Having shot 2 rolls of SFX200 last summer with very good results, I'm wondering if anybody has used both that AND the Rollei 400 and would like to relate their experiences and preferences of both, as I'd like to try the Rollei this summer.
Rollei IR400S v Ilford SFX200
-
A
- Thread starter Paul Manuell
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: KW Praktina FX w/ 50mm f2.8 Zeiss Tessar. Repair, Display or Parts
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Awesome Agfa Ambi Silette 3 Lens Outfit
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
For Sale For Sale or Trade! Schneider 65mm f/8 Super Angulon
- Started by pdccamerqs
Forum statistics
I've used both and they are similar films in many ways, but for me, the Rollei IR has a more pronounced IR effect than the SFX. The differences are relatively minor, though - I find the grain of SFX more conspicuous (coarse) than the Rollei IR. I also find the Rollei film has better contrast than the SFX in general. Use an R72 filter for best results with both.
Rollei IR with the R72 filter = approx. 6ASA
SFX with the R72 filter = approx. 10 ASA
In both cases, it depends on the season and the light conditions.
The Rollei film, 120 format:https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8800/17150443801_efa173953e_h.jpg
SFX: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7799/18161375440_59db24aedf_h.jpg
Both perform very well in Xtol, and far less so in Rodinal.
Rollei IR with the R72 filter = approx. 6ASA
SFX with the R72 filter = approx. 10 ASA
In both cases, it depends on the season and the light conditions.
The Rollei film, 120 format:https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8800/17150443801_efa173953e_h.jpg
SFX: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7799/18161375440_59db24aedf_h.jpg
Both perform very well in Xtol, and far less so in Rodinal.
Thank you. I have five rolls of 120 Rollei and R23, R25, R29 and 720 filters. Now I am waiting Spring and Summer to start using them.
I've only tried a roll or two of SFX, but my results suggest the Rollei 400 extends further into the IR region. Since I shoot either in medium format, I would not consider grain a significant factor either way. Agreeing with what paulbarden describes, I would go with the Rollei film for more pronounced IR effects if that were my goal.
It does indeed. SFX is classed as an "extended red range" film, while the Rollei is a true IR sensitive. Here is a graph illustrating spectral sensitivity for four similar emulsions:
https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/infrared_film_010.php
The 4x5 Rollei IR is spectacular, by the way:
Thank you, very interesting and informative. I should've mentioned I used an R72 filter with the 2 rolls of SFX200 I used, exposed at box speed and 4 stops over the unfiltered meter readings at my chosen fstop.
Interesting that you say they don't perform as well in Rodinal as they do in Xtol; both mine were developed in Rodinal (not by me btw) and I was delighted with the results.
Thank you, looks like another thumbs up for the Rollei.
Hi Paul.
What I meant by that was this: Rodinal tends to send highlight information on these films soaring off into the atmosphere, whereas Xtol restrained the highlights and maintained much better separation of highlight details, which both suited my personal tastes, and made for a much easier negative to work with. If you liked what you got using Rodinal, then by all means continue using it. For me, it was too harsh in its action on my negatives.
Amazing photo, thanks for posting it. Looks like it's going to be the Rollei for me this summer (though I do have a roll of SFX in the fridge from last year to use as well).
Thanks for that. Unfortunately I don't develop my own films so have to go with whatever the person doing it for me uses. I only know it was Rodinal cos someone asked me in another thread on here after I'd posted some of the photos, so I found out for him.
How many f/stops for Rollei IR 400 with:
R23
R25
R29
720
R25
R29
720
I love the Rollei IR400. I think it also makes a good 400 speed B&W film for non IR use as well. I basically just use that and TMX as my two B&W films for 4x5.
I will say this though, be prepared to bracket your shots. IR light is different from visible light, and it's not always in proportion to the visible light you see. So using a visible light meter to meter the light and thinking you can just subtract the filter factor from it will likely disappoint you from time to time. Also, a Rollei IR 400 seems to handle being overexposed better than underexposed when it comes to IR photography. So if you're not sure about the light, I'd error on the side of overexposure.
Also keep in mind that IR light focuses differently than visible light. And it's different for each lens. Many manual focus 35mm lenses have IR markings on them which make them a lot easier to focus. But many autofocus lenses and larger format lenses don't. If you don't have a good way to focus the lens, I'd suggest just stopping down a bunch, which can cause very long exposure times because you're already using such a heavy filter.
But I love IR photography for when you're shooting outdoors in harsh lighting. It's also great for cutting through fog and atmospheric haze, especially on the coast or in the mountains.
I will say this though, be prepared to bracket your shots. IR light is different from visible light, and it's not always in proportion to the visible light you see. So using a visible light meter to meter the light and thinking you can just subtract the filter factor from it will likely disappoint you from time to time. Also, a Rollei IR 400 seems to handle being overexposed better than underexposed when it comes to IR photography. So if you're not sure about the light, I'd error on the side of overexposure.
