Optimizing results with Rollei Infrared 400 film

I shot a roll of non--expired Rollei Infrared 400 with my Minolta X-300 set on auto, and a red filter Toshiba R60(R2), which was processed at Samy's Cameras, and the results didn't really come out as I was expecting.

For comparison, I reproduced one of the failed shots with my digital infrared camera, a Sony Nex-3 converted to full spectrum.
See the comparison here:



I don't care about producing these images digitally, I just want to understand what went wrong in the analog process.

It seems that the Minolta was underexposing the shots. Should I have pulled the film 1 or 2 stops? (I thought the Minolta's meter was behind the lens and therefore could measure accurately if a dark filter was on?). But also, the vegetation is almost pitch black in the Rollei shots, while I was expecting infrared results similar to the photo on the right, where the vegetation is much brighter.

I am assuming that the Rollei Infrared film has capacities it doesn't actually have? Is something in my process flawed? Does the different filters used in the two tests actually matter?

I have only used Rollei IR film with either rangefinder, with nearly opaque IR filters. Since you're using an SLR, you should probably take an exposure reading without the filter, based on the nominal 400 ISO of the film (it's probably even less than that) and then set the expose by 5-6 stops over the reading with the filter in place. I've rated the film at EIs of 6 or 12, processed it in 1:50 Rodinal, and I've gotten nice IR effects. Those are my 2 cents; probably others who have more experience with the film can give you additional advice. Hopefully that helps.
Good luck, Paul

I agree with pmargolis. When you use built in metering you are introducing some unknowns related to spectral sensitivity of the meter. I have shot the Rollei film just as described, separate meter at 400 and add about six stops extra exposure with a 720nm filter. (Add 11 or 12 stops with a 760nm if you want to live dangerously!)

pmargolis said:

I have only used Rollei IR film with either rangefinder, with nearly opaque IR filters. Since you're using an SLR, you should probably take an exposure reading without the filter, based on the nominal 400 ISO of the film (it's probably even less than that) and then set the expose by 5-6 stops over the reading with the filter in place. I've rated the film at EIs of 6 or 12, processed it in 1:50 Rodinal, and I've gotten nice IR effects. Those are my 2 cents; probably others who have more experience with the film can give you additional advice. Hopefully that helps.
Good luck, Paul

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input!
Would it be similar to just pull the film and shoot it at 50iso? Could it be a faster way to get the shots?

I would agree with pmargolis that best results are obtained by pulling significantly. I use ISO 50 as my base and correct for the filter on top of that, developing as directed. I don't know why but Rollei IR needs a little help in the exposure department to really get the wood effect. Even still the amount of native IR radiation seems to really impact IQ, and more so if you use either R25 or R29.

A red filter isn't enough for that film, you need a 720nm filter and shoot at 6-12EI.

StepheKoontz said:

A red filter isn't enough for that film, you need a 720nm filter and shoot at 6-12EI.

Click to expand...

Thanks Stephe! I feel that your answer is putting me in the right direction.
Just got a Hoya 720nm of the right diameter.

I've used Rollei IR quite a bit. Its ISO speed is about 125 without a filter. (The film stock is Agfa Aviphot 200, an aerial survey film. The 200 is the aerial film speed, not ISO.)

Not all camera meters read IR accurately. I have a Nikon FM2n that does, but some cameras just don't get it right. In that situation you can try setting the meter to a lower speed, but don't change the processing... you're only changing the meter speed to make the camera give the film more exposure.

Lastly, a red filter might give you a mild Wood effect, depending on what you're photographing, but more often not. The challenge with an R72 is seeing what you're doing, but I'm sure you'll figure out how to handle that! You might have to run an exposure test with the filter; it's possible that the optimal speed will be less than you expect. 12 or 6 ISO isn't out of the question.

revdoc said:

I've used Rollei IR quite a bit. Its ISO speed is about 125 without a filter. (The film stock is Agfa Aviphot 200, an aerial survey film. The 200 is the aerial film speed, not ISO.)

Not all camera meters read IR accurately. I have a Nikon FM2n that does, but some cameras just don't get it right. In that situation you can try setting the meter to a lower speed, but don't change the processing... you're only changing the meter speed to make the camera give the film more exposure.

Lastly, a red filter might give you a mild Wood effect, depending on what you're photographing, but more often not. The challenge with an R72 is seeing what you're doing, but I'm sure you'll figure out how to handle that! You might have to run an exposure test with the filter; it's possible that the optimal speed will be less than you expect. 12 or 6 ISO isn't out of the question.

Click to expand...

Silly me - I thought I could put it in my Kinamo at some point and reproduce some aesthetics from the "I am Cuba" 1950s propaganda film... But it seems to have been shot on 6400 speed IR film that was only produced around that time.

StepheKoontz said:

A red filter isn't enough for that film, you need a 720nm filter and shoot at 6-12EI.

Click to expand...

Stephe, when you say "it's not enough" do you mean I have to use both the red filter and the Hoya R72?

I've been getting good results with SFX200 exposed through an 89B (equivalent to R72) filter at either 6 or 12 ISO. Which is to say, I meter at 200 and then bracket 3 shots at +4, +4.5 and +5 stops. Granted it's a different film but I do agree that the stronger red filter is an important element and with something like an R72 in place you won't be able to trust the TTL meter results.

For clarity....
When one uses film that has some sensitivity in the IR and near IR ranges of the spectrum, the goal is often to achieve photos that exhibit the Wood effect. That effect is named after Robert W. Wood, and relates to the "glow" that results from the interaction of light within that range of the spectrum and various types of foliage and other plant matter.
The role of the various filters is to filter out some or all of the visible light in the scene, in order to permit the film's response to the IR or near IR to be visible. If you don't use a filter, the visible light response will overwhelm the IR response and make it impossible to see the Wood effect.
An R72 filter blocks considerably more light than a red filter, so the results with an R72 filter are much, much more likely to reveal Wood effect than with a red filter.
The exception would be with films like the no longer made Kodak HIE, which had such relatively low sensitivity to visible light and such strong sensitivity to IR light that a red 25 filter would do the job.
Setting exposure is a bit of a guessing game, because we cannot see IR light, and because most meters have relatively little sensitivity to IR light.
The two approaches are:
1) try taking a meter reading through the filter you are using; or
2) take a normal meter reading of the visible light, and then apply both a filter factor and judgment based on experience when deciding on the setting to be used.
Due to the opacity of the R72 filter, and the uncertainty of the spectral response, I have never had much success using the first method. Those filters are dark! And no meter I have experimented with has done a reliable job metering the IR light after the visible light is (mostly) filtered out.
The judgment involved in the second method relates to the fact that experience shows that there is a relationship between how much IR light is there when there is visible light. That experience includes factors like what the time of day is, what the season is, what the temperature is and what the humidity is. Those factors are applied after applying a base filter factor that relates to the unchanging opacity to visible light that the R72 offers.
So when you see people saying the use EIs of 3, 6, 12 or 25 for this film, they are saying that they have metered the unfiltered light and then applied a filter factor that includes that opacity and however much of those other factors as their experience indicates in the circumstances.
This post in a related thread might supply some useful examples:
[URL="https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/i-hope-i-have-found-the-right-link.170483/#post-2218309"]I HOPE! I have found the right link[/URL]

StepheKoontz said:

A red filter isn't enough for that film, you need a 720nm filter and shoot at 6-12EI.

Click to expand...

OR a R-29. Meter ISO 400 without the filter and then adjust for the filter. Shoot in direct sunlight and forget about using back lit situations.

Does an R-29 produce ok results? Or are you saying it’s insufficient.

Sirius Glass said:

OR a R-29. Meter ISO 400 without the filter and then adjust for the filter. Shoot in direct sunlight and forget about using back lit situations.

Click to expand...

The following work well: R25, R29, R72 aka 720. It depends on how strong a result you want.

I had have goodresults with a r72 filter and ISO 6.

Even with that combination, I find the the Wood effect with film is not as prominent as that with modified digital cameras. Current digital sensors are sensitive further into the IR spectrum than currently available films. IR film is still fun, and the Wood effect on film is frequently more pleasing than the "white out" that sometimes happens with digital.

How would Hasselblad's B60 red filter work with infrared?

Wallendo said:

I had have goodresults with a r72 filter and ISO 6.

Even with that combination, I find the the Wood effect with film is not as prominent as that with modified digital cameras. Current digital sensors are sensitive further into the IR spectrum than currently available films. IR film is still fun, and the Wood effect on film is frequently more pleasing than the "white out" that sometimes happens with digital.

Click to expand...

As a retired IR electrooptical expert, I can say that digital IR is better than IR film, but not as much fun for me.

Arthurwg said:

How would Hasselblad's B60 red filter work with infrared?

Click to expand...

The Hasselblad R25 B60 filter does well but I bought a B60-67mm adapter and R29 and 72 filters which I like better. However there are some compositions that I like the Hasselblad R25 B60 filter better.

There's a nifty filter holder (actually, a couple of them) called the Uurig rapid filter system... It's basically a hinged filter mount so you can easily swing a filter on and off of the lens.

Compose, meter, take off 6 stops for the R72, flip the filter over the lens, and take the shot.

I agree that that Rollei IR 400 unfiltered is not IS0 400 especially since Maco also sells Rollei Superpan 200 which appears to be the same emulsion both derived from Agfa Aviphot 200 aerial film. I think I remember Henning Serger say that his testing showed it had a maximum usable (unpushed) EI of 160. I usually shoot it at EI 125 unfiltered. Maco is a quirky company and is hard to explain why they call it 400 speed. It may that it was originally Aviphot 400 but when that was discontinued they switched to Aviphot 200 but didn't want to change the same. For IR images I use the filter factor method and meter unfiltered and then go down 4 - 6 stops with a Hoya R72 filter and usually shoot it at EI 12 - 6. But until one really gets a feel for IR exposure it is best to do a good bit of bracketing of exposure with IR shots. I would echo what Matt said about IR exposure, it is not just the apparent amount of light but a lot of other things like angle of the light, time of day. Also the subject matters a lot. Some subjects look little different in IR and others are dramatically different. My trifecta is scenes that combine water, vegetation and a nice cloud filled sky. I think IR400 has perhaps the greatest IR sensitivity of remaining films. But to get a real IR look with Wood Effect etc. my experience is that an R25 filter won't cut it. I have not used an R29. I have only gotten IR with a very dark R72 type filter. I recommended the swinging filter adapter for SLR's. Because of the dark filter and the need to stop down considerably because of difficulty of focusing with IR, using the IR shots are for me on a tripod with longish exposure. Because of this one has to be wary of nearby foliage etc. that might be moving in a breeze and create motion blur.

These are not all IR images, but there are enough to give some examples.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/1972781@N21/pool/

I shoot this film at EI 6, with an R72 filter. I meter the shadows, giving I them priority.