Reply From HARMAN technology Limited Re True IR Film.

[steven_e007]

I'm simultaneously disappointed by the news and impressed by Harman's and Simon's commitment to looking into such possibilities and explaning their decisions to us....

I wonder - is it likely there could ever be a new emulsion from Harman?
if so, what would be viable?

 

[AgX]

Is Ilford SFX an infrared film? If I were to use SFX with infrared filters, will it give me infrared effects?

Infrared film means that it is usefully sensitive to infrared radiation. However this depends on the degree to which sensitivity stretches into the IR range, and to the magnitude of sensitivity in that range (absolute and in relation to the visible light sensitivity.)

The weakest infrared filter would be 89B (R72). Here you see a comparison of IR-effects on films with different IR sensitivity and different filters employed including ILford SFX with 89B filter:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/infrared_film_004.php

compare
Ilford SFX200 R72 filter, EI 12
Rollei IR400 R72 filter, EI 4

 

[Maris]

Is Ilford SFX an infrared film? If I were to use SFX with infrared filters, will it give me infrared effects?

Infrared? Yes! I shoot Ilford SFX at EI 6 behind IR680 and IR720 filters and it delivers a conspicuous infrared effect. The appearance doesn't SCREAM over-the-top infrared like Kodak HIE always did and Efke IR820 did sometimes but it's very distinctly different to panchromatic film behind a deep red filter.

My only grumble about Ilford SFX is its graininess and limited sharpness. I suspect (speculation!) that SFX is basically Ilford HP5+ with IR sensitisation dye added. Sheet film formats, 4x5 and 8x10, would be wonderful.

 

[juan]

Does anyone have any experience shooting SFX at night with infrared illumination?
juan

 

[Rudeofus]

Does anyone have any experience shooting SFX at night with infrared illumination?

Even powerful IR illuminators throw out embarassingly little light, and with EI 5 or less you will be out of luck except at very close range.

 

[Brac]

I'm simultaneously disappointed by the news and impressed by Harman's and Simon's commitment to looking into such possibilities and explaning their decisions to us....

I wonder - is it likely there could ever be a new emulsion from Harman?
if so, what would be viable?

Well the two Kentmere emulsions were new, although they have now been on the market for a couple of years or so.

 

[pentaxuser]

Steven, given the current range of Ilford films, plus Brac's comment and the fact that Simon has covered the reasons why a true IR isn't in its plans then I wonder what else it could make that would sell in sufficient quantities to be viable.

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

Does anyone have any experience shooting SFX at night with infrared illumination?

Even powerful IR illuminators throw out embarassingly little light, and with EI 5 or less you will be out of luck except at very close range.

Flashlights (electronic or bulb) are to be used.

 

[Rudeofus]

Flashlights (electronic or bulb) are to be used.

Electronic flashes more or less replicate sun light in terms of spectrum, so the ISO rating of any IR film with respect to flash will be about ISO 5. Your big GN 58m @ISO100 strobe turns into a measly GN 13m toy at ISO 5 ...

And after all is said and done, and you have your perfect IR image with flash illumination: how much different does it look from a regular flash image ... ?

 

[madgardener]

Infrared? Yes! I shoot Ilford SFX at EI 6 behind IR680 and IR720 filters and it delivers a conspicuous infrared effect. The appearance doesn't SCREAM over-the-top infrared like Kodak HIE always did and Efke IR820 did sometimes but it's very distinctly different to panchromatic film behind a deep red filter...

.

I think its time to give Freestyle a call and get some Delta, FP4, and SFX. Now if only they made color positive film...

 

[Toffle]

My very last hope:

Would it be possible to make an SFX without antihalation layer? That would be a good substitute for Efke's "Aura", adding the benefit of Ilford quality control.

Many of us miss this effect:

View attachment 61119

I am late in coming to this thread, but am very interested in this line of inquiry. I do like SFX, particularly in 120, where the graininess is less pronounced, but miss the "aura" effect of the old EFKE (Maco) films. (Then again, I also liked the Lucky films for the same reason)

I have read this thread through a couple of times but have not seen a response specific to CMO's suggestion. Is there a reason that the known SFX emulsion cannot be be tested in a version without the antihalation layer? Such a film would not possess the tonality of the EFKE product, but as CMO suggests, would not be subject to the QC concerns that plagued that film.

 

[brianmquinn]

t miss the "aura" effect of the old EFKE (Maco) films. (Then again, I also liked the Lucky films for the same reason)

I have an old Canon rangefinder that I use only for IR. I put aluminum tape on the film pressure plate to make it shinny. It increased the "AURA" effect. You can get this tape at a hardware store. It is just aluminum foil with a sticky backing. I is 2 inches wide. Cover your pressure plate and then trip off the extra with a razor. I have never tried to remove it so think about it being a one way conversion with an old camera. You may never get the sticky stuff off the pressure plate if you remove the tape.

 

[Toffle]

Interesting suggestion. I may look though my gear to see if I have a camera I am willing to convert. (Certainly not my Rollei, which I currently use for IR. ) I recall reading somewhere about a way to strip the AH layer from a film, but it seems rather involved and risky to me.

 

[steven_e007]

Steven, given the current range of Ilford films, plus Brac's comment and the fact that Simon has covered the reasons why a true IR isn't in its plans then I wonder what else it could make that would sell in sufficient quantities to be viable.

pentaxuser

Well, that is what I was thinking.... The argument Simon gives for not producing an Ilford True IR film, whilst perfectly reasonable, would presumbly apply to pretty much anything I could think of.... So, does this mean no new emulsions from Harman ever again?

Alas.... I suspect it may mean just that

Obviously the important thing is that they stay healthy and viable as a company, but just sad when films and materials disappear (or whole companies) that the existing manufacturers aren't able to fill the void.

 

[Paul Cunningham]

True IR film market?

Therefore coated volumes produced would be uneconomical against the investment required, in relation to the size of the worldwide market, even allowing for our ability to coat 'small' volumes.

Simon, I wonder if you could give us an insight as to what the estimated size of this worldwide market would be, or what the necessary market size would need to be? As Ilford has no intention to enter the market, perhaps you could share some tidbit for the benefit of the industry.

Thanks, Paul

 

[Xmas]

Simon, I wonder if you could give us an insight as to what the estimated size of this worldwide market would be, or what the necessary market size would need to be? As Ilford has no intention to enter the market, perhaps you could share some tidbit for the benefit of the industry.

Thanks, Paul

1st question:
Why do you think Kodak have stopped HIE, Plusx, Panatomicx, 3200, etc., ...
2nd question:
Why would Simon want to help commercial competitors?

The size of the market would need to be comparable with the coating machine throughput but unless you have one to hand you would need to also justify the capital cost. I doubt that even SFX is a high volume seller.

Film from a smaller volume machine probably will have higher production costs. If so it would have to be dedicated to premium types.

It is more realistic to assume/plan on a reduction in film and format choice as the film volume reduces.

220 and 127 examples- I have 4 cameras that can use 220 but don't expect to buy any more.

If you need IR a digital camera without a hot filter may be a more available option.

 

[Paul Cunningham]

It's kind of you to address the question, but it is directed toward Simon and Ilford.
As for IR solutions, I have several at hand, and being an IR enthusiast, would welcome more.

 

[Tom1956]

I wonder if Harman Ilford is the same Harman that took over the Crown tape recorder company.

 

[lxdude]

I wonder if Harman Ilford is the same Harman that took over the Crown tape recorder company.

Nope. That Harmon is audio products. For example, Harmon/Kardon.

 

[fotch]

S............. for the benefit of the industry.

Thanks, Paul

The industry does not need APUG to learn how to do these things or communicate with one another.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Paul,

The world market for IR film is very, very small.

It would not be viable for us to produce one and we have capacity to make down to pretty small coated volumes if needed.

I have mentioned many times some of the complicated manufacturing issues around very low volume products that may be attractive to film users.

1 ) 35mm / 120 and Sheet film are typically produced on three different bases with three different
formulations.

2 ) You can produce small volume products ( and we do ) but when you are trying to get a return on your R&D investment and have to spread that over a very small volume it would make the cost per film prohibitive and you would sell less.

3 ) IR film has very poor keeping qualities compared to normal panchromatic emulsion types.

4 ) Making a true IR film would compromise sales of ILFORD SFX film, we have a policy of keeping all films currently made in production in all existing formats.

5 ) When making small volumes waste rises to a higher percentage of good coated stock.

Finally I noted somebody saying ' HARMAN may never introduce another film' well that is an opinion not based in fact, but of course its an opinion to which everyone is entitled....

We will look, and do look at new product opportunities on a monthly basis, in depth, and the team of 7people that discuss it have well in excess of 120 years experience in the photo market, balanced against our wish to innovate and satisfy customer requirements is to run a profitable and stable business that continues to focus on analog monochrome photographic products as its core market ( although we do other things ) and to offer and manufacture now, and in the future the largest range of ultra high quality monochrome photographic products in the world, bar none.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[RattyMouse]

Dear Paul,


We will look, and do look at new product opportunities on a monthly basis, in depth, and the team of 7people that discuss it have well in excess of 120 years experience in the photo market, balanced against our wish to innovate and satisfy customer requirements is to run a profitable and stable business that continues to focus on analog monochrome photographic products as its core market ( although we do other things ) and to offer and manufacture now, and in the future the largest range of ultra high quality monochrome photographic products in the world, bar none.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Paul Cunningham]

Simon, I understand Ilford's position and commitment with respect to SFX.

In my uniformed imagination, I could see the true IR market being equal to the size of the SFX market, but that would probably presume either that some or all of the SFX customers would be happy with true IR and are using SFX because there is no true IR available (and not from Ilford).

As you previously mentioned, it seems not all of the features of SFX are present in true IR.

Thanks again for your comments and perspectives.

 

[ME Super]

I'd have to say, Ilford has a pretty impressive B&W range of film. I don't shoot much B&W, mostly color, but I generally do shoot Ilford when it's B&W (the exception is in the IR film, where I typically shoot the Rollei IR400s).

Let's take a look at what you can get in the Ilford/Harman line from B&H (I'm only looking at 35mm here, since that's what I primarily shoot), traditional grain films first:
ISO 50 - Pan F
ISO 100 - Kentmere 100
ISO 125 - FP4+
ISO 200 - SFX
ISO 400 - Kentmere 400
ISO 400 - HP5+

In the T-grain type 35mm films, we have:
ISO 100 - Delta 100
ISO 400 - Delta 400
ISO 3200 - Delta 3200 (note this film has a true speed of 1000, but low contrast so it looks good when pushed to 3200).

And finally in the chromogenic films:
ISO 400 - XP2 Super

So Ilford/Harman has an offering for B&W film in box speeds ranging from 50 to 3200, including 2 100-speed films and 4 400-speed films. Contrast this with Kodak B&W emulsions, also available from B&H:
Traditional - 400TX
T-Grain - TMax 100
T-Grain - TMax 400
Chromogenic: BW400CN

And finally Fuji, available from B&H:
ISO 100 - Neopan Acros 100
ISO 400 - Neopan 400

So Ilford has 10 B&W films, Kodak has 4 B&W films, and Fuji has 2 B&W films. I dare say Harman is doing something right to be able to support that many B&W films! Would a true B&W IR film be a good thing to have? Sure, but not if it hurts Harman's ability to offer the impressive variety of film it already produces.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I'd have to say, Ilford has a pretty impressive B&W range of film...

Harman was the only reason I didn't sell off my darkroom when the crisis first hit. I thought hard about it. It was the never-more-valuable-than-at-this-moment distressed seller's argument. But then I heard "have not and will not discontinue..." and I held fast.

While acknowledging the obvious disclaimer regarding the unforeseeable for every film manufacturer, I couldn't be happier today with that decision.



Ken