Also keep in mind that IR light focuses differently than visible light. And it's different for each lens. Many manual focus 35mm lenses have IR markings on them which make them a lot easier to focus. But many autofocus lenses and larger format lenses don't. If you don't have a good way to focus the lens, I'd suggest just stopping down a bunch, which can cause very long exposure times because you're already using such a heavy filter.
But I love IR photography for when you're shooting outdoors in harsh lighting. It's also great for cutting through fog and atmospheric haze, especially on the coast or in the mountains.
I don't know if the same applies to the SFX as to the Rollei, but I did bracket a few of the shots I did with the SFX, the ones I wanted as 'keepers', but I found the 4 stops over exposed ones were still the best.
And ref. the focussing; I had read this but didn't bother trying to focus that way, instead I just focussed as normal and used a narrow fstop (f11) and the pictures were as sharp as any non SFX photos I've taken, though I realize SFX isn't a true infrared film so focussing might not be as critical as for the Rollei.
MattKing
Moderator
The focus shift is related to the difference in frequency between the visible light and the IR or near IR light we use these films to capture.
The old Kodak HIE and Efke 820 emulsions were sensitive to light that was relatively far into the infra-red spectrum. If one needed to focus that light, one needed to adjust focus using the infra-red markings on older lenses.
As the Rollei IR400 and Ilford SFX200 are only sensitive to light in the visible and near infra-red regions, rather than the extended 820 and 850 nm (and farther) regions, there is little or no need to adjust focus.
The old Kodak HIE and Efke 820 emulsions were sensitive to light that was relatively far into the infra-red spectrum. If one needed to focus that light, one needed to adjust focus using the infra-red markings on older lenses.
As the Rollei IR400 and Ilford SFX200 are only sensitive to light in the visible and near infra-red regions, rather than the extended 820 and 850 nm (and farther) regions, there is little or no need to adjust focus.
Most definitely! Bracket as much as you can allow yourself to do. I will often shoot six frames per scene on 120, and choose the very best negative of the bunch. I'd rather get two properly exposed negs per roll than none at all, and that has indeed happened in the past.
Have to admire you for that; I shoot medium format and that stuff's not cheap.
Rollei IR 400 is supposed to go down to 820nm, so it actually has a fairly extended range. It's not HIE level, but certainly well beyond what SFX200 can reach. In my experience, a lot depends on the lens as to whether or not you need to account for focus shift. Some lens designs struggle more than others. I shoot mostly landscapes with it, so I'm usually stopping down a bit anyway. But if you're shooting wide open or at close distances it becomes more critical. Also, the choice of filters plays a big role.
I'm also a fan of the Rollei (both 80s and 400s), since they both go into the infrared range and can be shot normally as well. I did some tests a few years ago (with SFX), but I don't have access to those files at the moment. I don't mind SFX either - but I use more as a regular film (with a red filter) - it has an infrared feel without a strong infrared look, and I like that subtlety.
Just a note on using infrared - you can use it year-round, it doesn't have to only be from spring to fall (all you need is an infrared source - the sun, fire, tungsten - they all work). In fact, I love using it in the winter. The skies are free of haze and you can get some really nice results. Old wood is fantastic in infrared - shoot anything - an old barn, a forest, etc. in both regular black and white and infrared and you'll see a big difference. Really, what I like infrared for is in the gradation of the highlights - it has it's own specific look, nothing else looks like it. Here's an example (I've got more in my gallery) - this is an old farmhouse that I've photographed several times and I can tell you that the wood looks completely different in regular black and white. This was also an overcast day, but with infrared, it goes right through the clouds, which gave them that wispy effect (this was shot on HIE).
Just a note on using infrared - you can use it year-round, it doesn't have to only be from spring to fall (all you need is an infrared source - the sun, fire, tungsten - they all work). In fact, I love using it in the winter. The skies are free of haze and you can get some really nice results. Old wood is fantastic in infrared - shoot anything - an old barn, a forest, etc. in both regular black and white and infrared and you'll see a big difference. Really, what I like infrared for is in the gradation of the highlights - it has it's own specific look, nothing else looks like it. Here's an example (I've got more in my gallery) - this is an old farmhouse that I've photographed several times and I can tell you that the wood looks completely different in regular black and white. This was also an overcast day, but with infrared, it goes right through the clouds, which gave them that wispy effect (this was shot on HIE).
Attachments
There was nothing quite like Kodak HIE. *sigh* I wish they'd resume production of that film - I'd buy 100 rolls.
Love that photo, quite a spooky look to it.
MattKing
Moderator
For those that share this sentiment, I'd suggest that they send it to profilm@kodakalaris.com.
I have reason to believe that it might fall on ears that will be glad to hear it.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
I've only used it with the 72. 5 stops compensation has worked well for me.
@MattKing I'd be first in line if HIE came back. Thanks for the email. I'll email them.
Thats a good starting point, but you really ought to bracket a lot till you have a good feel for these films.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
I just checked my notes and i have shot it with the 25 and 29 as well. Your compensation matches mine. I do however, start at EI 250 with this film, so I'm down to an EI of 8 with the 72 filter.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |