Rollei 400 IR film in Xtol

[bluechromis]

I have been reading on this forum in deferent post about the actual speed being (much-) more less than the box speed.
I always wondered why an established photographic film manufacturer (regardless who it is) would be wrong about that, while he's the one who formulated, tested and made that particular emulsion.
I suppose that a (film-) manufacturer would try to commercialise a good performing product; but according to several posts over here, a lot of pushing and pulling needs to be done to reach any satisfying results.
If he is wrong (ore lying) about this, then he is harming his own business and would he do that?

What is really going on?

In this thread, Henning explains why the speed, the speed rated by Agfa (not MACO), of the Aviphot films is much higher than is suitable for pictorial use.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-pro-2022-version.194630/page-16#post-2606766

Henning said,
"As I've explained here on photrio in the past Aviphot Pan 200 is designed as an aerial film, and for that purpose it is excellent. It was even used for a very long time by the German military for air reconnaissance with the Tornado jets.
But for us as "photographers on the ground" it is extremely important to know that the light sensitivity / speed rating Agfa is using for their aerial films is significantly different to our standard ISO norm we are using in pictorial photography "on the ground".
Our standard ISO rating is based on Zone I with 0.1 logD density above base fog.
But Agfa is using Zone III for 0.1 logD and sensitivity rating.
Therefore Agfa aerial films are about two stops slower / less light sensitive when you are using normal pictorial standards and classic ISO norm for photos on the ground. And even three stops if you are using Zone System standards with best shadow detail.

The reason for Agfa's different methodology is quite simple:
If you are doing photographs from 2,000m, 3,000m or higher down to the earth, the direction of your photos and the direction of the light are almost identical: You don't have deep shadows and highlights, and you have much less contrast, because of an in general flatter light.
In aerial photography to get good pictures you have to separate the midtones very good, shadows and highlights are much less important.
And that is exactly what Aviphot Pan 200 is doing:
It produces a very pronounced and strong S-shape characteristic curve: Long toe with very little shadow detail up to Zone III, then a steep curve in the midtones with excellent and strong tone separation of these midtones, and in the highlights a flattened curve with quite a lot of highlight detail, but very bad detail tone separation because of the very flat curve."

 

[bluechromis]

What is going on is that Maco is not a film manufacturer.
They have others confection Aviphot film and put the licensed Rollei name on.
Speed always sells to the naive person.

It is worse than Maco not being a film manufacturer. There have been a number of vendors like Ultrafine in the past, and currently, Aristia, that offer rebadged emulsions that are more responsible about it. It is scandalous that Maco is so inconsiderate of its customers by sowing confusion. They offer three films that are all the same Aviphot 200, with purported film speeds that are different from each other and all too high. Maco apparently provides two emulsions based on Aviphot 80 with similar inconsistent messaging. What could be the logic of these practices? They are setting their customers up for failure. So many times, I have heard people say, "I tried IR 400, but the pic's came out horrible with everything blocked up." Yeah, if you take a contrasty film and grievously underexpose it, that's what is likely to happen. Maco seems not to be interested in the repeat customer. Maco is in its own class as a dirtbag in how it treats its customers. It is disappointing to learn that CatLABS may be doing something similar with its so-called 320 film.

 

[Helge]

If it really were a 400 speed film, then to shoot it at, say EI 80, would be a significant pull. But since it is, according to Henning, at best, a 100-speed film, to shoot it at 80 is not much of a pull. If you are interested in pre-flash, it is rumored that Adox uses a sophisticated pre-flash treatment with their HR-50 film, which they call Speed Boost. HR-50 is currently only in 35 mm, but hopefully, Adox will get 120 production ramped up. By the way, there was a lengthy thread about the Aviphot based films not long ago where a lot of this ground was covered.

By pulling it slightly you are putting more “pressure” on the top of the curve. You will blow more highlights and if you are using filters to get darker skies, work against them.

This film like slide, really likes to have you nail exposure.
Overexposure can be used for effect, but looks bad for every photo.

