Rollei IR400S - it's not HIE, but WOW...

ME Super

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
1,479
Location
Central Illinois, USA
Format
Multi Format
Got my second roll of Rollei IR400S back from the lab this week. I've been shooting it with one of the inexpensive Chinese filters. The first roll I shot with EIs ranging from 3-12. I wasn't happy with the detail I'd received from the scans or prints, so this roll I shot at EI 25. It doesn't have the halation effect I've seen in photos made with HIE, but I'm pretty happy with the results.

It also does pretty decent as a panchromatic B&W film, though for that I think I'll stick with Ilford's B&W line. The first two photos are shot at EI 25 with the aforementioned IR filter, the others are shot at EI 400 with no filter.
 

Attachments

  • AAA009.JPG
    83.6 KB · Views: 717
  • AAA018.JPG
    63.9 KB · Views: 696
  • AAA019.JPG
    94.3 KB · Views: 684
  • AAA030.JPG
    87.6 KB · Views: 673

Hatchetman

Member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
1,553
Location
Chicago, IL
Format
Multi Format
Looks pretty good. I've been meaning to shoot some of this. At one time I thought they recommended their own special developer, which I didn't want to bother with. Looks like you can you D-76 or whatever...
 
OP
OP

ME Super

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
1,479
Location
Central Illinois, USA
Format
Multi Format
I don't think this film is "picky" about what developer is used on it. Probably most any B&W developer can be used, and of course the developer will impose its own characteristics on the film, but you should be able to get something useful out of it.

Cool thing is shooting this at f/8 with an EI of 25 you can easily handhold this, though you're not gonna see anything through the viewfinder with an SLR and IR filter. It would probably work awesomely with a rangefinder or TLR.
 
OP
OP

ME Super

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
1,479
Location
Central Illinois, USA
Format
Multi Format
I realize I'm resurrecting an old thread here, but I did an experiment with the Rollei IR400s and thought I would share the results. All of these were taken within a few minutes of each other at the same location, with a tripod. This was a sunny day with clear skies and a couple wispy clouds. All are lab scans of the negatives, which were also processed by the same lab.

#1: Shot at EI 400 with TTL metering, no filter.
#2: Shot at EI 400 with TTL metering, #25 red filter.
#3: Shot at EI 400 with TTL metering, #25 red filter + 80A blue filter (just an experiment)
#4: Shot at EI 25 with an IR 720 filter
#5: Shot at EI 12 with an IR 720 filter
#6: Shot at EI 6 with an IR 720 filter.



My thoughts: I was not expecting the foliage to be as much lighter as it was in #2 There definitely is some wood effect going on here.. I did #3 totally out of curiosity. I figured the blue light was probably mostly blocked by the red filter, but there seems to be some difference between #2 and #3. #4 is where I normally shoot this film with an IR720 filter, for the darker skies. I don't see much difference in shadow detail between 4, 5, and 6, what I do see is that the sky gets lighter with more exposure. I don't see as much wood effect in #3 as there are in 4, 5, and 6, and the sky is definitely darker in 6 than in 3, but I find it interesting that there's that much wood effect and darkening of the sky in #3.
 

scheimfluger_77

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
839
Location
mid-Missouri
Format
Pinhole
That's pretty cool! I think you could pull back on developing time on #4 and still retain plenty of wood effect while darkening your sky a little more. And you do definitely have good shadow detail. Did you do much with the curves when scanning?
 
OP
OP

ME Super

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
1,479
Location
Central Illinois, USA
Format
Multi Format
No, it was the lab's normal process with whatever chemistry they use, and their regular scanner. I assume it did some autocorrect but that was about it. I'm not set up to develop film at home, and this lab does a good job, so as long as they continue to do a good job and the prices stay reasonable, I see no reason at this point to stop using them.
 

Old-N-Feeble

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
Hatchetman said:
There's nothing green there anyway.
Click to expand...

Oh, I dunno. I'm green with envy of those with cooler weather.

ME SUPER: Is the grain in those examples typical of this film?
 
OP
OP

ME Super

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
1,479
Location
Central Illinois, USA
Format
Multi Format
I put the negatives on my tablet (which I'm using to type this), which has a light box app installed on it, and viewed them through a 50mm f/2.0 lens backwards, essentially using it as a loupe. Grain was visible this way that want visible in the lab scans. It wasn't horrible grain. it has a pleasing pattern to it. Finer than HP5+ but not as fine as Provia 100F (that stuff's practically grain less!) I can't compare it to slower B&W films since I haven't shot any of those in a long time. You'll end up with finer grain in prints if you're shooting medium or large format, of course, due to the larger negative. These were shot on 35mm film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Paul Manuell

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
445
Location
United Kingdom
Format
Medium Format
Sorry for bumping a reeeally old thread, but this is of huge interest to me as I've just bought a couple of IR720 filters, and your pictures give the best example of differences at different exposure compensations. To me, number 4 is the best result.

One thing puzzles me though; assuming these were all taken on the same roll of film, did you literally change the camera's El (iso/asa) settings between shots?
 
Last edited:

Theo Sulphate

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
6,489
Location
Gig Harbor
Format
Multi Format
ME Super said:
I realize I'm resurrecting an old thread here, but I did an experiment with the Rollei IR400s and thought I would share the results. All of these were taken within a few minutes of each other at the same location, with a tripod. ...
Click to expand...

Wow. Thank you! This is very valuable to me and the type of experiment I've been looking for.

Paul, thanks for reactivating this thread!
 
OP
OP

ME Super

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
1,479
Location
Central Illinois, USA
Format
Multi Format

Hey no problem, I'm glad to help out. I like #4 the best too. Here's the answer to what puzzles you. The camera I used has a built-in meter which I left set at ISO 400. The first three shots I did with the camera's built-in TTL meter, metering through the red and the red+blue filter in aperture priority mode (it's likely I was shooting a 28mm lens at f/8 and focused at 10 feet, putting everything from 5 feet to infinity in focus). Shots 4, 5, and 6 I did a bit differently. Again, I left the camera set at f/8 and 10 feet, but put the camera in manual mode. I adjusted the shutter speed so that the camera's meter said it was correctly exposed at ISO 400. Then for shot #4 I slowed the shutter speed 4 stops to get to ISO 25, screwed the IR720 filter on, and took the shot. Add one more stop of exposure each for shots 5 and 6 to get to ISO 12 and 6, respectively, with the filter left on the lens.

Cheers, hope this helps you in your IR photography!
 

Paul Manuell

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
445
Location
United Kingdom
Format
Medium Format
Ah, so it was actually the shutter speed you altered, not the ISO itself, ie., you adjusted the shutter speed by the amount of stops necessary to get the equivalent shutter speed you'd have got if the camera was loaded with film of that ISO. I get it now
 

Paul Manuell

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
445
Location
United Kingdom
Format
Medium Format
Just to bump this thread because the comparison photos in a post by ME Super further up proved to be extremely useful for me when shooting my first ever roll of SFX200 recently (and have since shot a second roll too). If interested, I started my own thread about my working practice with it and posted some photos: 'My first attempt with SFX200'
 
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…