SFX and other infared films...how to filter etc.

[NB23]

How do you get fine grain? I over-agitated my batch and it came out with huge gobs grain.

Grain is not a result of agitation. What a misconcepton!
Out of all the places, at least this should be known here at APUG!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The grain is fine with Rollei IR especially with formats bigger than 35mm. I develop it in Xtol. It is an extended red sensitivity film really (unlike the true IR films that are no longer available). It is just that it is a more extended red sensitivity than SFX.

Thank you. Rollei IR is next on my 4x5 "buy list" as is their ISO 25 film.

 

[Paul Manuell]

Ilford say R72 (very deep red) has a filter factor of 16 so +4 stops compensation. SFX is ISO 200 so that would mean EI 12. For Rollei 400 IR EI 25. Having said that you may find an extra stop is necessary i.e +5 stops. It would be wise to bracket accordingly. Some SLRs (my OM4-Ti does this) will actually measure the light correctly with an R72 in place so you just set your meter to the box speed. Others won't which means in practical terms using a handheld meter or taking the filter off, metering and adding 4 or 5 stops (tedious). For a rangefinder just set the meter to the corrected EI and keep the filter on. It is much easier to use a rangefinder because you can't focus or compose an SLR with an R72 in place -they are too dark to see anything useful.

Thank you, very informative and useful.

 

[pbromaghin]

Grain is not a result of agitation. What a misconcepton!
Out of all the places, at least this should be known here at APUG!

OH MY GOD! Alert the media! Somebody got into APUG who doesn't already know everything! Shocking!

 

[Svenedin]

Thank you, very informative and useful.

You’re welcome. Stephen

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's the extended red with fine grain I like about SFX. I'm not looking for extreme Wood effect, just some foliage lightening.

Rollei 4x5 has finer grain than SFX, in my opinion (Pyrocat-HD) You can get decent foliage lightening with a red filter, such as wratten #25. I just shot some Rollie IR on the weekend, as well as some 4x5 HIE (expired '67!). The HIE blows the Rollie out of the water!

 

[NB23]

Weak attempt at being a smartass.

Look, this comon misconception is a rule and the norm on the internet. Which brings me onto the Bullsheet stand-development recomendations I keep running into.

Things we often read that go like “I recomend semi-stand development with two very slow inversions halfway in order to keep grain in check” is total nonsense and, unfortunately, the mainstream.

First, it doesn’t reduce grain.
Secundo, it ruins the contrast
Tertio, you end up with shitty uneven negs
Quatro, it takes one hour instead of 5 minutes (who is dumb here?)
Cinco, it’s not even remotely recomended by manufacturers.

If you care about quality, even remotely, you should take my advice and spread it around instead of making it a smartass joke.

OH MY GOD! Alert the media! Somebody got into APUG who doesn't already know everything! Shocking!

 

[jim10219]

Wow! This thread got off the rails!

Back on subject: I personally would go with Rollei 400 IR over SFX. It’s one of my favorite films because it’s as close to a true IR film as you can find (brand new anyway) and works as a fairly decent normal 400 speed film if desired. It’s grain and contrast are no worse than Tri-X 400 to me, albeit a bit different. The only downside I have with it is it’s thinner film base. In roll film, it’s not such a big deal. But in sheet film, it can be an issue for some.

I recommend using the R72 filter for infrared work. Red 25 doesn’t cut it. You can use a Red 25, but to me it doesn’t look much different from most other films.

My advice, use the R72 filter in bright, noon-time sun. The harsh light that most other film struggles in is where IR film shines! Also, light green leaves usually produce the best wood effect. This usually means new growth. Evergreens, cacti, and dark green/fall color leaves don’t work so well. Also, the time of day and atmospheric conditions will effect the amount of IR in the sunlight, so it’s usually wise to bracket your shots because the proportion of IR to visible light isn’t constant. I usually meter my R72 at around ISO 6-12.

For 35mm, I almost always use manual focus lenses, because most of them have IR focus markings on them. Just compose, focus, meter, then apply the filter, reset your focal point to the IR mark, and set your camera to the compensated meter reading from before. Then take one shot above and below your calculated exposure. But if it’s clear and sunny at noon, usually ISO 12 gets me a good enough exposure to work with. It’s more forgiving to slightly overexpose than underexpose IR film.

For large format, I just set the focus like normal and stop down to give me plenty of depth of field. Each lens, no matter the format, will focus IR light differently, so if the IR focal difference isn’t marked on the lens (or somewhere else), your best bet is to just stop down, or experiment ahead of time and take notes. Some of my lenses focus IR light in front of normal light, and some focus it behind. Some are way off, and some are just slightly off. Also, some bellows and film holders aren’t IR light tight. That’s rarely an issue with roll film cameras though.

 

[hsandler]

I have shot a fair bit of Rollei IR, mostly medium format, but recently in a 35mm camera handheld in Cuba. My standard exposure in bright sun, which is almost always the condition when I like IR, is 0.25-0.5s at f16 through a Hoya R72 filter. So that is like EI 2-4 with a sunny 16 rule. In Cuba, that allowed handheld at f4 at 1/60s. I usually set the focus halfway between the optically focused distance and the IR mark on the lens, my reasoning being that the Rollei IR stuff is insensitive at the wavelengths longer than about 820nm, and IR marks on old lenses were from the days when IR films went out past 900nm. I have a gallery of IR stuff, many with exposure and development info on flickr at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsandler/albums/72157630041769465

 

[removedacct1]

WHY did "stand development" get injected into this discussion??

Rollei IR in Rodinal is a fine combination, but I found that Xtol did a better job of keeping highlights reined in; Rodinal had a tendency to send highlights built excessively - for my needs, anyway. But if you are cautious and do some testing, you will be just fine using it.

 

[NB23]

And WHY are you talking about developers?? It’s so irrelevant to the OP’s question.

WHY did "stand development" get injected into this discussion??

Rollei IR in Rodinal is a fine combination, but I found that Xtol did a better job of keeping highlights reined in; Rodinal had a tendency to send highlights built excessively - for my needs, anyway. But if you are cautious and do some testing, you will be just fine using it.

 

[removedacct1]

And WHY are you talking about developers?? It’s so irrelevant to the OP’s question.

Pardon??
This is one of the OP's followup questions:

What are your respective experiences with these types of films and Rodinal?

I'd say its perfectly relevant.

 

[NB23]

Well, stand development got injected into the discussion because at that point the discussion became about anything except the original OP’s question: 4x5 films, developers, grain size, availability and so on.

Pardon??
This is one of the OP's followup questions:



I'd say its perfectly relevant.

 

[removedacct1]

Well, stand development got injected into the discussion because at that point the discussion became about anything except the original OP’s question: 4x5 films, developers, grain size, availability and so on.

OK, but I think your response to my answering OP's followup question was rather rude. I don't think the attitude is warranted. Now, you make excuses for stating that my message was "so irrelevant".
Its not as if these threads don't wander on any given day. Its the nature of discussion.

 

[pbromaghin]

Well, stand development got injected into the discussion because at that point the discussion became about anything except the original OP’s question: 4x5 films, developers, grain size, availability and so on.

It was injected into the discussion to cover up your earlier rudeness in your deliberate and gratuitous insult to a poster (me) who had an incorrect understanding of why he had such bad results with this film. Instead of providing help and guidance, you hurled an insult. You could have posted a link to reading material that would correct that misconception. But no, you had to pile rudeness upon rudeness while adding nothing of value to the discussion, unless you are delusional enough to count your out-of-left-field rant about stand development.

 

[pbromaghin]

To hopefully rescue this thread from my own hand, here are some shots from my 2nd roll. It's from a different camera, but was processed along with the roll that came out so badly. 1937 Zeiss 531 tessar 6x4.5, D-76 1:1 at 60F.

Out our bedroom window:

It can be milder and have a lot less grain. Next door neighbor's maple tree:

Somebody mentioned it loves lots of sunlight:

Nearly the same scene with more clouds:

 

[Svenedin]

To hopefully rescue this thread from my own hand, here are some shots from my 2nd roll. It's from a different camera, but was processed along with the roll that came out so badly. 1937 Zeiss 531 tessar 6x4.5, D-76 1:1 at 60F.

Out our bedroom window:
View attachment 197990

It can be milder and have a lot less grain. Next door neighbor's maple tree:
View attachment 197991

Somebody mentioned it loves lots of sunlight:
View attachment 197992

Nearly the same scene with more clouds:

View attachment 197993

Very pretty but the IR effect is subtle if present at all. Love the Tessar!

 

[jtk]

Pardon??
This is one of the OP's followup questions:



I'd say its perfectly relevant.

Thank you. I think we're all OK now.

 

[jtk]

To hopefully rescue this thread from my own hand, here are some shots from my 2nd roll. It's from a different camera, but was processed along with the roll that came out so badly. 1937 Zeiss 531 tessar 6x4.5, D-76 1:1 at 60F.

Out our bedroom window:
View attachment 197990

It can be milder and have a lot less grain. Next door neighbor's maple tree:
View attachment 197991

Somebody mentioned it loves lots of sunlight:
View attachment 197992

Nearly the same scene with more clouds:

View attachment 197993

Thank you for your effort and for helping to rescue this thread.

 

[Bipin]

Anyone have experience with any of these films and a 680nm filter? I bought one for digital IR, but I figure I might as well use it for film as well, should it be an appropriate filter for that job...

 

[DWThomas]

Anyone have experience with any of these films and a 680nm filter? I bought one for digital IR, but I figure I might as well use it for film as well, should it be an appropriate filter for that job...

It's worth trying; the Wratten 89B I tried with SFX I believe was around 695 and it produced some interesting results. If I already owned a 680nm, I would surely try it before spending money on another filter.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

120 SFX. These were shot through a 72R. The film was also subjected to semi-stand development.

 

[John Galt]

Are Ilford SFX and other infared-like films useful without red filters?

How and when?

I'm assuming they're useless without tripods. Yes?

Rangefinder cameras and large format cameras might be better than SLR-types. Yes?.

GREAT original post JTK. I remember shooting 35mm IR color transparency film back in the 70s. I have 5 rolls of 120 Rollei IR that I purchased recently and was thinking about shooting some of it this spring when the leaves come out here in NY. Learned a lot, thank you all for some very informative posts. I have some very specific stuff in my minds eye for this Rollei IR. Now to find a cheap Hoya 72mm R72 for my Hasselblad V system . . . :/

 

[pbromaghin]

VERY nicely done, Andrew. What developer did you use?