But it depends on the scene as always of course, but extra for this film.
For example, it is very good with tungsten, so no need to down rate there.
In foggy, moist air it speeds up like all film (essentially equivalent to a preflash, and the main reason for the 200 rating for aerial use).
If your scene is akin to an aerial scene, low contrast and most tones in the mid five zones, say a diffusely lit indoor scene, you can rate it at 200.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, I read that whole thread by Henning. Preflash, push, pull and whatever adds to the confusion, but I'll get it figured out through self-experimentation. I do have one question about this film when going for a good "woody look" using the R72 filter. Do you use the very same reciprocity values for long exposure that you would for using the film as a normal B&W film?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, I read that whole thread by Henning. Preflash, push, pull and whatever adds to the confusion, but I'll get it figured out through self-experimentation. I do have one question about this film when going for a good "woody look" using the R72 filter. Do you use the very same reciprocity values for long exposure that you would for using the film as a normal B&W film?

Yes. At least have been for years. I have data that I generated several years ago, and have tested in the field. Here is my compensation chart:
(metred on the bottom, correction on the right)

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes. At least have been for years. I have data that I generated several years ago, and have tested in the field. Here is my compensation chart:
(metred on the bottom, correction on the right)

View attachment 349924

Thanks Andy! That's a big help and saves me time digging around. I'll buy you a donut when we meet.

 

[Helge]

Yes, I read that whole thread by Henning. Preflash, push, pull and whatever adds to the confusion, but I'll get it figured out through self-experimentation. I do have one question about this film when going for a good "woody look" using the R72 filter. Do you use the very same reciprocity values for long exposure that you would for using the film as a normal B&W film?

You’ll rarely need reciprocity for daylight shots. EI 3 - 12 is fast enough for handheld with good light.

Robert W. Wood - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

was a very interesting guy. Not only for discovering the Woods effect but a whole host of other inventions and discoveries.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks Andy! That's a big help and saves me time digging around. I'll buy you a donut when we meet.

You're on!

 

[John Wiegerink]

You’ll rarely need reciprocity for daylight shots. EI 3 - 12 is fast enough for handheld with good light.

Robert W. Wood - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

was a very interesting guy. Not only for discovering the Woods effect but a whole host of other inventions and discoveries.

Wow! Woods certainly was an interesting fellow.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You’ll rarely need reciprocity for daylight shots. EI 3 - 12 is fast enough for handheld with good light.

Robert W. Wood - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

was a very interesting guy. Not only for discovering the Woods effect but a whole host of other inventions and discoveries.

How the heck do you compose with the 720 on? A red #25, yes, but 720 is muri, as the Japanese would say. With filter off, I'd have to compose, focus, set exposure, take filter out of case and screw onto lens... kind of guess the composition and hoping I didn't knock the focus out, then trip the shutter...remove filter, put back into case, and back into pocket... Again definitely doable with #25 but with the 720??

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's why I miss HIE! The #25 could be left on the lens while composing, and it gave wonderful Wood Effect. Heck, even the Yellow #12 worked fine.

 

[Helge]

How the heck do you compose with the 720 on? A red #25, yes, but 720 is muri, as the Japanese would say. With filter off, I'd have to compose, focus, set exposure, take filter out of case and screw onto lens... kind of guess the composition and hoping I didn't knock the focus out, then trip the shutter...remove filter, put back into case, and back into pocket... Again definitely doable with #25 but with the 720??

RF, TLR or viewfinder.
Or
Use a piece of IR gel in the film gate on your SLR. Then you’ll be able to see through the lens just fine and even throw a polarizer on top for extra effect.

 

[MattKing]

Just a reminder - his name was "Wood", not "Woods", and the "Wood" effect has almost nothing to do with trees, leaves or anything about the "Woods".

 

[Helge]

Just a reminder - his name was "Wood", not "Woods", and the "Wood" effect has almost nothing to do with trees, leaves or anything about the "Woods".

Sorry that should of course have been the genitive Wood’s effect. As in named after him.

And it being about the reflectance and transmittance of chlorophyll to IR it does indeed have some something to do with “trees, leaves and woods”.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

How the heck do you compose with the 720 on?

I like magnetic filter holder for this. And sunlit scene CAN be seen through the 715 and 720 filters.

And remember - to have sharp IR slides/neg, no focusing compensation is really necessary with current NIR sensitive films

 

[Ivo Stunga]

By pulling it slightly you are putting more “pressure” on the top of the curve. You will blow more highlights and if you are using filters to get darker skies, work against them.

Correct me please if I'm mistaken, but isn't pulling "puttting extra pressure" on shadows whilst keeping highlights in check with reduced development times?
When employed correctly that is: rating IR400, Retro 400S and Superpan 200 at 80 or 50, then doing Pulll processing to arrive at correctly exposed shadows whilst keeping highlights in check?

Aviphot will tend to give blown highlights no matter what.
Pulling and reducing agitation frequency helps against that/to balance the scene.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Aviphot will tend to give blown highlights no matter what.

Hmmmm, not entirely sure about it. I haven't made any exhaustive tests (with Aviphot Pan 80), but not all developers will give "blown" highlights. In Pyrocat HD, I got a very pronounced shoulder, which really gave the impression of blown highlights. In Perceptol 1+3, I got a modest shoulder, which kept highlights ok. And I'm not very sure about pull processing making shouldering worse. It's not very easy to assess, but sone characteristic curve sets I have seen (Kodak film datasheets) rather suggest that shouldering is reduced with pull processing. Of course, reduced development (and contrast) requires ample exposure (and downrating the film) in order to record shadows correctly. In any case, increasing contrast in printing or scanning is the easy part.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I should've pointed out that I'm shooting slides, therefore all adjustments are made in development stage and a single developer.
With negatives and various developers out there - you have plenty of options to choose from, yes - compensating and all. But with negatives too - better exposure/processing will mean less work in darkroom.

I've shot about 3 bulk rolls of Aviphot 80 and 200.
The principle/technique stands: reduced agitation frequency and pull processing works against strong contrast and is/can be beneficial with Aviphot to achieve more tamed/pictorial contrast and to retain highlight details better - regardless the developer.

And I'm not very sure about pull processing making shouldering worse. It's not very easy to assess, but sone characteristic curve sets I have seen (Kodak film datasheets) rather suggest that shouldering is reduced with pull processing.

This

 

[Helge]

Correct me please if I'm mistaken, but isn't pulling "puttting extra pressure" on shadows whilst keeping highlights in check with reduced development times?
When employed correctly that is: rating IR400, Retro 400S and Superpan 200 at 80 or 50, then doing Pulll processing to arrive at correctly exposed shadows whilst keeping highlights in check?

Aviphot will tend to give blown highlights no matter what.
Pulling and reducing agitation frequency helps against that/to balance the scene.

Blown is most often blown, especially with single slow layer film like Aviphot whether you push, pull or shoot at box speed.
Aviphot doesn’t blow by necessity but the highlights always have worse tonality than the midtones due to the curve.
If you pull you move the upper midtones into the shallow shoulder.
And that shoulder is again very much baked in with film like Aviphot. You can soften it a bit, but at a cost.
The only real solution I can think of, is to use flash to move the lower tonal values of the scene up.

 

[MattKing]

And it being about the reflectance and transmittance of chlorophyll to IR it does indeed have some something to do with “trees, leaves and woods”.

I probably should have said something like "..but rather some of the vegetation that you might encounter in, near or around those trees and woods - or elsewhere!"

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I like magnetic filter holder for this. And sunlit scene CAN be seen through the 715 and 720 filters.

And remember - to have sharp IR slides/neg, no focusing compensation is really necessary with current NIR sensitive films

Yes, but barely... Have you tried working with slow lenses on large format?
I'm well versed in using IR films. I cut my teeth on HIE all through the 90's, and even now (I still have a box of 4x5)... which needed focus compensation, but only with opaque filters, like the 87C. Even Efke IR doesn't need any compensation.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Yes, but barely... Have you tried working with slow lenses on large format?

Not a single second and you're right, I can see scene through 1.4 and 2.8 lens, but f/4 is problematic.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm going to burn a roll of Rollei 400 IR film in my Pentax 67 and use Xtol-R as the developer. According to the inside of the film box the developing time is 17 minutes for Xtol 1+1. That seems awful long for 1+1 to me. Anybody out there that uses Xtol-R with this film?

I have direct experience with Rollei 400 IR film, exposed at ISO 400 and developed in replenished XTOL in a Jobo processor and I have had very good success. Unfortunately I am out of the country and will not be back until 8 Ocotober, so I cannot look up the information in my notebook. When I get I will look the times I used in the notebook.

 

[pentaxuser]

Use a piece of IR gel in the film gate on your SLR. Then you’ll be able to see through the lens just fine and even throw a polarizer on top for extra effect.

Can you expand on this please? What is IR gel and where in the film gate do you place it that enables you to see through the lens just fine?

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

RF, TLR or viewfinder.
Or
Use a piece of IR gel in the film gate on your SLR. Then you’ll be able to see through the lens just fine and even throw a polarizer on top for extra effect.

For darker filters such as Red29 or 720 I have a filter adapter [holder] that fits over the lens and can be flipped up out of the way for composing and focusing.