Quick question abopt rollei 400 infrared

[Rhodes]

Can I use it with cameras that have the small view filme window in the back?

 

[DWThomas]

I admit I haven't tried it, but wouldn't expect it to be a problem if you are able to use regular ISO 400 pan films in the camera. (The Rollei material doesn't extend very far beyond the visible spectrum.)

 

[Rhodes]

Thanks, I just ask because efke 820 IR film sheet warn about using the film with this types of camera because of fogging the film, etc. And actually I only got one 2 cameras (35mm) that do not have the window!

 

[AgX]

In case of doubt:

-) do a test with the first "unexposed" part behind the leader by letting a lot of sunlight shine into that window at several angles

-) then tape the window on the outside with Aluminium foil (to safeguard the rest of the film and to have something to compare the first strip to)

 

[Simon R Galley]

It could be a BIG problem, IR film is incredibly sensitive, I would never use it in a red window camera without masking out the window.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

 

[Rhodes]

Normally they are not red, more white/light green or orange!

 

[AgX]

What windows are we talking about??

The red one for roll-film positioning, as Simon thought, or that foam-sealed window to show part of the type 135 cassette, as I thought?

 

[pentaxuser]

It could be a BIG problem, IR film is incredibly sensitive, I would never use it in a red window camera without masking out the window.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

I quote Simon but the question isn't necessarily posed to him alone:

Are we talking about it being safe to check the red window in shade when moving the film to the next frame but ensuring that at all other times the mask is applied? I am thinking here of SFX and Rollei 400S

One day I might want to try both films in my Agfa Isolette which has an aluminium mask to cover the red window but no point in using either film if at no time can the red window be used to check the film position.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[ntenny]

I've used the Efke film (with more extended sensitivity) in red-window cameras and been OK as far as the red window is concerned. I did, however, find out the hard way that some visually-opaque bellows (bellowses? bellowsen?) aren't entirely IR-opaque!

It would be prudent to run a test roll anyway---maybe even a torture test in which you leave the red window uncovered and pointing at the sun for a while---but personally I would expect it to be OK, assuming the bellows material doesn't pass IR.

-NT

 

[DWThomas]

Somebody should risk the money and test, I guess. One might have hoped maybe somebody already (maybe inadvertently) had!

Doing a light leak test, I once loaded regular 400 pan film (TMX as I recall) in my Perkeo II and left it, red window cover open, in the sun at various angles for 15 minutes per exposure, winding a blank frame between tests to catch stuff outside the film mask. I saw no damage attributable to the red window. There was a small mark just on one edge on a single frame that was probably a hinge-related mark. Given that pan film has at least some red sensitivity, I don't think the window color is all that significant.

So that was my logic in the post up-thread. The Efke IR stuff goes further into the IR region and might potentially stir up more problems, but as far as l know neither goes anywhere near as far out as the old Kodak material.

I view testing, bracketing and occasional frustration as a part of shooting IR anyway!

Edit: And while I was fumbling at the keyboard, we got some real input -- thanks Nathan!

 

[Rhodes]

The foam-sealed window to show part of the type 135 cassette, as you thought! I finished a test roll, going to dev and see what cames up. Will post the results!

 

[Arctic amateur]

I put a piece of aluminium foil over the window on my Nikon F70 and secured it with black tape. Haven't seen any evidence of light leaks after shooting a few rolls, but I didn't test IR film without the foil.

 

[agnosticnikon]

I've shot Kodak infrared with cameras with the film canister window with no problem. A bigger problem is what kind of frame counter does the camera have. I used a Nikon N80 which uses an infrared frame counter instead of a sprocket based counter, and it fogged the film all along the top of the film. (bottom of your photo) When I used my F4s there was no problem, as it uses the sprocket drive to count the frames. So look for a little window at the top or bottom of the inside of the camera, probably near the sprocket drive to see if it has an infrared scanner to count the frames. Even though I used Kodak film, I'm sure that it would have the same effect to some degree on any infrared sensitive film.

 

[Rhodes]

I got only one frame with some strange mark, off all the film after I turned the film window to direct sunlight. After, I did 6 or more and then put a piece of aluminium foil over the window and did the rest of the film. No one more had the mark

 

[AgX]

But now the question arises how this mark came into existence. Most probably an academic question. But still...

I have not yet seen a solarisation of this kind nor any with that film.

 

[Rhodes]

In terms of exposing and developing the film, I did some mistakes. I think I overexposed the film when I set the TTl meter to iso 25/12 and use a red filter (still do not have the special IR filters yet) and went for Rodinal 1:50 to develop, but my nice brain thought that for 500ml, 1:50 is 5ml of rodinal... did 12m (taken from digitaltruth). The negs come up pretty dark and dense. After scaning, I saw a lot of grain, got 2 or 3 nice shoots.

 

[Alex Muir]

I would have thought the light leak from a film window would have appeared as a light area on a positive image. It would do no harm , however, to take the precaution of covering the window when using this film. I have had reasonable results with obvious IR effects using this film with a Hoya R72 filter. Alex

 

[DWThomas]

Indeed that result is rather mysterious, almost as though the film was all lightly fogged except for where it was against a widget of that shape, or something that shape reduced development by contacting the film? Hmmmm - brain hurt!

 

[Rhodes]

Indeed that result is rather mysterious, almost as though the film was all lightly fogged except for where it was against a widget of that shape, or something that shape reduced development by contacting the film? Hmmmm - brain hurt!

What this fine gentleman said!

 

[ntenny]

It's a dark leak!

I don't see how that effect could possibly be caused by light through the film window, although it would be interesting to compare the mark to the size and shape of the window, I guess. Based on the size of the negative, it looks narrow for a 35mm film window...

It seems to me like it must be a separate cause, maybe something in development, but we don't have enough information to know what it might be.

-NT

 

[Rhodes]

A great clue just come up. I shoot a second roll today and when loading I normally cut the leader of the film. After loading the film and turning the lights on, I pick up the piece and say two brown marks, one in the same location and with the same shape.
I think it is made by the film leader beeing rolled in the can and in contact with the lighttrap opening of the canister.

 

[DWThomas]

Aha! That might appear to fit the symptoms.

There is always an explanation -- but sometimes not from ordinary mortals!

 

[AgX]

No, it won't. Then you had some metallic silver already before exposure. In the end that would give a higher density in the negative.

Though, if the darkening was not metallic silver, then one could argue about solarisation again due to hat preexposure, but theoretical reasoning speaks against this....

 

[Rhodes]

And Agx makes a turn in the plot! Just kiding, tomorrow I will try to take a photo of the leader and post here, so to one see!

 

[Rhodes]

Here it is, sorry for the quality of the photo: