Pushing Rollei Infrared 400?

[L_E_Miller]

Going to experiment with some Rollei Infrared for the first time. Using an IR filter so that's going to be some very slow shutter speeds.

Just wondering if its worth pushing or if that's a bad idea for this film

Thanks!

 

[MattKing]

Pushing won't help at all with the shadow details. It will just accentuate how overly "blown out" the IR highlights often turn out to be.
With an IR filter involved, you need longer exposure times.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Learn how to use the film first before you embark on this path... And take my advice, this film has very very thin shadows with an IR filter, like the 72R. You could see how it pushes unfiltered maybe as a starting point...

 

[Helge]

Wouldn’t push more than one stop (from 100 real surface speed to 200).
You are already pushing two stops at box speed, which is clearly visible in the results.
IR speed will not move much though.

I did some promising experiments with preflashing and silver-nitrate pre baths last summer, to up the speed and flatten contrast.
No miracles though. One stop speed increase or so.

Regular speed is around 6-10 filtered with R72, depending on lighting, so not too bad.
EV 14 a light cloudy day is 60 @ f8.
Definitely handholdable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are just wasting your time and money. What is out there is good as it is.

 

[L_E_Miller]

Learn how to use the film first before you embark on this path... And take my advice, this film has very very thin shadows with an IR filter, like the 72R. You could see how it pushes unfiltered maybe as a starting point...

Yup that's the idea behind doing research before I waste money.

 

[L_E_Miller]

Wouldn’t push more than one stop (from 100 real surface speed to 200).
You are already pushing two stops at box speed, which is clearly visible in the results.
IR speed will not move much though.

I did some promising experiments with preflashing and silver-nitrate pre baths last summer, to up the speed and flatten contrast.
No miracles though. One stop speed increase or so.

Regular speed is around 6-10 filtered with R72, depending on lighting, so not too bad.
EV 14 a light cloudy day is 60 @ f8.
Definitely handholdable.

This is good info, I appreciate that. What speed do you normally shoot it at?

 

[L_E_Miller]

You are just wasting your time and money. What is out there is good as it is.

Well I haven't pushed anything yet, I'm asking first before I waste my time and money.

 

[xkaes]

If this is your first time using it, I'd recommend taking a series of six or eight shots at different exposures of the same scene at different exposures over different shutter speeds -- to test what exposure & development is best.

The pick the one you like best and fine tune the ISO &/or development with another short strip.

What you pick will be different from what the box says. You'll find that IR film usually benefits from bracketing in any event.

IR is pretty contrasty. I like to over exposure and under develop (PULLING) to try to tame it down. The shadows -- where there is little IR light, are usually very dark -- and the sun lit parts -- with lots of IR light, are usually washed out. PUSHING just makes things worse. You can always increase contrast later -- not the other way around.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well I haven't pushed anything yet, I'm asking first before I waste my time and money.

I will send the bill tomorrow morning.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If this is your first time using it, I'd recommend taking a series of six or eight shots at different exposures of the same scene at different exposures over different shutter speeds -- to test what exposure & development is best.

The pick the one you like best and fine tune the ISO &/or development with another short strip.

What you pick will be different from what the box says. You'll find that IR film usually benefits from bracketing in any event.

IR is pretty contrasty. I like to over exposure and under develop (PULLING) to try to tame it down. The shadows -- where there is little IR light, are usually very dark -- and the sun lit parts -- with lots of IR light, are usually washed out. PUSHING just makes things worse. You can always increase contrast later -- not the other way around.

When HIE was discontinued I bought two 36 exposure rolls. Someone on APUG recommended that I should shoot both rolls the full range of 12 f/stops at exposure from 1 second to 1/1000 second with a filter and without the filter of one subject and then I would know everything about the film. Except the jerk could not figure out that then I would have no more HIE left. So based on that experience of such bad advice, I would take your advice and any similar advice with 200 metric tons of salt. Self testing is highly overrated especially considering all the R&D the manufacturers have already done.

Shoot with the sun directly on the subject or scene at box speed and correct for the filter factor and you will be golden.

 

[MattKing]

Don't listen to Sirius .
The problem with his suggestion is that it is good advice for film that is sensitive to the same light that our meters are sensitive to - visible light. So if you use the film for normal photography, go ahead and follow your meter and all that manufacturer's advice.
If you use a 720 nm filter, you are blocking out almost all the visible light, and letting just a little bit of the infrared and near infrared light through.
At the same time, you are metering the visible light with a meter that doesn't really read what the film is going to be exposed to.
The reason that you bracket is that there is a complex correlation between how much visible light that is around, and how much near infrared and infrared light there is around,. That correlation is affected by factors like time of day, season and the condition of foliage which happens to be one of the best reflectors of near infrared and infrared light. The results of that bracketing help you build your database of information about that correlation.
Sirius' suggestion for how much filter factor to use is fine. You need to use the bracketing data to build on that.
A somewhat informative example using Ilford SFX, a not quite as infrared film as the options branded as Rollei:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/choices-for-ir-film.174757/#post-2273526

 

[xkaes]

Well said. I forgot to mention that there are different filters involved, as well as different IR films, and different developers. All this is why I suggested short strips of exposures the test the results. The manufacturers' recommendations are a good place to start, but they can be way off for your particular situation.

Although I have a 720 filter, I've had good luck with making my own IR filters with sandwiching red (25A) and green (X11) filters together.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well said. I forgot to mention that there are different filters involved, as well as different IR films, and different developers. All this is why I suggested short strips of exposures the test the results. The manufacturers' recommendations are a good place to start, but they can be way off for your particular situation.

Although I have a 720 filter, I've had good luck with making my own IR filters with sandwiching red (25A) and green (X11) filters together.

Yes and some of the filters vary from the filter factors I posted, but usually not much. As @MattKing alluded taking meter readings through the filters is a fool's errand.

 

[abruzzi]

My starting point for Rollei IR with a R72 filter is to meter at EI 12. That works pretty well in sunny New Mexico. If it’s cloudy, you might need to go lower because there is probably less infrared in the light.

 

[Buzz-01]

My starting point for Rollei IR with a R72 filter is to meter at EI 12. That works pretty well in sunny New Mexico. If it’s cloudy, you might need to go lower because there is probably less infrared in the light.

Same here in northern Europe on a sunny day. I usually shoot it at ISO12 (external light meter) with an IR720 filter. Pushing the film would indeed push the contrast (crush shadow detail) way too much for my liking.

 

[L_E_Miller]

My starting point for Rollei IR with a R72 filter is to meter at EI 12. That works pretty well in sunny New Mexico. If it’s cloudy, you might need to go lower because there is probably less infrared in the light.

I'll be shooting in Death Valley so hopefully not too many clouds!

 

[koraks]

Thread moved to B&W section.
We could of course debate if IR is color or not, but then I'd have to move it to Philosophy, I'm afraid....

 

[otto.f]

Well I haven't pushed anything yet, I'm asking first before I waste my time and money.

In my humble experience the 400ISO (with 120 film) is spot on, using FX39ii. Why would you need to push anyway, if the IR image starts to gets muddy soon then.

 

[Helge]

Same here in northern Europe on a sunny day. I usually shoot it at ISO12 (external light meter) with an IR720 filter. Pushing the film would indeed push the contrast (crush shadow detail) way too much for my liking.

It’s very much about the metering.
Shade in daylight contains dramatically much less IR than the same full spectrum scene.
When a cloud goes across the sun IR drops much more than white light.
You shouldn’t meter for the sky. And you shouldn’t try to overexpose too much with this film. It clips fast, but shadows stays surprisingly dense.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As I posted in post 11, back lighting does not work well with IR film, @MattKing's comment ignored since massive bracketing and testing is a WOMBAT* as outlined in post 11.

* Waste Of Money Brains And Time

 

[xkaes]

Whenever you are using a new-to-you film, it's critical to test it with your gear and your development / printing process. Otherwise you will end up wasting Money Brains & Time. Everyone's gear and methods are different, so everyone' results will be different. If that were not the case, there would be little need for this FORUM.

More importantly, testing is not difficult, time-consuming, or expensive. Get serious -- there is nothing "massive" about it. All you need is a little bit of film.

 

[MattKing]

More importantly, testing is not difficult, time-consuming, or expensive. Get serious -- there is nothing "massive" about it. All you need is a little bit of film.

Plus, with IR film, a bit more, in order to deal with the fact that you don't have a meter that is sensitive to what the film ends up seeing.
So you need to do a bit more estimating than with normal exposures.
For example, with meters indicating the same amount of ambient visible light, an accurate exposure in March of a scene with foliage will need to be adjusted to deal with the different foliage in October.

 

[Wallendo]

IR can be difficult so I try not to overthink it. I shoot Rollei IR with a 720 filter at ISO 12 and 6.

The recommended development times for this film already include a push of one stop, so I wouldn’t push it any further.

 

[Helge]

https://www.agfa.com/specialty-products/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2017/06/AVIPHOT-PAN-200.pdf

Exposure​

The film speed can vary according to processing. Aviphot Pan 200 can be exposed as a 125 to​

250 ASA film​

That is as aerial film shooting low contrast ground targets.
Pictorial, human scale shots are going to be high contrast at higher speeds and with little detail in either end of the range.

BTW there is a tonne of tests out there (including here) that clearly shows that Aviphot 200 is best shot and developed around 100.