Rollei IR400 Development issues.

[jrhii]

I have been trying out rollei IR400 4x5 film, but have not had success with my Negatives, which all come out very dense. One issue I have is finding conflicting information about development times. I have been using D76 stock. The box gives a time of 12 min, the online datasheet gives 10:30, and massive dev gives me 6 min.
My first try I shot at ISO 6 with a 720nm filter and went by what the box said, 12 minutes. They came out very dense, though I was able to pull an image from them with a scanner. After that, I decided I need to do some test shots. I took 6 pictures with 3 sheets using a half dark slide. Half of each sheet is with an IR filter, the other half without. ISOs were 100, 200, and 400 with no filter, and 6, 12, and 25 with. I cut the sheets into strips and tray developed them at difference times, with the most detail coming out around 6min. Even so, I am still getting very dense negatives, even when there appears to be almost no shadow detail. They do not appear to be fogged, however, as the edges of the sheets that were no exposed are clear. They are drying at the moment, so I haven't scanned them, but I expect a very left leaning and narrow histogram band when I do.
Anybody have any thoughts or recommendations?

 

[jrhii]

Immediate update:
It has occurred to me that it might be that the bellows of my chamonix is not IR safe, and cursory googling says this might be the case. That would explain the fogged look. Disappointing.

 

[otto.f]

I cannot get the sheet version of this film here so thus far I could only experiment with the 120 version. I prefer FX39ii for most of my films, this was not given on Massive Dev Chart so I extrapolated the time from 4 other well known developers and came out at 13’. Which was perfect at once. I have normal negatives. I used the 2x snapon red filter from Adox which gives a mild IR effect which I like very much. I did not try heavier filters thus far. I take it you know that without filters this film behaves pretty much like Tri-X? See Rollei site. So the negatives should be normal at 400 ASA. This film is already a long time out of stock in 4x5”, you don’t have an expired pack? And if so, I would be surprised if that’s the cause anyway.

Wood

Lot Wouda

lotwouda.zenfolio.com

 

[jrhii]

yes, I know it will be a fairly regular pan film without a filter, but have still seen very dense (but also low detail) negatives with them.

I only got the film last month and it lists its expiration as 8/23, so it should be good.

There is no base fog on the edges where it was held in by the film holder, so I’m leaning heavily towards fog through the bellows. Will do some tests when I have time. I’m reading making a cover from Mylar blanket time fabric might work

 

[otto.f]

towards fog through the bellows

might give low detail too. Mostly overexposure gives less sharp images

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

You may need to adjust the focus slightly for IR. Usually the adjustment is rather trivial, though. Look at a 35mm camera lens for the red dot to get some idea of typical corrections. The amount differs with different lenses, with APO lens little to no correction will be needed, with a single-element meniscus 'landscape' lens quite a bit of correction may be required (but now the lens will produce half-way sharp results as it will become a functional APO what with the very narrow band of spectral response between the filter and the film's cut-off wavelengths).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would be more concerned with the bellows if I were using Kodak HIE... You could try wrapping the bellows in your dark cloth. Make an exposure with the dark cloth wrapped around the bellows, and one without. Compare. That'll give you a good idea if the bellows is the issue.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...and a focus adjustment is NOT necessary with this film (which has nothing to do with your issue. That was something we did with HIE, when using opaque filters, like the 87C...

 

[jrhii]

I don't think I've had sharpness issues on the result. I'm stopped down to f/22 +/-2/3, and I understand at that point, the focus shift should be negligible. None of the lenses I use are of a single element design, for that matter. 2 are tessar types, and one is a triplet. I think my next experiment will be 3, maybe 4 photos:
- An image taken normally, with no covering over the bellows.
- An image taken with dark cloth wrapped around the bellows. My darkcloth has a a silvery coating, and hopefully that will block IR light.
- An 'image' wherein I merely remove the darkslide from from the film holder while it is mounted to the camera for 30 seconds or so. It should fog if this hypothesis is correct.
- Possibly an 'image' with a blank sheet of film, taken with me in a film holder, but never removing the darkslide (it may seem extraneous, but I'll be keeping variable change to a minimum)
If the bellows is the issue, photos 1 and 3 should be fogged. If the darkcloth solution solves it, photo 3 shouldn't be.
I will also to a quick and dirty experiment using a cell phone camera inside the bellows and shining an IR light at it. Most cell phone cameras can see IR to some extent. Point a remote at one and see for yourself. This isn't a fool proof test, but if I see IR light through the bellows with the cell phone camera, it confirms an issue. I wouldn't, however, be sure that a negative result proves it doesn't transmit IR.
Photos: The 2nd one is all I could get out of it. The negative was almost black.

 

[jrhii]

...and a focus adjustment is NOT necessary with this film (which has nothing to do with your issue. That was something we did with HIE, when using opaque filters, like the 87C...

That's what I thought, and have experienced. I wrote my replay before seeing this. I do have some darker filters and a few boxed rolls of HIE in 35mm in the freezer I picked up. Waiting for spring to try them, though they are 30 years old and come from unknown storage. I also have some Ektachrome IR film from the same purchase of darkroom equipment that I really don't hold out any hope for being good. I am tempted to try it, but the smart thing would be to sell it on ebay (with clear statements about its unknown origin and likely poor results) and let it pay for the cost of the rest of the haul.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's what I thought, and have experienced. I wrote my replay before seeing this. I do have some darker filters and a few boxed rolls of HIE in 35mm in the freezer I picked up. Waiting for spring to try them, though they are 30 years old and come from unknown storage. I also have some Ektachrome IR film from the same purchase of darkroom equipment that I really don't hold out any hope for being good. I am tempted to try it, but the smart thing would be to sell it on ebay (with clear statements about its unknown origin and likely poor results) and let it pay for the cost of the rest of the haul.

I'll bet the HIE will be okay. I've been slowly working through a box of 4x5 expired in 1967. It has higher than normal base fog, but still produces excellent images.
The first example above... is it one of yours?
Also, are you loading/unloading holders in a completely darkened environment?

 

[jrhii]

1st image is also mine. It's also too dense, but was at least a 'usable' image. Printing with it would be an absolute pain, though. I load and unload in my darkroom, which is light tight. Fpp Frankeinstein with the same subjects were loaded, shot, unloaded, and developed in the same sessions all came out fine. I'll go grab a shot of the raw IR400 negatives real quick, and see if the issues are clear enough.

 

[jrhii]

The top image is Frankenstein 200, and about when typica density looks like, despite my ipads exposure making it look thin. The bottom two are IR film. Notice the blow out on the edges of the frame, too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use Rollei IR 400 in 120 rolls. I shoot it at ISO 400 and adjust for the filter factors thusly:

• R23 open 2 f/stops
• R25 open 3 f/stops
• R29 open 4 f/stops
• 720 open 5 f/stops

That works much better for me than screwing around figuring out the new ISO for each filter. This is the G-d meant it to be.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm glad that works for you, but my shadows would be thin if I worked that way, Sirius Glass. I metre at EI 200, then compensate for the 720.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm glad that works for you, but my shadows would be thin if I worked that way, Sirius Glass. I metre at EI 200, then compensate for the 720.

Not necessarily. If I think more shadow detail is useful I will make a Zone System adjustment. I am not a fan of showing every bit of shadow detail that is technically possible.

My initial post was how I use the filter factor for each of the different filters. The rest is up to the user.

 

[MattKing]

Not necessarily. If I think more shadow detail is useful I will make a Zone System adjustment. I am not a fan of showing every bit of shadow detail that is technically possible.

My initial post was how I use the filter factor for each of the different filters. The rest is up to the user.

How much shadow detail are you expecting when you are filtering out most of the visible spectrum?
A 720 nm filter won't leave much in the shadows.

Forest 2 - more from my 1st IR

• MattKing
• Jun 22, 2008
• 4

Here is another experiment from my first attempts at IR photography. This one was metered at EI...

(from the version of the film available 15 years ago)

 

[Sirius Glass]

How much shadow detail are you expecting when you are filtering out most of the visible spectrum?
A 720 nm filter won't leave much in the shadows.

Forest 2 - more from my 1st IR

• MattKing
• Jun 22, 2008
• 4

Here is another experiment from my first attempts at IR photography. This one was metered at EI...

(from the version of the film available 15 years ago)

I agree. That is why I did not getting to that in post #14.