Rollei Infrared exposure with Hoya r72

[Jimi3]

I’ve searched for answers to this, but wanted to pose a question of my own. I’m just getting back into shooting infrared film and settled on Rollei with an r72, and came across the recommendation to start at iso 6 with this combo. That sounded in line with what I used to do with Maco IR film many years ago, so I tried it, but my Rollei shots came out WAY overexposed, even in cloudy conditions. So far my testing indicates that I’m getting better exposures around iso 50, but that’s with an old Konica 35mm and appropriate film- didn’t want to waste the 4x5.

So I’m wondering what baseline iso others are using, as 50 sounds high, but unless my shutter speeds are off, looks to yield decent negatives.

 

[bags27]

5 stops would be ISO 12, right? I've found that even then I've overexposed a bit (not terrible with MF, as easy to correct in Photoshop). But I shot this yesterday with Rollei 400 and a Hoya 72, and rated it around 4 stops. When I shot a lot of IR digitally and so without concern for "wasting" photos, I thought it was somewhat hit-or-miss. All I could do is guesstimate and get close.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rollei IR 400 has the box speed of ISO 400. Use that, I have for years and never had a problem. The filter factor in f/stops for the four "Red" filters are

Red23....2 f/stops​

Red25....3 f/stops​

Red29....4 f/stops​

Red72...5 f/stops​

I found that it is better to use the box speed and then adjust for the filter. That is always accurate and avoids problem is you expand to use other Red filters besides Red72 aka 720. Starting with the adjusted ISO can led to problems when switch filters or when adjusting for shadow details or both. Use box speed and keep it simple.

 

[Jimi3]

Thanks guys. Hmm, so five stops would be at 12. At iso 6 or six stops, my negs were pretty much unusable. At least, unscannable. I haven’t tried darkroom prints. I’m surprised that one stop over the recommended 5 would make such a difference in cloudy conditions.

I just did the 35mm tests today and haven’t had a chance to scan the negatives, but they look decent at 50 (2 stops). I guess it’s hard to judge shadow detail in a little 35mm negative. Maybe 25 (3 stops) is a good compromise.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Sometimes EI 6. Sometimes EI 3. Depends on the image. I don't use Hoya, though. I use Urth 720 (expensive) and/or Zomei 720 (cheap).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks guys. Hmm, so five stops would be at 12. At iso 6 or six stops, my negs were pretty much unusable. At least, unscannable. I haven’t tried darkroom prints. I’m surprised that one stop over the recommended 5 would make such a difference in cloudy conditions.

I just did the 35mm tests today and haven’t had a chance to scan the negatives, but they look decent at 50 (2 stops). I guess it’s hard to judge shadow detail in a little 35mm negative. Maybe 25 (3 stops) is a good compromise.

I tried 6 f/stops initially and the negatives were on the thin side for darkroom printing. I have had no problem with 5 f/stops with the Red72/720 filter over a wide range of subjects and lighting. I have used the R23, R25, and R29 filters and they all work well but I have never shot the film without one of the four filters.

 

[markjwyatt]

I tried 6 f/stops initially and the negatives were on the thin side for darkroom printing. I have had no problem with 5 f/stops with the Red72/720 filter over a wide range of subjects and lighting. I have used the R23, R25, and R29 filters and they all work well but I have never shot the film without one of the four filters.

I found 5 stops works best also. 6 stops and I started losing the highlights too much, when with just scanning. It could depend on what developer you use also (I used HC110).

 

[markjwyatt]

Here are some other useful threads on this topic:

Post your Infrared Photographs here

Post your Infrared photographs here. I have taken them for years but this inspired me to start a thread so people could show off their great work. Hasselblad 501CM, Distagon 4/50 CFi, Rollei IR400, Hoya R72, DD-X, split-toned.

www.photrio.com

Infrared with Rollei ir 400 and Lee 87

Hi everyone, so I have decided to do some experiment with Infrared photography about 2 days ago. I have already purchased the Lee 87 filter along with the Rollei IR 400 film and would like to do some long exposures (sea, trees, sunrise, mountains...) with it, as I like that style of...

www.photrio.com

Choices for IR film?

yesterday I shot 6 rolls, 3 RR80 and 3 RR400. I find a lot of the speed depends on HOW you meter. if you use an in camera meter, you will get different speeds than using a hand held meter. I use an Incident meter. I use ISO 4 for RR80 and 8 for RR200, using a 720 filter, so 5 stops, then develop...

www.photrio.com

Rollei 400 Infrared questions

I haven't shot any infrared film since Konica discontinued their product and decided to give Rollei 400 a try. I need a good starting point in both exposure and in developing. 1. I'll be using a R720 filter, but might take a few shots with deep red also. What is a good starting ISO with the...

www.photrio.com

 

[bags27]

Rollei IR 400 has the box speed of ISO 400. Use that, I have for years and never had a problem. The filter factor in f/stops for the four "Red" filters are

Red23....2 f/stops​

Red25....3 f/stops​

Red29....4 f/stops​

Red72...5 f/stops​

I found that it is better to use the box speed and then adjust for the filter. That is always accurate and avoids problem is you expand to use other Red filters besides Red72 aka 720. Starting with the adjusted ISO can led to problems when switch filters or when adjusting for shadow details or both. Use box speed and keep it simple.

