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

[ME Super]

It's been my experience in bright sun where the sunny 16 rule applies, that the IR400s works well between EI 6 and 25 with a 720nm filter. My personal preference is at ISO 25. I set my meter for ISO 25, meter the scene at that speed, set the camera for a correct exposure at EI 25 with no filter, slap on the IR filter and make the photo. YMMV.

 

[pentaxuser]

It's been my experience in bright sun where the sunny 16 rule applies, that the IR400s works well between EI 6 and 25 with a 720nm filter. My personal preference is at ISO 25. I set my meter for ISO 25, meter the scene at that speed, set the camera for a correct exposure at EI 25 with no filter, slap on the IR filter and make the photo. YMMV.

Thanks , that is precisely the information I was seeking. It would seem that the 400S might just deliver what is the same effect as siguii gets at a stop or more greater. Of course unless there were a photo from your 400S negs to compare siguii's with, this is still speculation on my part. It might even be that as this is 720 in your case and not a red 25 the 400S gives an even higher EI and still delivers an acceptable IR look as per siguii's example.

It all depends on what you want but in my case and maybe Old-and Feeble's as well I'd settle for the siguii look with the added advantage of greater speed. Makes hand-holding so much easier.

A wide angle 28mm at f8 delivers a great DoF and would certainly deliver hand-holdable speeds, even for those of us who maybe no longer have the steadiness of hand that we once had

pentaxuser

 

[ME Super]

Yep at 28mm, I can focus at 10ft and everything from 5ft to infinity is in acceptably sharp focus. Problem with an SLR is that when you put on the filter, you can't see anything through the viewfinder, so a tripod is still a good idea. Would love to try this with a TLR but finances preclude my doing so at the moment. I've posted a couple of my favorites with the IR400S in this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[piu58]

> Is Rollei Retro 80s contrast really THAT uncontrollable?

I experimented with some developers and found Atomal 49 1+1 or 1+2 very useful for that film. It prevents the highlights from burning.

 

[ME Super]

I added some photos to my thread on Rollei IR400S film at (there was a url link here which no longer exists). One is unfiltered, one with a #25 red filter, and one with a #25 red and #80A filter together (just as an experiment). Also examples with a 720nm filter at EI 25, 12, and 6. I got the darkest sky at EI 25, but there was definitely some wood effect going on with just the #25 red filter.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Those are very helpful examples. I can only guess that a Wratten #29 (620nm) would fall somewhere between your Wratten #25 (600nm) and 720nm (Wratten #89B) but the difference is probably marginal. I'd like to see what a Wratten #70 (680nm) would do.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

^^^ Those are very helpful examples. I can only guess that a Wratten #29 (620nm) would fall somewhere between your Wratten #25 (600nm) and 720nm (Wratten #89B) but the difference is probably marginal. I'd like to see what a Wratten #70 (680nm) would do.

I'm waiting on the arrival of a Chinese cheapie 680nm filter. Can't wait to see what that will do either.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm waiting on the arrival of a Chinese cheapie 680nm filter. Can't wait to see what that will do either.

Please post examples... comparisons even better.

 

[ME Super]

Yes, please post. Would love to see how it looks with other filters than the 720nm (89B) and 600nm (25) that I have. Mine were shot at f/8 with a 28mm lens at the EIs specified. Shutter speed not recorded, but it was Sunny 16 conditions.

I really should get another body and start shooting more B&W. I have a hard time committing to 24 or 36 shots of B&W in a row. My first photographic love is color slides. B&W is growing on me though.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I will indeed post examples/comparisons, you can count on it.

BTW, just finished reading the Defender 777 thread in this same forum. It looks like that may be a candidate for this kind of work as well.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

This is coming a little later than anticipated but life happens. First of all, scanning negatives for comparison on the web stinks, there are too many variables to create meaningful comparisons. Prints would tell us much more, and if I have time in the next few months I'll try a few of these negatives.

This was a speed test shot in my back yard with Ilford SFX 200 film with; no filter, #99, #29, 680nm, 720nm filters. The #99 is a B+W filter purchased from B&H as a supposed infrared filter, but it looks like a slightly deeper version of an 85b, oh well. With that in mind I scanned each of these strips with all choices turned off and let the Epson scan software choose the black, middle and white points. The images from the higher ISO's have more detail in them than these scans suggest.

Metering was accomplished with a reflected reading off of a gray card with a Gossen luna Pro through the beam splitter attachment set to 7.5o. I might have used my Spotmatic's internal meter but it doesn't go any lower than 20 and since part of this test was to look for IR effect, I stuck with the handheld meter. Any ISO's with a (-) sign mean that many stops below the slowest speed on the Luna Pro, (.8).

Processing was done in HC-110 at 1:120 dilution, 23o C., for 14 minutes. Initial agitation was 45 sec. and 5 seconds every three minutes there after--twirls not inversions. The idea was to control highlights while building up shadow. Even though the negatives and scans don't look it, the roll is underdeveloped. But most of the frames are actually overexposed. I got better response through the #29, 680nm and 720nm filters than I was expecting. All evaluations of the negatives are by eyeball and therefor subjective. The ISO ratings go higher to lower from left to right.

Strip #1 was exposed with no filter at iso; 320, 160, 80, 40 & 20. ISO 80 gives what looks like a Zone I exposure just off dead black, but there is little usable highlight information in the neg. even though the scene had plenty.


Strip #2 was exposed with the #99 filter at iso; 160, 80, 40, 20 & 10. ISO 40 looks like the speed point, same comment about highlights.


Strip #3 was exposed with a #29 deep red filter at iso; 40, 10, 2.5, 1.2 & .6. ISO 10 looks like the speed point but it might be as much as 20 with proper development.


Strip #4 was exposed through the "inexpensive" deep deep red 680nm filter at iso; 25, 6, 1.6, -1 & -3. ISO 6 has good shadow detail, same comment as strip #3 above, iso 12 might work.


Strip #5 was exposed through a 720nm filter (also "inexpensive") at iso; 10, 2.5, -1, -3 & -4. The deep blacks in iso 2.5 are almost too light, 5 would have been a better speed. And iso 10 might work with proper development.


I think the 680nm filter has promise as a compromise when trying for IR effect without totally loosing shadow detail. I'll probably run another test to ballpark a development time, then give it a whirl in the real world. Here are individual scans of my pick for each filter.
no filter
#99
#29
680nm
720nm

Again, the scans don't really tell the whole story.

Steve