Loading 120 size Infrared film

scinysnaps · Nov 28, 2009

Do infrared films like Efke Aura, Rollei IR need to be loaded in total darkness and if so, how the heck to do you load an A12 back if you can't see the arrow to line up with?

2F/2F · Nov 28, 2009

I would read the data sheet for any film you plan on using for the first time, especially unique films like IR. The answer to your question is there in black and white (at least for the Efke...and the sensitivity of the Rollei is no higher). The answer is NO, subdued light is fine for 120. Total darkness is only recommended for 35mm. The light traps on 120 (backing paper wedged between the flat inside surfaces of the spool ends) keep IR out, but the felts on 35mm cartridges do not reliably do so. I do recommend loading the IR820 onto another Efke spool, however, just to make sure the light traps are perfectly tight.

jgcull · Nov 28, 2009

That's puzzling to me, that subdued is fine for 120 but 35mm needs total darkness but is in a canister.

2F/2F · Nov 28, 2009

jgcull said:
That's puzzling to me, that subdued is fine for 120 but 35mm needs total darkness but is in a canister.

The data sheet for Efke IR820 explains why this is, as did I above.

Toffle · Nov 28, 2009

2F/2F said:
The data sheet for Efke IR820 explains why this is, as did I above.

Despite what Mary Sunshine says here, (Sorry, 2F old chum... take a pill ) this is a reasonable question. Yes it is covered on the film data sheets, but discussing things here on the forums is an appropriate way to promote discussion so that others may learn the hows and whys of photography. A quick search for topics on the forums can prevent multiple threads on similar topics, but there is no such thing as a stupid question.

2F, jgcull is not the OP, so quite possibly does not have the data sheets handy for reference. Hence, another reasonable question... A little bit of patience goes a long way.

Yes, I can see that it would be rather difficult to load 120 films in total darkness. There are some things you need to see, you can't rely simply on touch.

Cheers to all. Hope you are all still giving thanks south of the border.

Sirius Glass · Nov 28, 2009

jgcull said:
That's puzzling to me, that subdued is fine for 120 but 35mm needs total darkness but is in a canister.

The canister is not light tight enough for infrared film. The light trap is not really light tight in the infrared range and infrared light can come in from the top and reflect around the top of the spool.

Steve

redrockcoulee · Nov 28, 2009

An interesting aside (at least to me) is that the original Maco data sheet states that plastic developing tanks are safe for processing it but if you do not trust it wrap it in aluminium foil. This has been "translated" on some web sites to mean that Maco states that the plastic tanks are not safe and that you must wrap them to protect the film.

All my backs but one are the old 12 style ones so I use my only A12 for the infrared films. Am I being too overly caustion?

One could load a magazine for a Fuji GX680 in the dark as it as auto load and you do not have to line up the start arrow. We used one last month and just thought it was kind of neat and the exact opposite of loading the 'blad 12 mags.

Toffle · Nov 28, 2009

redrockcoulee said:
An interesting aside (at least to me) is that the original Maco data sheet states that plastic developing tanks are safe for processing it but if you do not trust it wrap it in aluminium foil. This has been "translated" on some web sites to mean that Maco states that the plastic tanks are not safe and that you must wrap them to protect the film.

That's a new one to me. As quite often happens on the web, speculation and opinion can be picked up with an almost religious fervour. I've processed Maco IR several times in plain old plastic tanks with no fogging that I can see. Of course, it's the tinfoil on my head that is more problematic.

Cheers,

scinysnaps · Nov 29, 2009

Toffle said:
Despite what Mary Sunshine says here, (Sorry, 2F old chum... take a pill ) this is a reasonable question. Yes it is covered on the film data sheets, but discussing things here on the forums is an appropriate way to promote discussion so that others may learn the hows and whys of photography. A quick search for topics on the forums can prevent multiple threads on similar topics, but there is no such thing as a stupid question.

2F, jgcull is not the OP, so quite possibly does not have the data sheets handy for reference. Hence, another reasonable question... A little bit of patience goes a long way.

Yes, I can see that it would be rather difficult to load 120 films in total darkness. There are some things you need to see, you can't rely simply on touch.

Cheers to all. Hope you are all still giving thanks south of the border.

Thanks for your understanding and patience...
Some of us need things to be explained to us "like I am a six year old"

I asked these questions as I am in the unfortunate position of living in a country where one does not have the opportunity to purchase such films readily off the shelves, and thus do not have access to the fact sheets which come with the box. I am, as such rather hesitant to order these expensive films online without getting more information from knowledgeable folks such as you all.

Now, armed with this information I will most likely be adding some to my cart..

A slight change of topic.
My next question is...

Will shipping ( Internationally ) such film or any film for that matter by USPS/Fed EX etc harm the film?
Do these kind of shipments go through the same kind of airport X rays?
Or are they shipped in protective packaging?

PhotoJim · Nov 29, 2009

jgcull said:
That's puzzling to me, that subdued is fine for 120 but 35mm needs total darkness but is in a canister.

I think the real reason is that film can act as a light pipe (essentially like fibre optic cable) in certain circumstances, and it's more likely to do this with infrared light. Therefore, having an exposed leader in a 35mm cartridge can allow IR light to pipe down the film through the felt, and fog the remainder of the film in the cartridge. You never see the film when you use 120 (until you process it at least, and ideally after you've fixed it ) so this doesn't happen with rollfilm.

keithwms · Nov 29, 2009

I routinely load all the current IR films (not HIE) in shade or under a shirt or something, and unload them that way too. You don't have to be nearly as careful with them as HIE. That said, I did see some minor fogging of the last frame from time to time, so I bought some canisters to store the exposed film until processing.

You just have to remember that our eyes are not sensitive as far out as the film... even the new less IR-sensitive films. On a clear, dry day or at altitude, there can be way more IR than you might expect. So err on the side of caution! And if you wind up seeing a treasure, shoot it several times, and make sure it isn't the first or the last frame in your roll.

Overall, I'd say that there is absolutely no point in trying to save money on these newer IR films, they all have sensitivities that tank right near the filter cutoffs and hence it's really a challenge to get the factors right. You have a steep sensitivity curve meeting a steep cutoff curve, with opposing slopes... which means that even with an IR meter (e.g. converted digital) things are going to be a bit tricky. So: shoot, shoot shoot, and shoot again. Even if confident, shoot it twice! Shoot 'til you're out of ammo... then do clip tests if you want or whatever.

ntenny · Nov 29, 2009

I have seen some light leakage at the edges with Efke IR in 120. I don't think I've ever had it take a bite out of the image, but it's probably a good idea to take that "subdued light" guideline seriously.

-NT

glbeas · Nov 29, 2009

redrockcoulee said:
An interesting aside (at least to me) is that the original Maco data sheet states that plastic developing tanks are safe for processing it but if you do not trust it wrap it in aluminium foil. This has been "translated" on some web sites to mean that Maco states that the plastic tanks are not safe and that you must wrap them to protect the film.

The problem with plastic is some black plastic is colored by dyes, which are essntially transparent to IR and will fog the film. The better ones are colored with carbon black which is good at IR blocking and most plastic tanks are made with this as it is ultra efficient at blocking visible light too.

I made an IR meter once and used a snip of black visquine sheet as an IR filter over the cell which was about the same effectively as my 87C gel filter by trial. Upshot here is don't trust the black sheeting to IR proof a window in a home darkroom. I've had HIE fogged finding this out. Even thin plywood sheets can leak IR. Besides foil, a piece of sheetrock cut to fit the window will give you 100 percent peace of mind.
If you ever wondered your forehead is generally sensitive to the longer IR and you can hold a sheet of material up to the sun and feel the warmth coming through. This is probably longer wavelenth than the film can handle but if this can leak through theres a small chance a tiny bit if the shorter stuff can bleed through some types of sheet goods. Plus the extra heat is not going to help the darkroom. Been there done that, already threw the T-shirt away.

Miskuss · Nov 29, 2009

Toffle said:
That's a new one to me. As quite often happens on the web, speculation and opinion can be picked up with an almost religious fervour. I've processed Maco IR several times in plain old plastic tanks with no fogging that I can see. Of course, it's the tinfoil on my head that is more problematic.

Cheers,

It's true about the tinfoil on his head. I know, trust me.

jgcull · Nov 29, 2009

>>>I think the real reason is that film can act as a light pipe (essentially like fibre optic cable) in certain circumstances, and it's more likely to do this with infrared light. Therefore, having an exposed leader in a 35mm cartridge can allow IR light to pipe down the film through the felt, and fog the remainder of the film in the cartridge. You never see the film when you use 120 (until you process it at least, and ideally after you've fixed it ) so this doesn't happen with rollfilm<<<

Now, that makes sense to me. And Keith, thanks. Thank you all for taking the time to reply.

We had a good discussion in the chatroom the other night about some of these issues, but it didn't make sense about the 120 because it's just rolled up in my hands as I'm working with it... hopefully tightly, but ... But the matter of the bit of exposed film grabbing the light and running it up makes sense. Again, thanks.

Perry Way · Nov 29, 2009

PhotoJim said:
I think the real reason is that film can act as a light pipe (essentially like fibre optic cable) in certain circumstances, and it's more likely to do this with infrared light. Therefore, having an exposed leader in a 35mm cartridge can allow IR light to pipe down the film through the felt, and fog the remainder of the film in the cartridge. You never see the film when you use 120 (until you process it at least, and ideally after you've fixed it ) so this doesn't happen with rollfilm.

Thanks for the education!

scinysnaps · Nov 29, 2009

Thanks everyone!

stradibarrius · Nov 29, 2009

I have used the Rollei IR in 35mm format and loaded it away from direct light and there was no problem. With 120 if you keep the rolls tight by using your hand to provide friction as it starts on the reel I think it would be fine???

Loading 120 size Infrared film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency