R72 filter instead of the 25A filter that they recommended for that film?

A friend told me there really isn't any "true" infrared film being made anymore, is that true?

If so, then is the Ilford SFX 200 and Rollei IR 400 film that I bought also not going to give me the white tree/black sky results I am looking for?

Any help in this area or suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

MattKing · Aug 21, 2016

To the best of my knowledge, no-one is currently manufacturing a "true" infrared film for standard photographic uses.

I don't know what film is being marketed by the film photography project, but unless it is a "true" infrared film, a 25A filter won't give you the result you want (referred to as the "Wood" effect, named after Robert W. Wood).

The Ilford SFX 200 and Rollei IR 400 films have spectral sensitivity that is mostly in the visible range, with a little bit of spectral sensitivity into the near IR and IR ranges.

An R72 filter filters out the visible light, so the near IR and IR sensitivity of the latter two films can be used.

A 25A filter worked with the (long discontinued) Kodak HIE and Efke 820 films because they had limited visible light sensitivity and robust sensitivity to IR light.

Daniel Huiting · Aug 21, 2016

Thanks MattKing! I do have two 120 rolls of Efke IR 820 in my freezer, dated 3/2013 and I was promised that it has been stored frozen. (I realize those promises mean next to nothing on eBay, but for what it's worth the person seemed fairly legit. So I'll take it with just a little more than a grain of salt.) So with that film I can use a 25A filter? Or I should just use the R72 filter and not mess with the 25A filter at all?

And for the Rollei 400 IR and Ilford SFX 200 I'll try the R72 filter and see what I get. That's all I can do i guess, I've already purchased the film. And for the $8.99 "Infrared" B+W film and the $29.99(!) Color "Infrared" Film I bought from FPP, it's a bummer that the Film Photography Project is selling a film that doesn't live up to the expectations of its customers. I emailed them and they basically were like "sorry you're disappointed" but didn't really offer to do anything about it. Last film I'll buy there, that's for sure.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 21, 2016

In order for an IR film/filter combination to work the spectral curves must match. Use what the seller suggests. While they don't spectral curve they do given a spectral range for the film.

Daniel Huiting · Aug 21, 2016

I used what the seller (FPP) suggested for their film (a 25A filter) and my photos look like normal Black and White photos. Nothing "infrared" about them....

Truzi · Aug 21, 2016

I would go with the R72. I've used it with the Rollei IR and 400s and had good results.
There are a few examples in this thread:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

MattKing · Aug 22, 2016

Daniel:
The examples I've seen of that film are quite limited. It may be that what you are hoping for isn't available with a 25A filter, but there may be good effects possible with an enhanced red sensitivity film and a 25A filter.

Using films like the Ilford and Rollie near infrared products with R72 filters can be challenging and unpredictable. Extended red sensitivity products with a 25A may be more predictable, and therefore easier to market.

The false colour infrared material is potentially more interesting.

Search through the archives here (including some of my posts) and you may get a sense of how unpredictable infrared work can be. It can also be fun and rewarding too.

You might consider subscribing to APUG. There are some people here with infrared work in the galleries that is just spectacular.

The thread Truzi linked to above might be useful for you. You can see a few of my early experiments.

Daniel Huiting · Aug 22, 2016

Thanks so much MattKing!

I would love to subscribe, which threads would you recommend that I subscribe to?

I will try the R72 with these films and report back. As for metering, I've been just setting my meter to what the film ISO is, and then putting the filter I am using over the incident dome. My first roll came back exposed correctly (albeit not very "infrared" looking, hence the post).

As for focus, not all my lenses have the red "R" on them, so in those cases, what do you recommend for calculating focus? I understand that shooting at f16 is one way to make sure things are in focus, but what if I want to shoot at f2 or f2.8? I would like to be able to find some way to consistently nail focus at those wider apertures.

thanks!

Old-N-Feeble · Aug 22, 2016

I know little about IR photography but maybe it's the foliage being photographed. I've noticed that some foliage reflects far less IR than others. Can you post n example image?

