OLD Efke IR 820 film advice needed

[F4U]

I just dug out some old Efke IR 820 infrared film size 120 I bought new at the time and just put it in the drawer of the china cabinet. It's dated expiration 2012. I'd like to think I can still get something out of it as an infrared film with that "lunar effect", as I believe it's called. Black skies, white foliage, dark wood, etc. If I have to bracket and get only one negative on an 8 exposure camera then it wouldn't be entirely wasted, Do you think it's any good any more? I have either a 25A filter or an R72, I believe it's called. I could be wrong on the designation of the R72, but it's so dark you'd practially have to point it at the sun to see much of anything. What would I set my Luna-Pro meter at, before doing filter factor calculations? The camera is an old folding camera from the 1950's, obviously with no meter. The developer would be D23 straight. Any an all tidbits of advice are welcomed. Thank you.

 

[MattKing]

I'd like to think I can still get something out of it as an infrared film with that "lunar effect", as I believe it's called. Black skies, white foliage, dark wood, etc.

I believe you mean "Wood" effect, named after Robert W. Wood.

 

[F4U]

I believe you mean "Wood" effect, named after Robert W. Wood.

Thanks. Yeah, that's it. Wood effect. That's a start. I've got a good working camera now, and this old film to play with. And just throwing the film in the garbage because it's old and outdated by 200 years seems a pity.

 

[MattKing]

There are a few people here on Photrio who had experience using that film - which of course hasn't been made for a long time.
IIRC, @Andrew O'Neill is one of them - but he will likely correct that if my memory is faulty on that.
I've had no experience with that film itself - my experience is limited to Ilford SFX and one of the Rollei branded near IR sensitive films - but this excerpt from a presentation I did a few years ago might give you a good reference point for discussions:
There is always a healthy dose of educated guessing involved with IR sensitive film - because we really have no good ways of measuring how much IR is mixed in with the visible light we can see.
We can also do a lot at the presentation stage.
From a presentation I put together a few years ago, using Ilford SFX as an example:

 

[Ivo Stunga]

It should be fine and it wouldn't hurt to try it out with some bracketing and 715nm filter or a tad darker. Don't filter with anything below ~700nm as the red will easily overpower any NIR response.

I have shot plenty of today available NIR sensitive films with 715 and 720nm filters. Sensitivity of current NIR films is only up to ~750nm and they're often Agfa Aviphot Pan 80 and 200 derivatives. So with these modern "IR" films avoid using a filter beyond this 750nm specification or you'll end up being out of spec and risk recording little to no image data.
In the case of Efke 820 you can easily go for denser filters and this will dictate compensation needed to record NIR image. But again - stay within the bounds of film sensitivity or risk a dud.

My experience is only with current NIR sensitive films:

Aviphot 80:
- Adox HR-50 / Scala 50 - same film and is the best offering of Aviphot 80 due to improved shadow rendering
- Rollei Retro 80S
- Astrum FN64

Aviphot 200:
- Astrum Foto 100
- Astrum Foto 200
- Rollei Superpan 200
- Rollei Infrared 400
- Rollei Retro 400S


With all of these my approach is:
1) frame and meter the scene as usual 2) put 715nm filter on and 3) and apply the following compensation for my 715nm Slides looking to keep highlights in-check:
2 to 3 stop bracketing in sunny weather
3 to 4 stops in overcast
4 to 6 stops indoors

Examples (again - aim was to keep highlights in-check as overblown highlights in Slides look ugly)


For good negatives however - Ilford quotes +4 stops with "very deep-red" filter (89B) - that's about 695nm, so 715nm filter would require an additional stop I guess. In the examples @MattKing posted the best exposure to me is +9 stops, but in my testing SFX 200 is less sensitive to NIR than Aviphot. And sensitivity of Efke 820 goes well beyond 750nm and that will produce more Wood/Moonscapes. Sadly - haven't shot any of ye old IR films...


TLDR:
1) Compensate 1 stop for age, then
2) begin with +4 additional stops for IR and
3) Bracket by erring on the side of overexposure. Say +4 is default with 695nm filter, then do +6 and +8 or something along these lines.
4) Up to 750nm is fine without focus adjustment, but with Efke you might want to take that red dot (or line, or a curve in case of Zooms) on the lens into consideration


YMMV - you can always cut roll in half and have two development sessions with different times to increase your chances, as the result from 1st half will tell if you need to push or pull some.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I had much the same experience last summer. I found three 120 rolls of Efke IR. The internet seemed to say that it might have lost some speed, so I shot one roll of it at lower than box speed - can't remember exactly what: maybe a stop?. I just did a few street corners on a sunny day, so it wouldn't be much of a loss if the film was no good. And the images were very thin, in fact. Somewhere I will have made a note of what I did. I'll probably lower the speed more, and use the rest for extras on a day when I also use some fresh film.
Good luck!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you stored it well, it will be fine. I have been slowly picking my way through an 8x10 box since 2012. I have one sheet left that I'm saving for something special.... Anyways, if the filter you have is indeed a 72R, add 5 stops or apply a factor of 32 to the exposure time. If you want the infrared look, use this filter. I've also used the 87C opaque filter with great results. I've always used XTol 1+1 when developing it. 16:00 (continuous agitation in BTZS tubes). D23 will be similar to XTol.

You will also run into reciprocity effect with this film: (this is my own data that I tested using step wedge and drawing curves)

1 sec give 1/3rd stop more
2 sec give 2/3rd stops more (1.5x)
4 sec give a stop (2x)
8 sec give 1 2/3rd stops (3x)
16 sec give 2 stops (4x)
32 sec give 2 2/3rd stops (6x)
64 sec give 3 1/3rd stops (10x)

I have an almost full box of 4x5 of this stuff, and it still works great, even though it is well past its best by date. I also have a box of 8x10 Aviphot that I plan to crack open this coming Summer. Cheers and enjoy!

andy

 

[JensH]

Hi,

exposed my last three 120 rolls of Efke IR820 in summer 2023...
Expired in 1999, but stored in the fridge.

It lookes very nice with my Pyrocat (the Windisch formula, similar to Obsidian Aqua...). Beautiful tonality, no mottling - a fantastic film.
E.I. was only 1 due to the narrow 780nm band pass filter I took.

Best
Jens

 

[F4U]

In 2025, what Infrared 120 size films remain on the market, new? I have an R72 filter. Of those remaining film choices, which are the ones that might give the most "wood effect" in spring and summer scenic subjects? And is there an even better filter choice for that than the R72? Thank you.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Rollei 400 IR and Ilford SFX 200. R72 filter is your best bet for Wood effect, with Rollei IR being the better of the two in this regard. I'm hoping Adox will make their HR-50 available in 120. I shot it in 35mm last Summer, with a 720 filter, and quite liked it. Stick with the R72.

 

[F4U]

I hope I'm not hogging the "new posts" board, but have always wondered why the old Kodak High Speed Infrared was so muh better as an infrared film than any of the choices available since then. Back then, the Kodak film with a simple 25A filter outperformed any of the latter day film choices, even with opaque dilters such as R72. You would think that certainly all these years later that the other manufacturers would have figured out the film chemistry involved. Although I remember the blooming of the old Kodak, from any overexposure. Maybe that's why the other manufacturers reduced the IR sensitivity, possibly to reduce the piping of the film base? Back then you could do infrared on a summer day hand held wit only a 25A red filter. Now, it takes the R72 and a tripod, and a prayer the wind isn't blowing enough to move the camera.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I hope I'm not hogging the "new posts" board, but have always wondered why the old Kodak High Speed Infrared was so muh better as an infrared film than any of the choices available since then. Back then, the Kodak film with a simple 25A filter outperformed any of the latter day film choices, even with opaque dilters such as R72. You would think that certainly all these years later that the other manufacturers would have figured out the film chemistry involved. Although I remember the blooming of the old Kodak, from any overexposure. Maybe that's why the other manufacturers reduced the IR sensitivity, possibly to reduce the piping of the film base? Back then you could do infrared on a summer day hand held wit only a 25A red filter. Now, it takes the R72 and a tripod, and a prayer the wind isn't blowing enough to move the camera.

Mainly because it was sensitive out beyond 900nm. Current films are no where near that. Also, what gave HIE it's "glow" was from its lack of AH layer. It was very easy to get Wood Effect with just a #12 (minus blue) filter. I pretty much only used a #25, or #29.

 

[MattKing]

The old Kodak stuff had important military and industrial uses - in particular military uses.
But its manufacture was challenging, because all the quality control techniques that depended on infra-red viewing equipment were unusable with it.
Its sensitivity to IR meant that it could only be manufactured economically as long as there was extremely large orders for it coming from large purchasers - like the military.
The stuff we saw was just a tiny blip of leftover film that remained after those orders were filled.
Once those orders dried up due to the military and others moving to non-film based technologies, continued availability for us could not continue.

 

[F4U]

The old Kodak stuff had important military and industrial uses - in particular military uses.
But its manufacture was challenging, because all the quality control techniques that depended on infra-red viewing equipment were unusable with it.
Its sensitivity to IR meant that it could only be manufactured economically as long as there was extremely large orders for it coming from large purchasers - like the military.
The stuff we saw was just a tiny blip of leftover film that remained after those orders were filled.
Once those orders dried up due to the military and others moving to non-film based technologies, continued availability for us could not continue.

That's my assessment also. Back then the military needed to see the bad guys hiding under the heavy foliage from the flight camera photos. Not to mention what doctors needed to see that an ordinary Xray film couldn't show. And so on. Still a pity to lose good things that will never be back. But the determined ones among us will find a way to make-do. Hopefully I won't have to live long enough to re-invent the daggeurotype just to take pictures.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

There will never be anything like HIE again...sadly.

 

[F4U]

There will never be anything like HIE again...sadly.

Being retired now and playing with my hobbies, I think back to the things lost since my young years that I could neither afford the money for or the time, beause of having to work to pay bills. Those things have long disappeared from the market. Now I can only imagine what I could do now with a bunch of HIE film and printing-out paper to print my pictures on. S'not fair.

 

[blee1996]

I had really bad experience with Efke IR 820 film in 120 (exp. 2009-02) last year: I exposed them at ISO 3 with Hoya R72 filter, and developed in Adox FX39II 1+9, 7 min 72F. The film has almost no image on it, way too thin to be of any use.

In the same pot, fresh Rollei IR400 film in 120 (rated at ISO 6, R72 filter) renders very nicely.

So your mileage might vary. But I won't trust any important occasion to those expired Efke IR 820 film.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Probably because the Efke IR should have been exposed at EI .75, not 3. The R72 has a factor of 32X.

 

[F4U]

Probably because the Efke IR should have been exposed at EI .75, not 3. The R72 has a factor of 32X.

Now we're getting somewhere. But does that mean to set the luna-pro at ASA .8 (which is the lowest on the dial), and then meter through the R72 filter? Or does that film speed of .75 already take the filter into account? Experimenting with my filter and my Luna-Pro last night I discovered it will still actually give a usable reading on the low scale if you point the meter at a light bulb with the filter over it. So I would imagine a bright summer day would also give a usable reading through the filter. The main question I ask is in bold. Thank you.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Now we're getting somewhere. But does that mean to set the luna-pro at ASA .8 (which is the lowest on the dial), and then meter through the R72 filter? Or does that film speed of .75 already take the filter into account? Experimenting with my filter and my Luna-Pro last night I discovered it will still actually give a usable reading on the low scale if you point the meter at a light bulb with the filter over it. So I would imagine a bright summer day would also give a usable reading through the filter. The main question I ask is in bold. Thank you.

Yes, EI .75 takes the filter into account. I recommend against taking readings through the filter. Metre the scene at ISO 25, then add the filter factor of 32 to the exposure time (or add 5 stops). If we use the Sunny 16, you could probably get away with an exposure of f/16 at 1 sec. (reciprocity added makes it f/11 & 2/3).

 

[F4U]

Thank you. I've got 2 of these 120 rolls, like 2 bullets left in a firefight. I want to make them count when the leaves start coming out soon, full of chlorophyll for Wood effect. Now I need to come up with a developing time for D-23 straight. Planning and prep is the key to fighting failure.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thank you. I've got 2 of these 120 rolls, like 2 bullets left in a firefight. I want to make them count when the leaves start coming out soon, full of chlorophyll for Wood effect. Now I need to come up with a developing time for D-23 straight. Planning and prep is the key to fighting failure.

I have found that Efke IR needs a bit longer time in D-23 stock, than D-76. 10:30/11:30 is probably a good starting point. For a 1+1 dilution (which I prefer for economy reasons mainly) probably around 14/16 min. This is for intermittent agitation, 5 sec every minute, 20C.

 

[MCB18]

I would love to play with actually IR sensitive stuff someday, playing with Aviphot and Tasma is fun but from what I’ve seen, nothing beats the true 900nm sensitive stuff.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would love to play with actually IR sensitive stuff someday, playing with Aviphot and Tasma is fun but from what I’ve seen, nothing beats the true 900nm sensitive stuff.

I check ebay regularly for HIE, especially sheet film. There's a box of 4x5, expired in 2001 for $270 Cdn. A bit much for my blood.

 

[MCB18]

If I ever find a 70mm roll and I have the cash to get it, you bet your ass I’m gonna get it