• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Konica IR substitute?

steven_e007

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
826
Location
Shropshire,
Format
Multi Format
I've been keeping a few rolls in the fridge. We've had glorious hot sunshine this last week, so I dug a roll out.

Alas... the results were not good. Very foggy. I think it is just too old

I know there are a few IR films about, still. Rollei, Efke and so on.

Are any of them close to Konica? It was the only one I really liked, being so very fine grain. I never liked the Kodak stuff and anyway I want 120 rollfilm. Ilford SFX is not quite IR enough and a bit too grainy...

The ultimate for me might be if Ilford did an SFX version of Pan F or Delta 100 (I know, I know, but we can dream, can't we? )

The EFKE seems like a Kodak thing - but what about the Rollei IR400 - have any Konica users tried it? Is it aywhere near? I'm suspicious of the 400 ISO speed and the comment about 'halation effects' in the sales pitch.

Trouble is they are all a bit too pricey to just buy half a dozen rolls to try on the off-chance...
 
I can only speak of the SFX; it's not grainy in 120! Efke and Rollei, I think, are closer to IR than the SFX, but the SFX is very easy to use, can be processed in just about anything, has a longer shelf life because it's not a true IR film (?), and should be readily available in jolly old England.

Try a couple of rolls?
 
Dear Steve,

Unfortunately, you have limited options. You've already ruled out SFX and Efke so it seems to me that you have to try the Rollei if you want to continue shooting IR. If granularity is really the biggest issue, why not try Efke IR820 in sheet film sizes?

Neal Wydra
 
The Rollei IR 400 would be the closest to the Konica film in my opinion. Rollei Superpan 200 would also be worth a try. I don't know where you have priced the films but www.macodirect.de are very reasonable.
 
I believe that Maco had made some 750 IR film a while back called Maco 750 IR (it came out at the same time that the 820 IR film did). I have a few rolls of it left. I could never get a decent IR effect with the Konica, even with an IR filter.
 
shame,your looking for 120 as i have some weird 35mm panchromatic estar film,12 asa very little grain ext red to 800nm.
the stuff has no anti halation layer could be of interest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The most fine grain IR film availabke as types 135 and 120 is the Rollei Retro 80S.
(Maco's conversion of a current Agfa aerial film.)
The sensitivity is not that much reaching into the IR as the Konica, however the Agfa spectral sensitivity curve has a pronounced shoulder at the far red.
 
Rollei Superpan 200 will be around iso 6 with the right IR filter 89B or 88A.
Rollei IR820/400 will be iso 12 with above filters.

Both films are produced by Agfa Gevaert in Belgium.

Here are the data sheets:
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

and the developing table:
Dead Link Removed

and an example of the Rollei IR820/400 film with Heliopan RG715nm/88A filter:



Handheld shot 1/30S f=4
For the Super Pan 200 film (lower iso) you will definately need a tripod.
 
Nice shot, Robert! I shall have to dig out my Rollei IR 820/400 film. ISO 12 and you were able to hand hold it? Cool!
 
Hi,

Thanks for the replies.

I haven't completely ruled out SFX, I tried it a while back when Konica was available and I much preferred the Konica film, it was very fine grain and thus gave amazing portraits and figure studies (the eyes looked pretty wierd, but it did wonderful things to skin!) SFX isn't really a grainy film in 120 - it is based on HP5+ I believe, but it didn't give me the same silky smooth effect. Maybe if I worked at it - different filtration, developement in Perceptol stock or something.

But as you can gather from the fact I haven't yet used up all my Konica rolls that IR was only ever something to play with occassionally, no big deal (we don't get enough of the right weather in the UK!)

The Rollei films look interesting, I'll price them up and see it they're worth a play.
 

I have to add my two cents here. I really do not find Maco 820 (Efke) that grainy at all... much less for me than SFX. This film gives such beautiful blacks and very smooth mid tones. I get really good exposures when I meter for ISO 3.

Cheers...
 
steven_e007 said:
I haven't completely ruled out SFX
Click to expand...
Of course you know that SFX is not an infrared-sensitive film, and as a matter of fact is not advertised as infrared but as "special effect film", do you?
 
did anybody ever used kodak IR aerial 2424, my friend give me a few roll in 120mm (it cut from 70mm film), dont have time yet to test it
 
Kodak 2424 has got the same emulsion as Kodak HIE.
 
Marco Gilardetti said:
Of course you know that SFX is not an infrared-sensitive film, and as a matter of fact is not advertised as infrared but as "special effect film", do you?
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is an extended red sensitivity film, going down to around 750nm or so... only just dipping out of the visible spectrum, but then the Konica film was much the same, extending maybe just a little bit more into the infrared. The true infrared films go much furher, into the 800s, but then they become a bit of a pain to handle, sometimes.

The real appeal for me with the Konica was the very fine grain. I reckoned it was how I imagined an SFX version of Delta 100 might look, really smooth and although it had similar sensitivity to SFX, the pictures were certainly... different.

Does anyone know anything about the history of the Konica film? Where it was made and who by? Was it badged by konica? Just curious.

I'm off to play with some SFX and see what I can get out of it
 
Marco Gilardetti said:
Of course you know that SFX is not an infrared-sensitive film, and as a matter of fact is not advertised as infrared but as "special effect film", do you?
Click to expand...

There is no definition of what is an "infrared film". Manufacturers use quite different designations. One would call a film an infrared film, whereas a similar film is just stated by another to be "extented into the near-infrared". And a third one offering a film which stretches even further into the infrared doesn't even use the term infrared.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register