I think the 29 was often Adams's filter for his dramatic Yosemite skies.

 

[Jimi3]

I found 5 stops works best also. 6 stops and I started losing the highlights too much, when with just scanning. It could depend on what developer you use also (I used HC110).

Yeah, 5 or even 6 stops seems to be the consensus. It’s not what I’m seeming to see at all. How are you guys metering? I’ve been using a 5 degree spot attachment, reading off of elements that would seem to be of medium reflectance like rocks or grass when overcast.

 

[Jimi3]

Here are some other useful threads on this topic:

Post your Infrared Photographs here

Post your Infrared photographs here. I have taken them for years but this inspired me to start a thread so people could show off their great work. Hasselblad 501CM, Distagon 4/50 CFi, Rollei IR400, Hoya R72, DD-X, split-toned.

www.photrio.com

Infrared with Rollei ir 400 and Lee 87

Hi everyone, so I have decided to do some experiment with Infrared photography about 2 days ago. I have already purchased the Lee 87 filter along with the Rollei IR 400 film and would like to do some long exposures (sea, trees, sunrise, mountains...) with it, as I like that style of...

www.photrio.com

Choices for IR film?

yesterday I shot 6 rolls, 3 RR80 and 3 RR400. I find a lot of the speed depends on HOW you meter. if you use an in camera meter, you will get different speeds than using a hand held meter. I use an Incident meter. I use ISO 4 for RR80 and 8 for RR200, using a 720 filter, so 5 stops, then develop...

www.photrio.com

Rollei 400 Infrared questions

I haven't shot any infrared film since Konica discontinued their product and decided to give Rollei 400 a try. I need a good starting point in both exposure and in developing. 1. I'll be using a R720 filter, but might take a few shots with deep red also. What is a good starting ISO with the...

www.photrio.com

Thanks, I’ll check those out.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

That sounded in line with what I used to do with Maco IR film many years ago, so I tried it, but my Rollei shots came out WAY overexposed

In my experience, having shot it in 135 cassettes and bulk, and with Hoya 715nm and Digital King 720nm filters: Sunny day requires additional 2-3 stops from from normal metering, but overcast/shadows require 3-4 stops. Premises with natural light 5+ stops.

How are you guys metering?

Take normal reading of the scene > attach IR filter > compensate and bracket to get a feel for this.

But I shot this yesterday with Rollei 400 and a Hoya 72, and rated it around 4 stops

4 stops in shade/overcast will give you results like these indeed.

Rollei IR 400 has the box speed of ISO 400

Knowing that this film is re-confectioned Aviphot 200 (as well as Superpan 200, Retro400S), the actual sensitivity for pictorial use is about 125 and I can confirm that shots I did @400 (all up to this point) can express some lack of exposure. So the next time around I'll meter it at the source film ISO and see how it went.

Current samples of metering @400 and application of the stated compensation logic are here: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=108634366@N07&tags=Infrared400

 

[bags27]

Take normal reading of the scene > attach IR filter > compensate and bracket to get a feel for this.

I agree. Bracketing is the only way I get reliable results. That's fine for me, as the film is pretty cheap, so if I bracket with a MF camera, I'll get maybe 3 well-exposed shots/roll, which is okay, especially if the subject is interesting rendered in IR. For large format, as our OP is using, however....

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Medium too could benefit from training on 135 in this case, considering that it all comes from that huge Aviphot 200 master roll.

With numbers and scene lighting situations I provided, I only have to bracket a shot twice if at all: 1) at the guestimated compensation for the scene and 2) a stop longer to have a choice.

The first call (+2 in sun, +4 in shade) usually gives me the best exposures.

 

[MattKing]

1) Your meter doesn't read the same light as the film "sees" - the near IR light in question;
2) The amount of that near IR light present has a relationship to the amount of visible light (which is read by your meter) that is present, but the relationship varies with a number of factors;
3) the results that we tend to look for from these films - the Wood effect - also vary with the nature of the subjects in the scene. Things like the makeup of foliage affect this, as does the time of year;
As a result, any meter reading you use will need to be accompanied by adjustments based on experience and/or luck. Bracketing makes more sense with these films than just about anything else.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yeah, 5 or even 6 stops seems to be the consensus. It’s not what I’m seeming to see at all. How are you guys metering? I’ve been using a 5 degree spot attachment, reading off of elements that would seem to be of medium reflectance like rocks or grass when overcast.

This is an interesting topic. Can we see your negs, Jimi3?. That way it is easier to see if at EI50 you are getting the kind of negs that those using 12 are getting It might also tell us what if any problems we might expect making a darkroom print from those negs exposed at 50

Alternatively if you do intend to make darkroom prints then show us the prints for comparison

What cannot be argued with is that per se EI 50 opens up a whole new vista for those wanting to shoot IR handheld

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I found 5 stops works best also. 6 stops and I started losing the highlights too much, when with just scanning. It could depend on what developer you use also (I used HC110).

XTOL, both stock and replenised.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, 5 or even 6 stops seems to be the consensus. It’s not what I’m seeming to see at all. How are you guys metering? I’ve been using a 5 degree spot attachment, reading off of elements that would seem to be of medium reflectance like rocks or grass when overcast.

The camera light meter. A spot meter will not tell you what the majority of the the light is, only one area and that may not be consistent with the general lighting.

 

[Sirius Glass]

1) Your meter doesn't read the same light as the film "sees" - the near IR light in question;
2) The amount of that near IR light present has a relationship to the amount of visible light (which is read by your meter) that is present, but the relationship varies with a number of factors;
3) the results that we tend to look for from these films - the Wood effect - also vary with the nature of the subjects in the scene. Things like the makeup of foliage affect this, as does the time of year;
As a result, any meter reading you use will need to be accompanied by adjustments based on experience and/or luck. Bracketing makes more sense with these films than just about anything else.

I disagree with your conclusions. While your meter doesn't read the same light as the film "sees" - the near IR light in question and the overall illumination is roughly proportional to the infrared light. That is close enough to get the Wood effect. Bracketing especially for those few remaining rolls of HIE is just terribly wasteful.

"Take normal reading of the scene > attach IR filter > compensate for the filter."

 

[markjwyatt]

I disagree with your conclusions. While your meter doesn't read the same light as the film "sees" - the near IR light in question and the overall illumination is roughly proportional to the infrared light. That is close enough to get the Wood effect. Bracketing especially for those few remaining rolls of HIE is just terribly wasteful.

"Take normal reading of the scene > attach IR filter > compensate for the filter."

What you say is probably largely true in direct sunlight, mid-day especially, with open skies. Once you have cloudiness or are in shade, unfortunately, what @MattKing is saying is probably more correct.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What you say is probably largely true in direct sunlight, mid-day especially, with open skies. Once you have cloudiness or are in shade, unfortunately, what @MattKing is saying is probably more correct.

I do not bother using IR film on cloudy day and in the shade. Cloudy days still have lots of UV light, one can get a bad sunburn, and the shade would not have the objects, such as leaves, heated thus not worth wasting the IR capability of the film. There are other films that are better for cloudy skies and shade.

 

[markjwyatt]

I do not bother using IR film on cloudy day and in the shade. Cloudy days still have lots of UV light, one can get a bad sunburn, and the shade would not have the objects, such as leaves, heated thus not worth wasting the IR capability of the film. There are other films that are better for cloudy skies and shade.

I do the same, but occasionally end up with significant open shade, or in full shade. These examples are Kodak High Speed Infrared (which is much more effective than Rollei IR400), but show there is still effect possible in open shade and even in full shade.


backyard by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


flower by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


Full shaded

infraBeer by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

This is Rollei IR400, and you can see some response in the open shade portions.


Potted Plant by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[Ivo Stunga]

IR in shade works fine, even in rooms - not as strong, of course, but give sufficient exposure and be done with it.
IR light sits on a continuous scale of electromagnetic radiation - aka - if there's visible natural light, there's natural IR light available too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do the same, but occasionally end up with significant open shade, or in full shade. These examples are Kodak High Speed Infrared (which is much more effective than Rollei IR400), but show there is still effect possible in open shade and even in full shade.


backyard by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


flower by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


Full shaded

infraBeer by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

This is Rollei IR400, and you can see some response in the open shade portions.


Potted Plant by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

HIE is a different animal than Rollei IR 400. Rollei IR 400 is the best available today.

 

[markjwyatt]

IR in shade works fine, even in rooms - not as strong, of course, but give sufficient exposure and be done with it.
IR light sits on a continuous scale of electromagnetic radiation - aka - if there's visible natural light, there's natural IR light available too.

The trickiest part of working with NIR, is predicting the effects of reflected light. If there is a lot of vegetation around, there is potentially a lot of reflected NIR, and you really cannot see that effect with your eyes. It is also what gives you the sometimes surprising and unexpected results, which is part of the fun of shooting IR film.