Rollei IR400 infrared - any top tips?

[xtolsniffer]

Hi all,
I've been getting to know Rollei IR400 and was wondering if anyone has any top tips for this film? I shot my first 35mm roll yesterday in strong autumn sunlight with a Cokin 007 (89b) filter. I metered at ISO 400 and took an unfiltered shot as a reference, then bracketed by rating it as ISO 12.5, 6, 3 and 1.5 with the filter on. Looking back I should have taken one at a rating of ISO 25 as well, but my experience of Kodak HIE and Efke820 is that in Yorkshire at least, the sun is never strong enough so always err on the side of over exposure.

I'm looking to develop it in Rodinal 1+25 for 7.5 minutes or XTOL 1+1 for 7.5 minutes. I'll let you know how I get on.

If I like it I might get some 120 rolls for my RB67, though with only ten shots per roll I'd hope not to have to bracket quite so much. I liked Efke820 but had terrible trouble with marks and blemishes on the emulsion for some reason, and I'm assuming that Efke820 has now gone.

Dean

 

[paul_c5x4]

I'm assuming that Efke820 has now gone.

Can't really comment on the Rollei film as I've only ever used IR400 in sheet form - Nasty stuff to process as the film is just to darned thin <grumble>. Just received a film order that I placed a couple of weeks ago for some Efke IR820. Got the boxes of 5x4, but no 120 rolls, just a note to say "no longer available". If you are lucky, you might find some old stock sitting on the shelf somewhere, but don't count on it.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Well, it's just come out of the soup and it looks like an unfiltered ISO 400 might be a bit optimistic, pretty underexposed. The filtered shots look ok though. I'll have to wait for it to dry before posting some examples.

 

[Alex Muir]

I have had good results with the Rollei film in 35mm and 120. I also use the Cokin 007 and a Hoya R72 which I think is similar. I use a Capital spot meter and look for a mid-tone like sunlit grass. I take 2 shots at 6 and 3 ASA. Both are usually printable. Earlier films suggested a higher ASA, but I think that was down to poor metering. I did get good unfiltered shots at 400 with Nikon F3 and built-in meter, but it does tend to suggest higher film speeds compared to other meters. I wish you luck with your printing. I have just ordered some more of the Rollei film.

 

[DWThomas]

I have had decent results with it using either an 89B or a 720 nm cutoff (R72, etc.) filter and incident metering for ISO 3 and bracketing +/- one stop. I have also used it with a 760 nm filter, but that required another 6 stops of exposure, the film obviously doesn't go very far into the IR region.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Here's the quick and dirty results, in order they are: ISO 400 unfiltered, then with an 89b rated at 12.5, 6, 3 and finally 1.5. They were all taken with Nikon FM, with 55mm micro Nikkor at a smidge under f16, exposures were sunny f16 for the unfiltered (the meter agreed with sunny f16), so at 1/500 for unfiltered then 1/15, 1/8, 1/4 and 1/2 with the filter on. My conclusions are that I underexposed for the unfiltered shot, but that the white foliage doesn't kick in till ISO 3 ish. The ISO 12 shot is pleasing but is not the wild infra-red effect that I used to get with Efke. The important thing is of course how they print up in the darkroom. The base is pretty thin, but they are nice clean negatives. In another set, the stone of the church which is in full sunlight was way overexposed at ISO 6.

 

[xtolsniffer]

And another set, the sequence and exposures are as the last thread, unfiltered first at ISO 400, then rated at 12.5, 6. 3 and finally 1.5 with an 89b filter. Nikon FM with Tamron 90mm at f16, shutter speed varied.

 

[DWThomas]

I have yet to do an A/B comparison because my own various filters are all different sizes (Series 7 89B, 67 mm 760 and 77 mm 720). I suspect a 720 nm filter would do better on IR effects than an 89B, which I think is around 695 nm. But I'm not sure the slight difference would justify the non-trivial cost of getting any filter you don't have. Some day I will try a test with creative use of tape or blue tack!

Looking at them here, if you adjusted the above scans to the same value in the sky I wonder if there would be much difference in the white trees, I am not sure that relative exposure should have much effect on that. Exposure would effect shadow detail and/or highlight blow-out, but I would expect the IR effects to be the same on a relative basis. Of course I suppose IR illuminated foliage is potentially the highest brightness value in some cases.

With the classic IR films of yore, a significant percentage of the exposure was coming from outside the visible spectrum, regardless of subtle differences in filter cutoff, but films like the IR400 miss a great deal of the longer wave spectrum. The EFKE 820IR stuff was potentially better in that regard, but is apparently going away.

The stuff is definitely fun to play with.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Nice images Dave, and you're right about adjusting the sky to the same values. You seem to have gotten a much better white foliage effect than me. I think rating it at 12.5 with a bracket of +1 stop should do most of the time for me which is worth knowing as I'm going to start playign with it in my RB67, and with only ten shots per roll I want to save on the over-bracketing! It's a very different feel to the EFKE 820IR, the rollei seems to be more 'augmented reality' rather than 'dreamlike' but I rather like that. Full blown mad IR shots can be great fun but need to be used sparingly in my opinion. The thin base might make an entertaining time of loading a 120 spiral.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Here's the quick and dirty results, in order they are: ISO 400 unfiltered, then with an 89b rated at 12.5, 6, 3 and finally 1.5. They were all taken with Nikon FM, with 55mm micro Nikkor at a smidge under f16, exposures were sunny f16 for the unfiltered (the meter agreed with sunny f16), so at 1/500 for unfiltered then 1/15, 1/8, 1/4 and 1/2 with the filter on. My conclusions are that I underexposed for the unfiltered shot, but that the white foliage doesn't kick in till ISO 3 ish. The ISO 12 shot is pleasing but is not the wild infra-red effect that I used to get with Efke. The important thing is of course how they print up in the darkroom. The base is pretty thin, but they are nice clean negatives. In another set, the stone of the church which is in full sunlight was way overexposed at ISO 6.

Your last two have lots of shadow detail. I bet if you backed off on processing time a little bit you could tame those highlights. What developer did you use? I've used Adonol/Rodinol 1+50 and been getting marginal results, but I haven't tried any serious dev. time tests yet though.

Steve

 

[scheimfluger_77]

And another set, the sequence and exposures are as the last thread, unfiltered first at ISO 400, then rated at 12.5, 6. 3 and finally 1.5 with an 89b filter. Nikon FM with Tamron 90mm at f16, shutter speed varied.

This isn't bad. Your first IR almost has adequate shadow detail. Same question on developer, which one?

Steve

 

[xtolsniffer]

It was Rodinal 1+25, 7 minutes 30 seconds, three inverts every 30 seconds

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I have yet to do an A/B comparison because my own various filters are all different sizes (Series 7 89B, 67 mm 760 and 77 mm 720). I suspect a 720 nm filter would do better on IR effects than an 89B, which I think is around 695 nm. But I'm not sure the slight difference would justify the non-trivial cost of getting any filter you don't have. Some day I will try a test with creative use of tape or blue tack! ...

About a year ago I purchased a cheap set of 4 IR filters on ebay for $40 (720/760/850/950). They seem to do the job. I'm not seeing that set now but there are a bunch of singles, and several in a three-group with a mix of various cutoff limits for that same price roughly. Might be worth experimenting with.

Steve

 

[xtolsniffer]

Update: I've now had a chance to run some test strips and a few prints from my first roll of IR400. I've never been that happy with negative scans to evaluate exposure. Personally I find it much better to run test strips on the paper I'll be using. For the unfiltered shots, they're pretty thin on the negative. Printable, but I think rating it at ISO 200 might have been a better move with my development in Rodinal. The optimal rating for the 89B filtered shots is around ISO 6. I think I'll rate it as that in future and give a +1 bracket as well.