Also, how does IR film differ from non-IR films; does it solve any of these concerns? Is my thinking just nonsense?
Ester (or anyone else) did you ever get to use the Lee 87 for the current NIR?
How long was the exposure?Sorry for the late reply. ;-) The other day I tried a Lee 87 polyester with Rollei Retro 400s and got absolutely nothing on the neg. So, it's transmission must be beyond these Rollei films.
Welcome to APUG
Great choice if camera and lens.
Keep the Sun behind you and Sunlight directly on the leaves and grass. I have always used infrared film at box speed and metered through the lens with the filter mounted on the lens.
Sorry for the late reply. ;-) The other day I tried a Lee 87 polyester with Rollei Retro 400s and got absolutely nothing on the neg. So, it's transmission must be beyond these Rollei films.
How long was the exposure?
You should get “something”, with an at least 30 min exposure.
The filter isn’t perfect and the film doesn’t stop dead at 750nm.
That's strange that you got nothing with the 87... Rollei IR stretches up to about 830nm. Your exposure would have to be quite long, mind you to get anything. Way beyond 5 stops more than my usual filtered EI with this film (1.5 with the 720)). But really... I find the 720nm filters that I have are quite effective with this film.
I've purchased one of these inexpensive GTX IR 720 filters. Some indoor testing last night shows it has good throughput.
Reciprocity failure rears it’s head after one second already with many of these weird emulsions.Yikes! I wasn't even thinking of exposures that long. I did several exposurse up to 4 seconds. Based on what you stated I may try again to see just what it takes. Thanks.
Yikes! I wasn't even thinking of exposures that long. I did several exposurse up to 4 seconds. Based on what you stated I may try again to see just what it takes. Thanks.
...R72 5 or 6 f/stops...
It’s an ISO 100 film. When/if EI 32 works, it’s probably because it’s an extremely sunny day and IR content is high. It’s 1.5 stops too much. For normal light.I have shot two rolls of Rollei IR400 (Agfa produced) in 120, and used those two settings. I liked the 5 stops (equivalent to external metering at ISO12 with the R72 on the lens ) better than the 6 stops (equivalent to external metering at ISO 6 with the R72 on the lens). Both were good, but I lost more of the highlight in NIR rich areas with the ISO 6 equivalent. I know the proper way is to meter at ISO 400 (again external, not through the lens), then open 5-6 stops, but these are equivalent. With the Gossen Luna Pro SBC you could also set to ISO 400 and then set the VF ring to 32 (5 stops) or 64 (6 stops); though IR film is usually used under sunny 16 conditions anyways, so often no need to meter. In sunny 16, I think I used f16 (get DOF due to possible small focus shifts) at 1/8s for the 6 stops and 1/15s for the 5 stops (on a tripod of course). The Lee filter may be too radical for this film (Rollei IR400), maybe more suited to Kodak High Speed IR or Efke IR820 (if you could get either!); though if the published spectral curves are correct, with enough exposure (and accounting for reciprocity) you should be able to get an image. The Rollei IR400 I have was made in Beligium by Agfa (expired 2015). The newer Rollei IR400 is probably produced by Inoviscoat, and is purportedly the same emulsion.
A couple of examples:
6 Stops:
Potted Plant by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
5 Stops:
Surreal Country Road, Car by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
I tried the Lee 87 filter with Rollei IR400 years ago, and exposures up to 10 minutes still gave me blank film.
I have held back because I thought that the 87 filter was cutting out all the light that the film to which the film reacts. So my thoughts are correct. Rollei IR 400 IIRC cuts off at 750 nm and therefore not usable IR gets to the film.
According to Lee's website transmission for the 87 filter begins above 730 nm. Rollei recommends a filter from 715-730 nm. Sounds like the Lee filter is outside the films useful range to me.
I have held back because I thought that the 87 filter was cutting out all the light that the film to which the film reacts. So my thoughts are correct. Rollei IR 400 IIRC cuts off at 750 nm and therefore not usable IR gets to the film.
It’s an ISO 100 film. When/if EI 32 works, it’s probably because it’s an extremely sunny day and IR content is high. It’s 1.5 stops too much. For normal light.
I usually rate Aviphot 200 derivatives with an R72 around 10 - 12 for a few clouds and decent shade information.
You can preflash (two stops under) or latensify (with green light) and use Adox HR-Dev to get a flatter cure though.
Personally I’m also experimenting with a silver nitrate pre bath, astro photography style, in spring to really up the speed.
I have used IR 400 a fair amount. The suggestion of using EI 12 is not bad as a starting point. But I think the expectation that can just use one EI and have it dialed in from the get-go, especially when one is first doing IR, is over-optimistic. There are a lot of variables such as time of day, quality of the light, the contrast of the subject. I think the best thing, especially at first, is to bracket exposures. I start an IR roll with a non-IR shot for reference. Realize that without a filter Rollei is not remotely a 400-speed film. Tests by Henning Serger showed was probably less than 100 speed. This is a very contrasty film with a severe "S" shaped curve. So it is easy to blow out highlights and dump shadows and the IR filter just exaggerates this. So you want to think about development methods that mitigate that. Focus is hard to achieve with IR because is not the same as with visible light. I usually stop down a lot to try to get focus. Having said all this, it can be really fun to do the IR thing.
My experience with IR 400 is that if you try to focus on close subjects the visible light focus and IR it is NOT the same. If you want to try do close-up portrait shots at f/1.2 forget it. Some lenses have the red IR focus adjustment line. Some say that is only applicable to the extinct high IR films. But I have found it to be a little better with IR 400 than not using it. But in my experience, there is not an alternative with IR but to stop down a lot to achieve focus and the closer the subject the more the need to stop down.I've never attempted IR photography, but I've always wondered about one factor in particular: focusing, especially at close distances. It's well known that different colors of the visible spectrum will focus at different distances from the lens (not all at the film plane). Modern lens are corrected to bring all colors of the visible spectrum to a sharp focus at the same plane. Then there's IR, beyond the visible, that if not corrected, should focus some distance behind the film plane and thus be out-of-focus at the film plane, while the visible light in the image would be in focus. Many 35mm lenses I've seen have a "little red R" next to the infinity mark on their focus scales to allow for a correction. That correction, I'm guessing, is valid only for infinity focusing... so what does one do in a close-up situation (where relying on depth of field may be insufficient)? I no longer use 35mm or MF, only large format view cameras. Can someone explain how to use IR film with a view camera? Also, how does IR film differ from non-IR films; does it solve any of these concerns? Is my thinking just nonsense?
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?