Andrew O'Neill · Aug 22, 2016

Kodak HIE was the only real IR film. Efke's version was pretty good, but to get decent effect, I have to shoot it through an opaque IR filter, like the 87C. With HIE, I could get awesome IR effect with just a #25 Wratten filter. Rollei's IR film gets some effect with the 72, as well as SFX... but nothing like HIE. I wouldn't about focusing. These films are really only extended red films. They barely touch the IR spectrum. I've shot with wide apertures and image looks sharp. Even with Efke IR and 87C filter.

mooseontheloose · Aug 22, 2016

Daniel,

One thing I like to do is test the infrared film to see what works (I will admit, I never did this in the beginning, it's only after years of shooting it that I began to do so). Take a roll, set your camera up on a tripod at a representative scene and try shooting the film:

-with no filter
-with red filter at recommended meter reading (probably 2-3 stops less than without filter)
-with red filter at one stop over and under exposed from the meter reading (you could do more than that)
-with an infrared filter (R72) at recommended meter reading (probably 4-6 stops less than without filter)
-with infrared filter at one stop over and under the meter reading
-I have also done this with yellow and orange filters, just to see the different effects, but it depends on the film.
-Don't bother with the polarizer at any of these stages, it just adds another variable. However, if you want, you could test with the polariser as well, though that won't have any effect on the infrared nature of the film (if there is any). Similaraly, shooting at f/16 will result in really slow speeds - I normally all my infrared shots at f/8 or f/11, but I've used larger apertures as well.
-Develop the film as recommended

You could probably do this with 2 or 3 different scenes, try not just to do white leaves on trees, infrared had a different look for a variety of subjects, from old wood to water to bright shiny objects. The strongest infrared effect is when you are shooting 90 degrees from the sun. Try shooting at different times of day (with sunlight).

Based on the information of the FPP site, this sounds like rebadged Rollei infrared, 200 Superpan, or Retro 400s film.

AgX · Aug 22, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
In order for an IR film/filter combination to work the spectral curves must match. Use what the seller suggests. While they don't spectral curve they do given a spectral range for the film.

Gerald, basically true, but look into the recommendations they give.

Daniel, You already asked about the filter issue in another thread of yours

and I referred to this thread:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

pdeeh · Aug 22, 2016

Just a word of caution: the Efke film you have frozen may be a disappointment, for a couple of reasons.

First, which I learned here from people who really know, is that the IR sensitising dyes deteriorate quite quickly even when cold stored.

Second, which I learned from bitter personal experience, is that the final runs of Efke film (including the IR) are often of very poor physical quality with faults in the base if not the coating. The result is a spotty speckled negative. These show up particularly nastily in scans, if that is part of your process.

see also (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

LAG · Aug 22, 2016

Daniel Huiting said:
Should I have used an R72 filter instead of the 25A filter that they recommended for that film?

A friend told me there really isn't any "true" infrared film being made anymore, is that true?

If so, then is the Ilford SFX 200 and Rollei IR 400 film that I bought also not going to give me the white tree/black sky results I am looking for?

Excuse me Daniel Huiting

No. No and yes*. No (if so*)

1. The usual filters for this type of film are the classic "red and orange" (the latter with lesser degree)", depending on the kind of output you're looking for (playing with contrast or blocking some light ...). You can use both at the same time and a lens hood is highly recommended, and you can add a yellow as well. Although there are some other filters, those are to "help" where the film cannot reach.

2. I have worked with many infrarred films (...) but I agree with Andrew O'Neill, that Kodak High Infrarred Emulsion (HIE) was the real one (I have my last HIE waiting in the fridge since 1991) That is the "true" thing, none of the others films in the market have (or had) anything to do with it (in terms of penetration) into the visible spectrum (up to 900). They can hardly get to 800.

3. In fact, Ilford's 200 are much more a "true" B&W film only with some changes "extended" in the emulsion, prepared to deal with that light with the "recommended filter" to enhance the results. Rollei (& Efke) is a much better option. You should take a look to their respective data sheets to find out not only the description, the characteristics or the spectral sensivity, but the Curves as well.

After reading the attached link, i wonder why the say ... (Most labs will claim they can handle IR film but in fact can not)" because in my opinion precisely it is the other way round: Always forget the lab when dealing with these films. There is too much to say about the TIPS (???) they say too!

Helinophoto · Aug 22, 2016

I suggest that the OP use
- R72 Hoya (or similar)
- Rollei 400IR

Why people suggest using RED filters for films that are indeed sensitive to visible light, is beyond, me. The (discontinued) EFKE films and the (still produced) Rollei 400IR were all NIR (near infrared), which means that they get just within the lower end of the IR-spectrum. With a filter like Hoya r72, you get the IR-effect you are after.

The Rollei 400IR-film is way cleaner than EFKE .

A red filter will not give you IR-shots, the Hoya R72 will, and the Rollei performs very well.

Also, the Rollei xxxs-films are sensitive to the NIR area, so the R72 will indeed produce wood-effect with those, not sure about the exposure-times and EI, but look around.

I made a blog about my findings, development and suggested EI for the Rollei 400IR film here (and I also linked to my previous entry, where you see the EFKE and EFKE-Aura with a R72):
http://helino-photo.blogspot.no/2013/09/infrared-shooting-what-you-cant-see.html

Red filters with IR-film.....jeezz, why do sellers even suggest that?

AgX · Aug 22, 2016

With any IR film one must look at the range and degree of stretching into the IR spectrum.

Current films stretching into IR have there only a weak sensitisation (amplitude-wise). Strongest filtration of the visible spectrum thus is necessary.
And I do not see any point in filtering for the far end of their sensitisation as indicated by the dealer in using a polarizer in addition.

Ashfaque · Aug 22, 2016

Hi Daniel,

Try without the polariser.

Tutorials
- Have a look at wonderful photos from DWThomas, (there was a url link here which no longer exists). He provides a lot of technical details on shooting and developing.
- Also see Martin Zimelka's reviews on Retro 80S, and Rollei IR 400. Both used with Heliopan RG 715 (& probably RG 645)
- If you're interested in Ilford SFX, google Dave Butcher's tutorial.
- Regarding Retro 80S, there could potentially be an issue with black spots - about (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and a possible solution.

Sometimes, if the filters are not good, they can also affect the output. It doesn't imply cheap ones are always bad. For e.g., Hoya ones are quite good. But if you can buy from the EU then get Heliopans (from FotoMayr, MacoDirect, or FotoImpex), which are cheaper than B+W and slightly more expensive than Hoya.

As Matt and others mentioned, you can use 'IR-type' films like Rollei Retro (RR) 80S, and RR 400S, Rollei IR 400, (one/two more from MacoDirect) and Ilford SFX 200 with a filter that cuts of light around and up to 695-720 nm. For e.g., Heliopan RG 715 (715nm), Hoya R72 (720nm), etc. But if you want slightly less dramatic results, you could use a 650nm filter like Heliopan RG 645, or something similar.

Bests,
Ashfaque

mooseontheloose · Aug 22, 2016

Helinophoto said:
Red filters with IR-film.....jeezz, why do sellers even suggest that?

Because they know that no one would buy infrared film if they had to buy a pricey infrared filter to shoot it!

That said, not everyone wants the full-blown in-your-face infrared effect, and may prefer the more subtle effect that a red filter can give (I know this doesn't apply to the OP).

BTW, I enjoyed your blog post about coming up with a good development scheme for the Rollei infrared. Unfortunately I don't use HC-110, so I'm still trying to dial in what I like for the Rollei.

Helinophoto · Aug 22, 2016

Thanks ^^

I found that the contrast tended to be too high on the normal, recommended ratings and development times, so increasing exposure and reducing development looked better to my eye.
I am not sure what developer you use, but the ratings I use can probably be re-used as a starting-point for testing with other developers.

I actually have 80s, 200s and 400s films as well, but I have only been shooting them normally until now, perhaps I should fire off a roll of 80s with the Hoya, it sure looked like a seriously clean and high-resolving film. (but with little shadow detail?)

TheFlyingCamera · Aug 22, 2016

Color infrared requires a deep YELLOW filter, not a red filter, just as an FYI - so if you shoot that color infrared film with a red filter you will not get the false color effect you were expecting.

DWThomas · Aug 22, 2016

As I started to read this thread I thought I would post some links to my own work but then saw that Ashfaque kindly referenced it already. After one of these earlier discussions I was inspired to run a roll of SFX200 through my TLR with a series of filters. A TLR is nice because you don't have to look through an opaque filter! Those results are in this gallery. All those shots were taken minutes apart from a tripod. Besides learning that the two cheap Bay 1 filters I had vignette(!), I found a substantial difference between a red (#25? unmarked) and an 89B (circa 695nm).

I have never even thought of adding a polarizer -- I suppose it could do something, but none of these films need exposures any longer than they already are.

Again, I have not seriously tested, but fully believe with most lenses little to no focus compensation is necessary using the extended red/near IR films. If your lens has a depth of field scale, probably the rotation of one line over from infinity is a suitable correction (on some lenses it may even be a different color to indicate that.)

And ---- bracket, bracket, bracket! (The film companies need the business! )

MattKing · Aug 22, 2016

Daniel Huiting said:
I would love to subscribe, which threads would you recommend that I subscribe to?

Daniel:
I was suggesting that you become a paid subscriber to APUG. That gives you full access to the Galleries and the ability to use the Classifieds to sell items or publish notices that you are looking for items to buy.

The cost is reasonable, and you would be helping support the site.

For details, click on the "Support Us" link near the top centre of each page.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming .

By the way, don't discount the benefits and effects you can get from extended red sensitivity films and a 25A filter. Just don't count on achieving any Wood effect.

pentaxuser · Aug 22, 2016

As others have said a scan that replicates the print would really help. The film's sensitivity suggests that a 25 filter should at least give the black skies and water look and may even give a hint of the "white foliage" look that a R72 gives with even Ilford SFX which has a lower sensitivity than is quoted for the film from your seller. Certainly SFX with a lower sensitivity gives a black sky and water look with a 25 based on my experience of it

Was the foliage of a deciduous nature? Evergreen foliage does not give much if any of the "white effect"

I wasn't clear why the seller believes that a professional lab cannot develop this film. However everything else about the advice it gives such as open and load in darkness etc does suggest that this film is close to or even in the true IR range.

pentaxuser

destroya · Aug 22, 2016

I have used the retro films for quite a while and have them pretty much dialed in. both the 80s and the superpan/retro400s/infrared work well with 72 filter. you can get very sharp and detailed negs with both the films. using a 25 filter gives you some IR effect but not much. I actually like the results with an orange or red filter. usually those filters darken foliage and trees more than I like, and having the IR sensitivity, albeit small, helps keep them light and more pleasing to my eye. I agree with those who have mentioned to bracket. you can get both films cheap by the bulk roll from maco in germany, much less than anyplace in the US

For both films if I'm just using standard non-IR filters than I like them in Beuter. for IR work, I found Pyro-MC works bset for me.

Truzi · Aug 22, 2016

I'm just guessing, but I think the comment about regular labs not being able to develop the film may be trying to "play it safe" - some labs may use IR light and goggles for darkroom work.

Infrared Film not as expected

Daniel Huiting

MattKing

Moderator

Daniel Huiting

Gerald C Koch

Daniel Huiting

Truzi

MattKing

Moderator

Daniel Huiting

Old-N-Feeble

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

mooseontheloose

AgX

pdeeh

LAG

Helinophoto

AgX

Ashfaque

mooseontheloose

Helinophoto

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

DWThomas

MattKing

Moderator

pentaxuser

destroya

Truzi

Infrared Film not as expected

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency