Infrared with Rollei ir 400 and Lee 87

bluechromis · Jan 14, 2022

A practical aspect of doing IR photography has to do with viewing the subject. Many people use SLR's. The problem with SLR's is that once you put on the super-dark full IR filter you can't see a damned thing. So every time you change your view, you have to take off the filter, recompose and focus and put the filter back on. That can get tedious. Using the rectangular filters would be easier than screw-on. This is one of the reasons I got a TLR. But they do have these hinged filter adapters that allow one to swing the filter on and off easily.

markjwyatt · Jan 15, 2022

bluechromis said:
Shooting IR really is like this crazy and sometimes wonderful "through the looking glass" effect. Things do not look like they do to the eye and do not look like they do with conventional film. For example, you might gaze upon a forest with areas of coniferous trees and areas of deciduous trees. To your eye, they seem a similar green. To a conventional film, they may seem a similar grey tone. But with full IR, WHOW, the deciduous trees are dramatically lighter than the coniferous trees. Water can be totally black. It is amazing that the camera can reveal this normally hidden IR world. You have to have patience and shoot a lot and accept a higher failure rate at first to grasp how the film is seeing things differently than you are with IR, but it is worth it.

Plus you see amazing detail in the sky too. Clouds that were not there to the eye, sometimes even beams of light (might be NIR flare). Wood can turn out really dark or black, but sometimes has the Woods effect (Woods n.e. wood).

Ivo Stunga · Jan 15, 2022

Didn't read all of this to the end, but one thing I know for sure on exposing current IR films with 715 and 720nm filters - If I'd shot my Rollei IR400, Superpan 200, Retro 400S and Adox Scala 50 anything longer than a 2 seconds on a sunny day, I FOR SURE would have blown out ALL to the right (speaking in histogram). Exposure of half an hour? Jesus! Could be more productive to pull the film out in the sunlight without carrying the camera around in high hopes. 30" exposure on a sunny day with respective/correct filter will massively overexpose it. Guaranteed and can put my fingers on the chopping board.

Here are my examples. Including IR shots in abandoned premises with very much limited light, of course. What I've found out is you cannot approach it with standard filter factor method too. It all depends on the intensity of light we cannot see, that behaves interestingly, thus bracketing is a must.

If you measure blue skies and make +5 stop exposure compensation and shoot that sunlit scene, you will be on a good track. If you, however, measure shadows a minute later and add same +5 stops, it'll be too much - overexposed. So there's something nonlinear going on to master : )

Rollei Infrared 400 shot indoors with no artificial lights. 2 second exposure at f/4, metered at 400. Looks like I could meter it at 200 or even 100 indeed, thanks for this info and I'll try that the next time around.

A closeup in shade. Half a second at f/8

Morning light, 1/4 at f/8 and CPL. Two filters stacked.

This is one of my most overexposed one's I've kept. 1/15 f/5.6

If couple a second exposure isn't giving you an image on current NIR emulsions, you're way above the film sensitivity with your filter. Buy a 715-720nm and enjoy current NIR films!

MartinCrabtree · Jan 15, 2022

markjwyatt said:
The IR400 datasheet claims sensitivity to 820 nm, but by that point it is 3 orders of magnitude less sensitive than to visible light.

Hence the 715-730 filter recommendation.

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 15, 2022

Ivo Stunga said:
Didn't read all of this to the end, but one thing I know for sure on exposing current IR films with 715 and 720nm filters - If I'd shot my Rollei IR400, Superpan 200, Retro 400S and Adox Scala 50 anything longer than a 2 seconds on a sunny day, I FOR SURE would have blown out ALL to the right (speaking in histogram). Exposure of half an hour? Jesus! Could be more productive to pull the film out in the sunlight without carrying the camera around in high hopes. 30" exposure on a sunny day with respective/correct filter will massively overexpose it. Guaranteed and can put my fingers on the chopping board.

Here are my examples. Including IR shots in abandoned premises with very much limited light, of course. What I've found out is you cannot approach it with standard filter factor method too. It all depends on the intensity of light we cannot see, that behaves interestingly, thus bracketing is a must.

If you measure blue skies and make +5 stop exposure compensation and shoot that sunlit scene, you will be on a good track. If you, however, measure shadows a minute later and add same +5 stops, it'll be too much - overexposed. So there's something nonlinear going on to master : )

View attachment 295687
Rollei Infrared 400 shot indoors with no artificial lights. 2 second exposure at f/4, metered at 400. Looks like I could meter it at 200 or even 100 indeed, thanks for this info and I'll try that the next time around.

View attachment 295688
A closeup in shade. Half a second at f/8

View attachment 295689
Morning light, 1/4 at f/8 and CPL. Two filters stacked.

View attachment 295690
This is one of my most overexposed one's I've kept. 1/15 f/5.6

If couple a second exposure isn't giving you an image on current NIR emulsions, you're way above the film sensitivity with your filter. Buy a 715-720nm and enjoy current NIR films!

I disagree with your comment about reading the shadows and ending up with over exposure. I have based my exposured this way since my HIE days. Rollei IR is not HIE but a regular film with extended red sensitivity... Much easier to work with than HIE. At any rate, careful placement of the shadow area is key.

Ivo Stunga · Jan 15, 2022

Andrew O'Neill said:
I disagree with your comment about reading the shadows and ending up with over exposure

Yay, a healthy disagreement! Let me test it more throughly with my setup/process when the summer returns

markjwyatt · Jan 15, 2022

MartinCrabtree said:
Hence the 715-730 filter recommendation.

In the 715-730 range it is almost it is almost the same as the rest of the visible spectrum. My only point is by 820 nm there is very little signal left.

Helge · Jan 15, 2022

markjwyatt said:
The IR400 datasheet claims sensitivity to 820 nm, but by that point it is 3 orders of magnitude less sensitive than to visible light.

Hence the need for a very long exposure for a Lee 87. Even wide open in summer.
It should be possible though, as there’s is some overlap between the falloff of both where they should meet.
Never tried it, since a 87 filter is of very little use to me.
But if I had one anyway I’d try it.
You’d need to embrace the motion blur of leaves and clouds though, or only do indoor still life setups near a window.

Sirius Glass · Jan 15, 2022

I much rather use a light meter set to the box speed of Rollei IR 400 than the assumption of ISO 6 or 12. Since I have to use a tripod when I use the R72 and am almost on the edge of using a tripod with R29, I just go ahead and use the tripod. I set up the tripod and the composition, take the light reading through the lens, and then put on the filter and take the photograph. Then I remove the filter and move to set up the next photograph. Now I have some Konica IR 750 to shoot, I am waiting for Spring and Summer as fast as I can.

Helge · Jan 15, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
I much rather use a light meter set to the box speed of Rollei IR 400 than the assumption of ISO 6 or 12. Since I have to use a tripod when I use the R72 and am almost on the edge of using a tripod with R29, I just go ahead and use the tripod. I set up the tripod and the composition, take the light reading through the lens, and then put on the filter and take the photograph. Then I remove the filter and move to set up the next photograph. Now I have some Konica IR 750 to shoot, I am waiting for Spring and Summer as fast as I can.

You can get decent shutter speeds even with R72 filters. EV 14 EI 6 is 60 @ f4.

Helge · Jan 15, 2022

I thought of converting an old out of alignment (but consistent) SBC Gossen meter to IR. Probably best to remove the blue filter. Anyone know how?
And then just use a small piece of R72 glass in front of the cell.

Sirius Glass · Jan 15, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
I much rather use a light meter set to the box speed of Rollei IR 400 than the assumption of ISO 6 or 12. Since I have to use a tripod when I use the R72 and am almost on the edge of using a tripod with R29, I just go ahead and use the tripod. I set up the tripod and the composition, take the light reading through the lens, and then put on the filter and take the photograph. Then I remove the filter and move to set up the next photograph. Now I have some Konica IR 750 to shoot, I am waiting for Spring and Summer as fast as I can.

Helge said:
You can get decent shutter speeds even with R72 filters. EV 14 EI 6 is 60 @ f4.

That is true but I cannot see through the R72 filter and it is hard sometimes to see well through the R29 filter, so I end up loosing the framing when I add the filter, therefore I might as well use the tripod.

Helge · Jan 15, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
That is true but I cannot see through the R72 filter and it is hard sometimes to see well through the R29 filter, so I end up loosing the framing when I add the filter, therefore I might as well use the tripod.

Get a shoe finder. Or get a flip filter holder and live with the slight amount of uncertainty when flipping the filter.
Or use a rangefinder or TLR.

Sirius Glass · Jan 15, 2022

Helge said:
Get a shoe finder. Or get a flip filter holder and live with the slight amount of uncertainty when flipping the filter.
Or use a rangefinder or TLR.

A shoe finder when one is using a zoom lens? I think not. A shoe finder for every single fixed focal length lens I have? Just use a tripod for shooting IR film or any filter with a filter factor that is going to require a slow shutter speed.

Helge · Jan 15, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
A shoe finder when one is using a zoom lens? I think not. A shoe finder for every single fixed focal length lens I have? Just use a tripod for shooting IR film or any filter with a filter factor that is going to require a slow shutter speed.

You’re using a zoom with IR‽ Zooms are almost always problematic with IR. They are slow, flare because coatings doesn’t work and they exhibit hotspots.
Good IR lenses are not omnipresent. Find one or two that you like. A normal and a wide. And get finders for them (or make direct view ones out of card stock. It’s surprisingly easy).
With tele, you’ll always want a tripod.

Sirius Glass · Jan 15, 2022

Helge said:
You’re using a zoom with IR‽ Zooms are almost always problematic with IR. They are slow, flare because coating don’t work and the exhibit hotspots.
Good IR lenses are not omnipresent. Find one or two that you like. A normal and a wide. And get finders for them (or make direct view ones out of card stock. It’s surprisingly easy).
With tele, you’ll always want a tripod.

Yes zoom lenses work with IR film quite well. It seems that photons are quite open minded and will work with any type of camera, film, or electro-optical device. My zoom lenses do not have any more flare problems than other lenses and do not have hot spots.

Helge · Jan 15, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
Yes zoom lenses work with IR film quite well. It seems that photons are quite open minded and will work with any type of camera, film, or electro-optical device. My zoom lenses do not have any more flare problems than other lenses and do not have hot spots.

Both are well known problems.

Sirius Glass · Jan 15, 2022

Helge said:
Both are well known problems.

To whom? I have never experience nor heard of such.

Helge · Jan 15, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
To whom? I have never experience nor heard of such.

Coatings are not geared towards other than visible light. Flare is a problem even with simple lenses with IR.
There is databases with IR compatibility as main point or as a sub point. Zooms generally score lower in those.

Sirius Glass · Jan 15, 2022

Helge said:
Coatings are not geared towards other than visible light. Flare is a problem even with simple lenses with IR.
There is databases with IR compatibility as main point or as a sub point. Zooms generally score lower in those.

That may be true for some lenses, but I have never found that to be a problem. MODERATOR's DELETION

Helge · Jan 15, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
That may be true for some lenses, but I have never found that to be a problem. MODERATOR's DELETION

Two of my favorites for IR is Nikkor 20mm 2.8 af-d and nikkor 85mm 1.8 af-d

Edit: Ha! No product bias for this thread.

Cubao · Jul 23, 2022

Andrew O'Neill said:
I mainly develop it in Pyrocat-HD

What is your dev. time, dilution & the agitation for that film in Pyrocat-HD?

Andrew O'Neill · Jul 23, 2022

Cubao said:
What is your dev. time, dilution & the agitation for that film in Pyrocat-HD?

EI200 unfiltered. N time 7:30. 20°C. 1+1+50. Continuous agitation in BTZS tube.

Cubao · Jul 23, 2022

Andrew O'Neill said:
EI200 unfiltered. N time 7:30. 20°C. 1+1+50. Continuous agitation in BTZS tube.

Thanks a lot!

Maris · Jul 24, 2022

I strongly suspect Rollei IR 400 is actually re-confectioned Agfa Aviphot Pan 200. If it is then the data sheet shows the film sensitivity plunges from an IR peak at 730nm to zero at 775nm. I shoot this film using a 720IR filter with E.I. = 12 set on my Sekonic L-758D spot meter. I place darker shadows on Zone III and let the rest fall where they may. Good results, some surprises, nothing unprintable.

Infrared with Rollei ir 400 and Lee 87

bluechromis

markjwyatt

Ivo Stunga

MartinCrabtree

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Ivo Stunga

markjwyatt

Helge

Sirius Glass

Helge

Helge

Sirius Glass

Helge

Sirius Glass

Helge

Sirius Glass

Helge

Sirius Glass

Helge

Sirius Glass

Helge

Cubao

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Cubao

Maris

Infrared with Rollei ir 400 and Lee 87

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency