Rollei Retro 80s or 200s -- Is There a Comprehensive Comparison of Filters?

I'd like to try Rollei Retro 80s because I'm interested in its extended red sensitivity. I'm aware of Ilford SFX and other options but I've read that Retro 80s has much finer grain than the other offerings and its sensitivity extends a bit further into IR than SFX (750nm vs. 720nm). I don't want an extremely pronounced IR effect... just a noticible lightening of foliage and some darkening of sky and water. At the most I might want healthy green foliage rendered to an average of Zone VII in the final print. With a yellow or green filter or no filter at all I'd like to see a "nearly" normal panchromatic look.

I'd like to see examples shot with Wratten 25, 29, 70, 89B, 88A and B+W 092 filters... or their equivalents.

Wratten Filter Spectral Cutoff
#25 = 600nm
#29 = 620nm
#70 = 680nm
#89B = 720nm
#88A = 750nm

B+W Filter Spectral Cutoff
#092 = 650nm

So, does anyone have a link to such an extensive filter test with Rollei 80s? Actually, 200s would work too... or any other film with similar spectral sensitivity.

I use both films with a 720nm filter which works fine. If you have the appropriate light you get an obvious IR effect. But not in that extend like with real IR film which have a sensitivity beyond 800 nm.

The wood effect is there, you will have black water and black skies. An example: http://www.photoportale.de/index.php?area=bild&idx=33644

I shot this on Retro 80S with a 25A filter, I think rated around ISO 12. You do get some wood of the "Wood effect," but next time I'm gonna try using my new Hoya R72 which should definitely make it more pronounced.

Shooting this film unfiltered seems similar to shooting a normal film with a 25A filter. Skin tones are very light and smooth. Anyone planning on using this film for portraits should be aware of this; for male portraits especially it might be good to use a light blue filter. I need to experiment more.

Also, it's very easy to blow the highlights with this film. I rated the unfiltered film at 50 in D76 1+1, but I would have been better off rating it at box speed.

The Wood effect looks fairly pronounced to me even with a #25A filter. I didn't know that Rollei Retro 80s has very narrow exposure latitude but I researched it and sure enough, it does.

Have you tried the Rollei Superpan 200? It also has extended red sensitivity and in my tests it's about a stop faster with the 720nm filter than the 80s, plus the IR effect is more pronounced. Don't get me wrong, the 80s is a nice looking film and worth exploring. I just look for anything fast as I'm shooting pinhole at the moment. 30-60 minute exposures are not uncommon, but tough to do on your lunch break.

I'll be shooting from f/11-f/22 most of the time. Speed will often be a concern but not always. Thirty-sixty minute exposures will be extremely uncommon for me.

If you plan on doing 30-60min exposures with any of these Rollei films, please report on the reciprocity characteristics. It would be interesting to know if any of these films are usable for astrophotography, as they're quite sensitive to the h-alpha emission line characteristic of many nebulae. But I've also heard that most IR films have terrible reciprocity failure.

^^^ Will do but I doubt I'll ever take any exposures approaching anywhere near an hour. I'm not completely ruling it out though.

My bad. I forgot to mention that those times were with a pinhole camera at f128, and not in direct sunlight. When your tests show 2-4 minutes in bright sunlight, times quickly get long. As far reciprocity is concerned, at these exposure times reciprocity factors itself in automatically if your exposure tests are in the "minutes" time frame.

I haven't found the reciprocity curve to be any worse than anything else.

I've been combing the internet myself lately for information about this film, although more with the goal of figuring out how to get as MUCH of a Wood effect from it as possible (I have long been hoping to turn one of the Rollei films into a workable replacement for Efke IR820c). But the comments above are consistent with what I have read for more normal usage - that if you don't want too pronounced an IR effect then you probably don't want a filter any redder than a 25A or so. Actually, I wonder if it would be best left unfiltered for the look you want? Some say that unfiltered it is like having a built-in yellow filter in terms of sky darkening. As for lightening foliage though, it seems to me that it must be something of a balancing act. On the one hand, the near IR sensitivity should help to lighten foliage, but the film is already less sensitive at the blue-green end of the spectrum to begin with. So I am wondering if adding a reddish filter might tend to cut out more of that relatively insensitive portion of the visible spectrum, and counter the lightening effect of the infrared? Anyway, my main concern with the film has been how to tame the high contrast reported for it. So many of the reports and images I have seen indicate that it is difficult to extract shadow details from this film, and because of that I am all twisted in knots thinking about different developers, possibly pull-processing, etc.

Just today I started a film test of my own, comparing Efke IR820c, Retro 80s, and Retro 400s for IR Wood effect, using an R72 filter. Exposures were done this afternoon in "sunny 16" conditions, but I am still vacillating on what development will prove most valuable for my first test (see above about contrast and shadow detail). Hopefully I will get that figured out and soon have some images of my own to show.

I like siguii's question about reciprocity too. Efke IR820 starts rolling off at about 1 second exposure time, but so far I haven't heard anyone identify a limit with the Rollei films. My hope is to dedicate a roll to measuring that myself, but I won't get to it until after I get it dialed in for IR use.

Jeff

I think that the only way you can find how these films respond is with extensive testing. The Rollei film labeled as an IR, with sensitivity up to about 820nm works reasonably well with a 720nm filter, and gives a WHOPPNG wood effect with a 760nm filter. The problem is the speed portion of the curve falls off steeply after 720, so that with the 760 filter everything beyond that is very slow. I've only done one roll this way and in my Mamiya C330. My tests had me at a speed rating i call [-5]. That's 5 stops below the bottom ISO on my Luna Pro of [.8]. No pinhole cameras need apply.

The Rollei 200 superpan is very nice. It responds nicely with a 720nm filter and is about a stop faster than the Rollei IR and 1.5 to 2 stops faster than 80s exposed the same way. I've had little luck getting much wood effect and dark sky using a #29 red. It brings the speed down into single digits and still darkens the foliage. More testing is indicated. By the way once you have a handle on your exposure, you will need to test developers to tame that extreme reflectance on foliage. More so on deciduous trees than evergreens. I did run one of my remaining EFKE rolls at [-1] ISO and 20 minutes in HC-110, Dil. G (1:119). The results are promising, but needs at least 15% reduction in that development time.

I'm interested to know what you all use for filters. I lucked out a year or two ago on eBay and got a 4-filter set of IR (720, 760, 850, 950) with a pouch for $40. I don't remember who it was but it was someone selling that as a regular item. Before starting this post I bid on a 680nm filter for about $9. Here's the URL: http://www.ebay.com/itm/111318476002?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

My head swims a bit here but if Rollei 80S gives as good an effect as it does based on siguii's picture at EI 12 then is it reasonable to suppose that Rollei 400S being two stops faster will allow the same effect to be produced at close to EI 50. At this speed, shutter speed makes handheld pictures easier.

So all other things being equal 400S should be the better film but of course all other things may not be equal. 400S may not be as good as the 80S for the IR effect. I don't know.

I also don't know if using the R72 means that any speed difference between the 80S and 400S is cancelled or even if the 400S with a R72 produces as good an effect as the 80S.

Anyone care to provide answers to the above questions? Thanks

pentaxuser

Okay, if a 760nm filter requires an EI of .8 then the Wratten #88A filter (750nm) in my original list is crossed out. That leaves the following...

Wratten #25 (600nm)
Wratten #29 (620nm)
B + W #092 (650nm)
Wratten #70 (680nm)
Wratten #89B (720nm)

I strongly suspect the #89B will bee too much as well regarding low EI and very pronounced Wood effect. I'll google "rollei retro 80s 89b" and report back.

pentaxuser said:

My head swims a bit here but if Rollei 80S gives as good an effect as it does based on siguii's picture at EI 12 then is it reasonable to suppose that Rollei 400S being two stops faster will allow the same effect to be produced at close to EI 50. At this speed, shutter speed makes handheld pictures easier.

So all other things being equal 400S should be the better film but of course all other things may not be equal. 400S may not be as good as the 80S for the IR effect. I don't know.

I also don't know if using the R72 means that any speed difference between the 80S and 400S is cancelled or even if the 400S with a R72 produces as good an effect as the 80S.

Anyone care to provide answers to the above questions? Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but no. Take a look at the "spectral sensitivity" chart on page 2 for Rollei IR; http://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/pages/product_pdfs/rollei/Rollei_Infrared_.pdf. Human vision ends at roughly 700nm, that means that any sensitivity beyond that is what you are working with if using an IR filter. Notice how steeply the curve falls. 80s and 200 superpan (and SFX) fall off similarly (the charts are hard to find) and loose sensitivity altogether at about 750nm. Put a 720 filter on the superpan films (not "IR") and you have very little speed to work with. You just have to be patient. I've not tried the 400s but i suspect it has a similar curve. I never used any Kodak HEI, but I did see a spec. sheet once. That film was sensitive to just beyond 900nm and the curve hardly fell off after 700. That's why it was so successful as a handholdable IR film.

Something else I found about a week ago. I looked at the spec sheet for Rollei ATP 1.1; http://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/pages/product_pdfs/rollei/DB_ATP_05_2011_en.pdf. Not ever having used tech pan-type films I didn't have much interest. But according to the sheet this film has sensitivity out to about 820nm, suddenly I'm interested.

Old-N-Feeble said:

Okay, if a 760nm filter requires an EI of .8 ...

Click to expand...

No, not EI .8 ---- but 5 stops BELOW that.

They way I see it, if I can get a significant Wood effect without having to worry about blowing out the foliage to white then I can always dodge the foliage a bit to lighten it a little more. That's partly why I'm interested in Retro 80s with its limited IR sensitivity.

scheimfluger_77 said:

No, not EI .8 ---- but 5 stops BELOW that.

Click to expand...

I'm FAR too impatient for that.

this film is very contrasty, BY NATURE: even with stand development, it tends to be contrasty. by giving it more exposure to bring out shadow detail, it is very hard to compress highlights, to bring back into that grade 3, or 4 area, usually I am printing on grade 1 with a slow working developer and water bath development. I would not think that during development that any or a lot of aggitation is good. building up more density in your highlights is a no-no with this film. It has excellent adjacenery effect on rollie retro 80's

Is Rollei Retro 80s contrast really THAT uncontrollable?

Old-N-Feeble said:

I'm FAR too impatient for that.

Click to expand...

I get that. My notes are upstairs but the frames I'm thinking of were about 30sec. at f8 in bright sunshine on a cloudless day. I got shadow detail but needed to pull the development back some. That same shot in my f/128 pinhole camera would have been about 16 minutes. Doable but at my age the privy calls often.

scheimfluger_77 said:

I get that. My notes are upstairs but the frames I'm thinking of were about 30sec. at f8 in bright sunshine on a cloudless day. I got shadow detail but needed to pull the development back some. That same shot in my f/128 pinhole camera would have been about 16 minutes. Doable but at my age the privy calls often.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of Depends?

Old-N-Feeble said:

Is Rollei Retro 80s contrast really THAT uncontrollable?

Click to expand...

Not uncontrollable, just touchy. You really have to experiment with dilute developers and long time; beyond what seems reasonable. My one try with HC-110 at 1:119 recently looks promising, but I'll need to bring the time down from 20 minutes. That dilution looses speed, and shorter times will have some effect there also...

YA JUST GOTA OPEN UP THAT LENS

I always shoot with a tripod and this material is going to make that absolutely necessary I think.

Ha ha... for those times I want some minimal or moderate Wood effect f/8 is fine with me.

Old-N-Feeble said:

Is Rollei Retro 80s contrast really THAT uncontrollable?

Click to expand...

I think that the high contrast is very slightly counterbalanced by the film's transparent base, which allows for a slightly greater density range and thus a bit more shadow detail. It probably doesn't do all that much to improve latitude, though.

I once heard a mention of people using C-41 color developer to tame the contrast of Tech-Pan. Couldn't find any more information about it though, maybe someone here would be able to provide us with a recipe?

Aahhhh... so Retro 80s is "ticklish" like Tech Pan? Now I understand!!