Maco Infrared Sample arrived today.

PHOTOTONE · Apr 30, 2007

I got the samples sent out by Maco of their new Infrared emulsion in 4x5 (10 sheets). Also enclosed is a sample of Rollei R3, and another box of 25 sheets of
Rollei Infrared R1410. And a small container of ACU-1 developer powder concentrate.

I guess I am going to have to get an Infrared filter or two.

I wonder what the difference is between the Roelli infrared film, and the Maco Infrared prototype sent?

Not particularly eager to try the developer, as it has very long developing times.

The cover letter is in rather broken English.

WRSchmalfuss · May 1, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
I got the samples sent out by Maco of their new Infrared emulsion in 4x5 (10 sheets). Also enclosed is a sample of Rollei R3, and another box of 25 sheets of
Rollei Infrared R1410. And a small container of ACU-1 developer powder concentrate.

I guess I am going to have to get an Infrared filter or two.

I wonder what the difference is between the Roelli infrared film, and the Maco Infrared prototype sent?

Not particularly eager to try the developer, as it has very long developing times.

The cover letter is in rather broken English.

Its quite simple, the ROLLEI infrared film is already on the market since 2004, the MACO "prototype", as the name says NOT!

PHOTOTONE · May 1, 2007

I guess I am the only one to acknowledge receipt of the free trial samples?
I don't intend to discuss results of my tests until I email my comments to Maco, as they requested, but there are plenty of things to discuss now, before I even try the film. I am a total newby to Infrared, so any advice is appreciated.

imazursky · May 1, 2007

Hi,

I received the samples last month.
I have had some crisis at work to take care of first. Hopefully i will get to them this week.

I run my film through a rotary tube (phototherm) processor and use tmax developer. I cant seem to find any information on this combination for the maco films. I guess it will be hit or miss. Its a shame to waste so much film on trial and error.

I did get some advice from rollei/maco. They said to try a hoya R72 or 89B. Also to rate it at 6, 12 and 25 for the test with the IR filter.
200 without.

I found this site with some very useful information and test data on the old maco ir 820c.

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~epederso/Photo/IR/Test.html

I will use his data to test the old and the new prototype film.

-ian

Peter De Smidt · May 1, 2007

I received my packet today. Here in Wisconsin the trees are just beginning to leaf out. I'll give it another week or two and then take some pictures. An enclosed sheet says "As infrared film using black filters. Under light conditions, which contain also an vital infrared part! Thus, Not at Noon! Best after sunrise, or before sunset!" Isn't that odd? Noon sun does have more blue light than just after sunrise or before sunset, but there's plenty of IR available, and I've regularly used IR during the brightest part of the day for years. (That's one of it's advantages. I usually only use panchromatic film for landscapes in the early morning or in the evening, and so using IR film meant I could fill in the time gap.)

JLP · May 1, 2007

Ian, I don't think you can use the old Maco820c info for the new Maco. it is a different film. I did my testing a few weeks ago. Rate it at 6 to 12 is fine but develop a lot less than recomended.

jan

imazursky · May 1, 2007

Hi Jan,

Thanks for the info. I will try it at 6 and 12. They also included a sample of the older maco film. I will use the old data for that.
I still need to find some developing info for tmax in a rotary tube.
I could also try D-76. I should be able to guesstimate some numbers for that.

Thanks.

-ian

AgX · May 1, 2007

Phototone,

You expect too much from us Europeans; manufacturing these nice two films AND resorting to refined English…

The Maco type is intended to just be a restart of the Maco IR 820c. The description for the new, prototype, film is, concerning sensitivity, nearly identical to the curve of the Rollei Infrared, with a slight superiority at the far end. We are speaking of an area of -2,5log now…

I guess the differences will be on other fields. What about antihalation means?

Be prepared for flatness problems, as this batch is coated on 0,1mm PES.

PHOTOTONE · May 1, 2007

AgX said:
Phototone,

Be prepared for flatness problems, as this batch is coated on 0,1mm PES.

So it is not on the normal polyester type thick film base that normal 4x5 sheet film is on? I know right away I won't like it.

AgX · May 2, 2007

flatness

I found this information in a statement of Hartmuth Schroeder, the director of the photographic department of Maco, ventilated in a German user group in begin of february.
The new 820c batch was said to be a prototype batch coated on thin polyester, which he says could produce flatness problems. The batch was not large enough to cut spooled films.
From this I conclude! that the actual production run for sheet films will be on a thikker base.
The Rollei Infrared is obviously identical to Agfa's Aviphot 400S . (I assume! Maco just cuts from a standard master roll and has no special coating on special sheet film base.) It's base thickness at maximun is 0,1mm on PET too. Thus there should be the same problem, given that any PET should have the same mechanical property. (The Aviphot is initially made for use with vacuum base plates.)

I must admit though that I have never bothererd, concerning sheet film, with base materials and its thickness. I have got NO idea what a standard thickness for the very material would be. Perhaps somebody else could give more precise information.

I thought that all the other sheet films would be of a triacetate base and can't remember seen any thicknesses referrerd to in those other data sheets. (Though that PanF base-issue makes me reconsider that statement on triacetate.)

Anyway, this is a whole lot of guessing and assuming. Just go into your darkroom, take a sheet of the same size of that very material you are used too and confident about and compare it, by bending, with samples of your new films. This should give you a fair idea what to expect. (I know, in theory things would be more complicated...)

And for the rest just make photographs and look at them.

bye

MartinB · May 3, 2007

Has anyone tried ACU-1 developer?

My Maco infrared samples arrived today - I thought it was the usual slow Canada Post since it was posted airmail on Mar 20.

I don't plan to test for a couple of weeks because it is still brown from winter in Calgary. The only trees even thinking of budding are in south facing sheltered locations so it will be at least 2 more weeks before there is enough green foliage. In fact, in my garden it was only yesterday that the first daffodil of this year bloomed!

My interpretation of the instructions is that Maco would like at least one sheet developed in the included ACU-1 developer so results can be compared between testers even if you use your regular developer for the rest of the sheets. It also looks like their suggestion is to try at EI 64 with an infrared filter. Since there are more sheets of the Rollei IR film, I will probably try 1 sheet of that using the suggested EI and development before trying the prototype.

Has anyone used ACU-1 developer before? How would you compare it with more common developers? The suggested EI for TXT and TXP seem to be very high (1000/6500) especially when the other films in the table are much closer to box speed. FP4 is listed EI 100 for the same developing time. TXP dilution is 1+5 while FP4 is 1+10 but I thought that would not have that much affect on EI.

I know that it is best to test for yourself but I don't want to waste too much of the prototype so if anyone can provide guidance on ACU-1, it would be helpful.

Martin

PHOTOTONE · May 3, 2007

ACU-1 is a variation on Accufine developer. Just check the Brandes website for information on these developers. This is not a new developer.

AgX · May 5, 2007

AgX said:
I must admit though that I have never bothererd, concerning sheet film, with base materials and its thickness. I have got NO idea what a standard thickness for the very material would be. Perhaps somebody else could give more precise information.

I just realized that Fuji uses for their sheetfilm 175µ PET base.

Cor · May 8, 2007

AgX said:
I just realized that Fuji uses for their sheetfilm 175µ PET base.

..been on holiday, so a bit late on this thread. I have tested a few sheets, and although full details will be send to MACO first, I guess a few remarks to get good results quicker is ok..

On the prototype film: it's indeed on very thin material, and has heavy curl. It's about half the thickness than normal sheet film. I used some thin copy sheet material, cut to 4*5 size, and put that under the proptotype film in the holder. This flattend the film. I did understand that, once MACO decides on regulair production, the sheetfilm will be on normal carrier material..

On shooting: measuring light for IR film is always tricky, but in combination with a 70 red filter I am in the 4-8 asa range. (developer: PyrocatHD, perhaps the ACU-1 developer could squeeze out a bit more speed). With a 70 filter the IR effects are there, but less pronounced than with the late MACO820c. I recently aquired a 89b filter, that should enahce the IR effect, at the cost of even less speed (I guess half a stop).

IR effects are indeed more pronounced in the morning and early evening, it has something with the angle of the sunrays hitting the atmosphere..I think..I do have a explenation somewere..

Best,

Cor

Helen B · May 8, 2007

Cor said:
...
IR effects are indeed more pronounced in the morning and early evening, it has something with the angle of the sunrays hitting the atmosphere..I think..I do have a explenation somewere..

It's for pretty much the same reason that the sky is blue: the atmosphere scatters the short wavelengths more than the long wavelengths, so the more atmosphere the radiation has to travel through the higher the proportion of long wavelengths to short ones in the direct light. The amount of scattering is in proportion to the inverse of the wavelength raised to the fourth power - ie it is very much wavelength dependent.

Best,
Helen

AgX · May 8, 2007

Helen, I knew about the causal relationships, even saw nice graphics on the spectral scope depening on the sun's angle. But did not know (or forgot) about that 4th power. Very interesting.

Peter De Smidt · May 8, 2007

Thanks to Helen and Cor for the explanation. In spite of this scattering, though, I've taken a large number of infrared shots around noon, mostly with HIE, but also with Konica IR and Maco IR (the earlier stuff.) Everything turned out fine. And so the recommendation letter enclosed with the free film to avoid shooting the IR film around noon seems a little extreme.

Cor · May 8, 2007

Peter De Smidt said:
Thanks to Helen and Cor for the explanation. In spite of this scattering, though, I've taken a large number of infrared shots around noon, mostly with HIE, but also with Konica IR and Maco IR (the earlier stuff.) Everything turned out fine. And so the recommendation letter enclosed with the free film to avoid shooting the IR film around noon seems a little extreme.

..I agree Peter, especially with HIE excellent results can be obtained at noon, although I do prefer the better overall light qualities at morning and afternoon..but soemtimes you do not have a choice..and indeed MACO's claims and recomandations are a bit "misty" sometimes..

Best,

Cor

AgX · May 8, 2007

sometimes...??

AgX · May 8, 2007

Peter De Smidt said:
In spite of this scattering, though, I've taken a large number of infrared shots around noon...

Peter, this scattering (of the more bluish part of the sun's spectrum) means that the absolute IR radiation decreases less than the rest of the light while the sun is lowering. Or, that its relative amount increases.

Both would be important if doing an incident light metering using a standard meter. Or, on the other hand, if one would work without a meter, just by rule of the thumb, the sun angle would be less important than when when resorting to the visible part of the spectrum. To put it simple.

keithwms · May 8, 2007

I tried the prototype and like it very much. I look forward to "the real thing." The flatness is indeed an issue but I was told that the base would be more akin to R3 when the product rolls out, that would be great.

Compared to the current IR film, I find that the prototype is about 2 stops faster (=more IR sensitive) with a #87 or rm72. Those are the filters that I would recommend. Of course it's also nice with red filter. Haven't tried a deeper IR filter yet, I ran out of prototype (hint hint!).

I also tried the acu develper and I like it. Because of the flatness issue I had to pass my second round of trials off to someone with a machine and a different developer, though. I don't recommend tray developing the prototype! I did it and it wasn't fun!

Oh, R3 is a total pleasure to work with, nice thick base and responds well to red filtering. Haven't tried it with a near IR filter yet but I will. And I am still a fan of the current IR film. It's just that the prototype allows for much faster exposures.

Regarding when to shoot the IR film, I wanted some shadowing for my trials so I went for 3pm or so. But you can shoot in hard noon light, no problem. Probably from 10am-3pm will give roughly the amount of IR that you expect, assuming there aren't too many high clouds.

timeUnit · May 8, 2007

I got specific instructions to shoot the film both with and without IR filter. Maco stated that their main objective was NOT to test the film as an IR film, but as a general purpose film. Personally, I find that to be a crazy statement. Who in their right mind would buy an IR film to shoot without filter? And are Maco thinking to break in on the general purpose sheet film market? Good luck, I say.

Quote: "MACO went with the prototype film to the public, in order to see above all, this film as like an UNIVERSAL FILM, and/or on accepts, as film with "extended red" With and without filters! The containment on only IR, is somewhat too restricted to us, as supplier for IR films, which we sell since over 10 years of IR films."

AgX · May 8, 2007

In relation to Kodak's HIE all the other infrared films (the late Konica with its sensitation gap excluded) are somewhat in-between films. For instance, Agfa does not call the Rollei Infrared an infrared film.

But with loss of speed they can be used for infrared photography. And as Maco once put both their films on the market as infrared films it's strange to see them consider them as universal films.
But for certain circumstances, as 70mm, where there is not much choice, one should realize that they are in principle panchromatic films with an add-on sensitation.

keithwms · May 8, 2007

dr5 says that Rollei IR shot without a filter generates lovely positives in their process, akin to agfa scala. Apart from that, I don't know why I would shoot it without a filter- there are plenty of other less expensive options!

For a while I was in the habit of shooting rolls of Rollei IR film with the first exposure taken without a filter, just to have a record that I'd rated and developed it properly. But I don't bother with that any more. I really do need to try the dr5 thing though, I'm running low on scala

coigach · May 11, 2007

Here's a link to a Rollei IR dr5 processed trannie. This shot was taken just after a snowstorm, with hazy grey light. In more 'typical' light, dr5 processed IR darkens skies somewhat, and has an ortho 'punch'. Have some other Rollei IR samples, but scanner playing up at the moment so can't post them...!

Hope this helps anyway,
Gavin

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Maco Infrared Sample arrived today.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency