Rollei IR 400 in Rodinal ?

Gabino

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Waterloo, On
Format
Medium Format
PKM-25: i can't stop admiring your picture. I see that IR really agrees with rocks too - not only foliage and skies. What filter did you use for this shot ?

regards,
Gabriel
 

bobbotron

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
48
Format
35mm
I developed a roll of 35mm IR tonight in Rodinal, 1+50 for 12 minutes, pre soaked for a few minutes. The negatives came out weak, but this was on a new to me camera, I'm guessing I either messed up the temperature a bit or the camera is off. I have a roll in 120 to develop, I'm expecting better results for it!
 

mrred

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
1,251
Location
Montreal, Ca
Format
Multi Format
Whenever I shoot a roll of IR, I shoot at least one normally exposed not-filtered frame. That answers any questions of development.
 

mooseontheloose

Moderator
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
4,110
Location
Kyoto, Japan
Format
Multi Format

Which film, which filter, at what effective ISO? Do the negs look underexposed or underdeveloped? Did you bracket at all? There are so many variables here the more information we have the better to help you with.
 

bobbotron

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
48
Format
35mm
Hi Mooseontheloose. Rollei IR dev'd at 400, I shot some without a filter, they ok, if anything a touch weak. I'm using an R72 filter. To be honest, this was a test roll, most shot on a gray day, I think it's either the new camera to blame, bad metering or my development was a bit off. I'm not too worried, I'll keep experimenting. I thought I'd post my experiences here, I have a roll of 120 to develop as well, I think it will turn out better as I'd been shooting in better conditions for it.
 

bobbotron

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
48
Format
35mm
So, second roll developed, again with an R72 filter.  Still a little weak, I think I'll try to push things up by one stop for the next roll.
 

bobbotron

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
48
Format
35mm
Here are some 645 photos from the 120 roll. I think most of my exposure problems are due to faulty metering guesses on my part.







 

georg16nik

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
1,101
Format
Multi Format
bobbotron said:
Here are some 645 photos from the 120 roll. I think most of my exposure problems are due to faulty metering guesses on my part...
Click to expand...

You don't meter for IR film, since You can't.
The Rollei IR 400 is not ISO 400 film, not even by a long shot.
I would barely give him ISO 200. So, you rate it at ISO 10 or 5.
Your scans shows underexposure by at least 1 stop and it's also likely there wasn't much IR present where you shot it - e.g. low altitude, especially the downtown shots.
Also, R72 is a bit too strong for such weak IR film like Rollei IR 400 (Rollei Retro 80S is actually better suited), meaning that you need real high altitude and/or lots of IR to cut through to the film and have a decent exposure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bobbotron

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
48
Format
35mm
I think we're cross talking, sorry. I figure out the exposure of the scene using an external meter - I think I did this poorly for some shots. I didn't mention what ISO I metering for, to be honest my records are terrible but it was either 25 or 12. I've had good luck with R72 plus rollei IR in the past, you're correct, best results are always on really bright days.

Anyway, happy shooting.
 

DWThomas

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
4,605
Location
SE Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
georg16nik said:
You don't meter for IR film, since You can't.
[ ... ]
Click to expand...
I'm not at all sure I can accept that statement. Yes, there are issues of spectral response of the meter, etc., but an incident reading establishes a reference point from which you can derive an exposure. I will certainly suggest "bracketing is your friend." The IR relative to visible spectrum no doubt varies with time of day, season of year, and cloud cover, but a measurement is still a point to start from.

georg16nik said:
[ ... ]Also, R72 is a bit too strong for such weak IR film like Rollei IR 400 (Rollei Retro 80S is actually better suited), meaning that you need real high altitude and/or lots of IR to cut through to the film and have a decent exposure.
Click to expand...
My own experience is that you can even use IR400 with a 760nm cutoff filter, it just takes somewhere on the order of 12 to 13 stops additional exposure over the ISO 400 incident reading, and is relatively lacking in reliability because it is working way down on the cutoff slope. A 720nm filter definitely results in shorter exposures. (Some examples here with both filters.) Scenes like the street scenes above just don't have the IR dynamics to provide the dramatic results we tend to associate with IR -- blue skies going near-black, Wood effect making cotton candy out of tree foliage, etc. I have even seen some Wood effect with Ilford SFX200 which is often described as "extended red"; that result was with an ancient Wratten 89B in my possession that, depending on where I look it up, has a cutoff around 695nm. (I have had some problems doing A/B filter comparisons because my motley assortment of filters are all different sizes.)

So I'm trying to suggest there is no substitute for some careful testing by the individual user with his own equipment, bracketing --- and taking good notes to use in evaluating the results; but we should not just write stuff off without a bit of personal investigation.
 

Truzi

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,651
Format
Multi Format
Here are some more examples with Rollei Retro 400s and an R72:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I'm not sure how well it will transfer to Rollei IR 400. I've read they are practically the same, but I don’t' believe all I read.
 

bobbotron

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
48
Format
35mm
DWThomas said:
That's correct. You got some nice results in that gallery you linked.
Click to expand...

Thanks DWThomas! I need to get out on bright days more often with this stuff. I'm looking forward to taking more IR ice sculpture photos this winter.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,914
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I think georg16nik is correct - you cannot meter for the near IR that the films are sensitive to.

What you can do is:

1) meter for the visible light; and
2) use knowledge and experience gained about when and under what situations there is a usable correlation between the amount of near IR present and the amount of measurable visible light present.

As an example, experience tells you that there is usually more near IR present near mid-day than at the end of the day, even when the meter readings at noon are the same as at the end of the day.
 

bobbotron

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
48
Format
35mm

I'm not totally sure this is accurate. On the weekend, I TTL metered with a rangefinder, with an R72 filter on... it gave me back correctly exposed images using the metered value... What was I metering, if not IR light?
 

OptiKen

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
1,055
Location
Orange County
Format
Medium Format
bobbotron said:
I'm not totally sure this is accurate. On the weekend, I TTL metered with a rangefinder, with an R72 filter on... it gave me back correctly exposed images using the metered value... What was I metering, if not IR light?
Click to expand...

Same here. That's why I try to use an SLR with TTL metering. Otherwise, I take the filter off my lens and put it over my meter to get a reading. Either way, the exposures appear to be what I am looking for
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,914
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
bobbotron said:
I'm not totally sure this is accurate. On the weekend, I TTL metered with a rangefinder, with an R72 filter on... it gave me back correctly exposed images using the metered value... What was I metering, if not IR light?
Click to expand...

An R72 lets through a moderate amount of visible light. It is mostly that visible light that you are measuring.

Most meters don't read reliably into the true IR part of the spectrum.

And the films that are readily available aren't very responsive past the near IR part of the spectrum.

You are actually depending on the somewhat variable correlation between the amount of visible light available and the accompanying near IR and IR light present - the correlation that varies between circumstances.

Thus the role of experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…