Rollei Superpan 200

[Andrew O'Neill]

Exposed a roll of this film in my RB for the first time Exposed at box speed without filter, and with a 720 filter. Developed in 510-Pyro. When I pulled the film off the reel I was surprised to see that the 720 filtered exposure was much denser than the unfiltered exposure... It was the same for the other images further down the roll. I am wondering if this film has a higher sensitivity to IR exposure than Rollei 400 IR? Or... this stuff is just Rollei 400 IR, repackaged as a 200 speed film... as I routinely expose Rollei 400 IR at 200... I don't know. I'll have to dig deeper and compare the two films. I'm quite intrigued! Video will follow... eventually

 

[bluechromis]

It is my understanding that Rollei IR 400, 400 S and Superpan 200 are all Agfa Aviphot 200. So they are the same, and all have some IR sensitivity. Why Maco creates confusion by doing that is anyone's guess. There was a thread about these aerial films not long ago. I cannot fathom why your 720 filter shot would be denser if it had the same exposure. With my Hoya R72 filter, I usually have to increase exposure in the range of six stops.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It is my understanding that Rollei IR 400, 400 S and Superpan 200 are all Agfa Aviphot 200. So they are the same, and all have some IR sensitivity. Why Maco creates confusion by doing that is anyone's guess. There was a thread about these aerial films not long ago. I cannot fathom why your 720 filter shot would be denser if it had the same exposure. With my Hoya R72 filter, I usually have to increase exposure in the range of six stops.

Thank you for the information. I figured it was the same stuff. For me, it's 5 stops with the Zomei filter, and same with the more expensive Urth filter. I can't fathom it either, as I always metre very carefully. Further testing I shall do...

 

[Mark J]

I read the other thread myself, and I'm not convinced it's the same, at least the speed, when on that base. When I've used Rollei IR in the past, and again quite recently, it was about iso 3 with an R72 filter. I've only recently tried the Superpan 200 as an alternative, and it seems like it's at least iso 6, and on some shots higher. I'll be developing another roll soon, and have just put a third roll into my Fuji GW690 III again.
One warning is that the film base is different and thinner on the Superpan 200 version. It does not trigger the frame click-stops on my Horseman VH film back ; it does however work normally on the Fuji. I will probably buy some of the IR version soon, for that reason, and give it another test.
I think the Pyro is a good choice, I used PMK, which I use for most things these days, and the contrast is not too high and the separation on highlights is really nice.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I read the other thread myself, and I'm not convinced it's the same, at least the speed, when on that base. When I've used Rollei IR in the past, and again quite recently, it was about iso 3 with an R72 filter. I've only recently tried the Superpan 200 as an alternative, and it seems like it's at least iso 6, and on some shots higher. I'll be developing another roll soon, and have just put a third roll into my Fuji GW690 III again.
One warning is that the film base is different and thinner on the Superpan 200 version. It does not trigger the frame click-stops on my Horseman VH film back ; it does however work normally on the Fuji. I will probably buy some of the IR version soon, for that reason, and give it another test.
I think the Pyro is a good choice, I used PMK, which I use for most things these days, and the contrast is not too high and the separation on highlights is really nice.

To my eye, the film base looks the same for both the 200 and Rollei 400 IR... It's the same with the 400 4x5. I have to be super careful when loading holders and not double load!

 

[Mark J]

The Rollei datasheet for Superpan lists the film bases as different for the two films. It's certainly thinner on a current roll of Superpan 200 than it was on a 2014 roll of IR 400. I need to buy some current Rollei IR, but I'm told that the Rollei IR only changed from Aviphot 400 to Aviphot 200 before 2010, and there has not been a change since.

 

[bluechromis]

I think that Adox HR-50 (Scala) may be the best IR film for 35 mm. To my eye, it has IR sensitivity almost as good as IR 400. Hennings Serger says the effective E.I. of IR 400 is less than 100. Adox says that HR-50 has a speed of forty with conventional developers and fifty with their special developer (Spur?). I believe Adox more than Maco. So the effective speed of the emulsions may not be much different. But HR-50 has much finer grain. I do IR photos using a tripod anyway, so there is not a great need for high film speed. I wish I could get HR-50 for larger formats.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

HR-50 makes it out to about 775nm. Rollei 400 IR makes it out to about 820. I cannot comment on grain as I have not used HR-50. I can say that Rollei IR has fine grain. If HR-50 was available in 120 (is it?), I'd buy some.

 

[Sirius Glass]

HR-50 makes it out to about 775nm. Rollei 400 IR makes it out to about 820. I cannot comment on grain as I have not used HR-50. I can say that Rollei IR has fine grain. If HR-50 was available in 120 (is it?), I'd buy some.

My preference would be for Rollei over HR-50, so that I can choose from R23, R25, R29 or 720.

 

[Mark J]

I'd be surprised if Rollei IR makes it to 820nm, have you got a curve showing that ? - because both datasheets ( IR & superpan 200 ) show them hitting the ground by about 780nm.
I'd say Rollei IR has medium grain, but HR-50 has very fine grain, finer than Pan F+ , by eye from my first test roll. It is however more contrasty. I think the relative IR sensitivity is better with the HR-50 which means that it's not much slower than the Rollei IR. However on my next test roll ( already loaded ) of HR-50 I will be using PMK to develop, to see if i can get a bit more gradation.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'd be surprised if Rollei IR makes it to 820nm, have you got a curve showing that ? - because both datasheets ( IR & superpan 200 ) show them hitting the ground by about 780nm.
I'd say Rollei IR has medium grain, but HR-50 has very fine grain, finer than Pan F+ , by eye from my first test roll. It is however more contrasty. I think the relative IR sensitivity is better with the HR-50 which means that it's not much slower than the Rollei IR. However on my next test roll ( already loaded ) of HR-50 I will be using PMK to develop, to see if i can get a bit more gradation.

I shoot Rollei IR mainly in sheet film, and occasionally 120. I've never used 35mm...

 

[aparat]

I don't know if this adds anything useful to this thread, but here are my results for Rollei Superpan 200 in D-76 1+1. As all my tests, the five-curve family test was run twice, with the results averaged over the two trials, analyzed and plotted. Processed in D-76 1+1 at 20C in a Jobo rotary tank.

Rollei Superpan 200 in D-76 1+1 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't know if this adds anything useful to this thread, but here are my results for Rollei Superpan 200 in D-76 1+1. As all my tests, the five-curve family test was run twice, with the results averaged over the two trials, analyzed and plotted. Processed in D-76 1+1 at 20C in a Jobo rotary tank.

Rollei Superpan 200 in D-76 1+1 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

Anything you add in regards to this film is appreciated. Thank you! I'm still waiting for you to make your curve plotting app available...