IR Film 750nm VS 820nm

raucousimages · Aug 3, 2006

What are the pros and cons of 750nm and 820nm film and who makes what?

colrehogan · Aug 3, 2006

750 nm is just a little less sensitive in the IR region of the spectrum than 820 nm.

Konica made 750 nm film and so did Maco, though the latter only made it in 35 mm.
Maco made 820 nm film in many sizes and Rollei makes it in 35 mm, 120 and 4x5.

Robert Hall · Aug 3, 2006

And they are both very slow films.

htmlguru4242 · Aug 3, 2006

I've shot with 750nm film (Konica), 900-ish nm (Kodak HIE), and the Maco 820c stuff.
The effects are slightly different with the two films. The [true] 820nm films give a little bit more of the "IR Look", though the difference is not super-significant, IMO.
Konica's 750 nm stuff was SLOW, but it's no longer in production. The Maco 820c was a little faster.

Really, now, the only options are Maco (I guess that it's now Rollei), 820nm film, and Kodak's HIE. As to what's better, it depends on what you want. HIE is FAST compared to the other stuff. It also can be a little unpredictable, as finding what amount of IR light lies deep into the spectrum is difficult; it doesn't necessarily correspond to the visible light. It's also a bit grainy.

Lotus M50 · Aug 3, 2006

htmlguru4242 said:
I've shot with 750nm film (Konica), 900-ish nm (Kodak HIE), and the Maco 820c stuff.
The effects are slightly different with the two films. The [true] 820nm films give a little bit more of the "IR Look", though the difference is not super-significant, IMO.
Konica's 750 nm stuff was SLOW, but it's no longer in production. The Maco 820c was a little faster.

Really, now, the only options are Maco (I guess that it's now Rollei), 820nm film, and Kodak's HIE. As to what's better, it depends on what you want. HIE is FAST compared to the other stuff. It also can be a little unpredictable, as finding what amount of IR light lies deep into the spectrum is difficult; it doesn't necessarily correspond to the visible light. It's also a bit grainy.

The Kodak HIE film also has a particular look to it because it is missing an anti-halation backing so everything gets a halo-like glow. The nice thing about the Konica film was it's fine grain (much finer than the Kodak, and finer than the Maco and Ilford SFX films) -- just bring your tripod along. I have a stash of Konica IR 750 in 120 size in the freezer. I'll be sad when it runs out.

Roger Hicks · Aug 4, 2006

Lotus M50 said:
The Kodak HIE film also has a particular look to it because it is missing an anti-halation backing so everything gets a halo-like glow. QUOTE]

You can to a certain extent duplicate this 'glow' by giving EVEN MORE exposure -- a stop or two -- to Maco IR.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

htmlguru4242 · Aug 4, 2006

RIGHT - I can't believe that I didn't mention the lack of anti-halo layer. It REALLY provesfor some interesting effects in bright IR light.

I loved teh Konica's grain though. It wasn't what I'd call fine-grained, but it was MUCH better than HIE, it's perhaps a little more grainy than Tri-X. Does anybody agree with me on that?

Lotus M50 · Aug 4, 2006

htmlguru4242 said:
I loved teh Konica's grain though. It wasn't what I'd call fine-grained, but it was MUCH better than HIE, it's perhaps a little more grainy than Tri-X. Does anybody agree with me on that?

Actually, I consider it less grainy that Tri-X, maybe more like Plus-X.

IR Film 750nm VS 820nm

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency