Shooting My First Roll of Rollei 400 Infrared Film Tomorrow with 720 Filter, Any Pointers?

[MattKing]

The only problem that I could see arising from having both a 695nm filter and a 720nm filter available is the likelihood that you will end up with at least two shots of everything, and use twice as much film.
There is always a healthy dose of educated guessing involved with IR sensitive film - because we really have no good ways of measuring how much IR is mixed in with the visible light we can see.
We can also do a lot at the presentation stage.
From a presentation I put together a few years ago, using Ilford SFX as an example:

 

[braxus]

Well Im ready to develop that first roll. I'll see how badly the exposure I did on it will be. I dont think I metered it right to start with. Im doing the film in Xtol 1:1. Its telling me 17 minutes for that. Does that sound right? It seems like a long time for a 400 (ok 200) speed film.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well Im ready to develop that first roll. I'll see how badly the exposure I did on it will be. I dont think I metered it right to start with. Im doing the film in Xtol 1:1. Its telling me 17 minutes for that. Does that sound right? It seems like a long time for a 400 (ok 200) speed film.

I wouldn't develop it for that long, especially if you rated it at EI 200.

 

[braxus]

What do you suggest. I just put the developer in it.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

See my PM

 

[spijker]

I'm in a similar situation. Shot my first roll of IR400 (120) with a Hoya 720 filter, metered at 6 ISO. I'm about to develop it in Adox XT-3 (fresh) 1:1. I did a lot of searching on Photrio but most people here seems to use Xtol Replenished and develop for 11 .. 11:30 min. Here's a person on Flickr that uses Xtol 1:1 for 12 min and claims that the 17 min listed by Rollei is too long. Andy, how does does a Xtol-R time "roughly translate" to Xtol non-R 1:1? The main purpose for the negs is darkroom printing.

 

[braxus]

I decided to see the times the Digital Truth site suggested. For 50 ISO, it said around 7 1/2 minutes. Being 400 is supposed to be 17, I split the 9.5 minutes by 3 and went with 14 minutes 1:1 Xtol for 200 ISO. Its washing as we speak, so I'll see how close to the mark I was. This was my first test roll of the stuff. I was going to shoot a second roll on a long road trip, but ended up not doing that.

 

[spijker]

@braxus, The 14 min seems reasonable. Can you please give me a first impression after the wash?

 

[braxus]

@braxus, The 14 min seems reasonable. Can you please give me a first impression after the wash?

Its a total loss. Way under developed for some reason. I dont even think 17 minutes would be enough. Funny thing is I shot 1 or 2 shots without the filter, at 200 ISO normal settings, and it doesnt show up here anymore than the filter shots. So somehow its got to be be a developing problem. The rolls I did right before it are hanging next to it in the same shots. So its not the developer that is the issue. Other film was Plus X. Im wondering if my camera settings may have been at fault here. Trying to set the camera to manual mode. I think that might be why these are so off. But some shots were as long as 30 seconds (I think F11?), and I did bracket on this roll.

 

[braxus]

Its either a camera issue, metering issue, or a developing issue. When it dries, Im going to see what I can recover via the flatbed scanner. You can see some variations in how much each shot shows, so the bracketing was working there a little.

 

[spijker]

Oh, that's too bad. I don't see any edge markings either so that points to a developing problem. Maybe a mistake with the dilution? I had that some time ago with a similar result. I'll wait until tomorrow with my development to see if anyone else comments.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Its either a camera issue, metering issue, or a developing issue. When it dries, Im going to see what I can recover via the flatbed scanner. You can see some variations in how much each shot shows, so the bracketing was working there a little.

I agree on it being a developing problem, but that's just an educated guess from what I see in the negatives. I'm using an old Epson 3200 flatbed scanner for my 4X5's and I'm amazed at what that old thing can do with some really thin negatives. It pulls detail out of the shadows that I can't even see on the light table. Good luck.

 

[spijker]

I'm in a similar situation. Shot my first roll of IR400 (120) with a Hoya 720 filter, metered at 6 ISO. I'm about to develop it in Adox XT-3 (fresh) 1:1. I did a lot of searching on Photrio but most people here seems to use Xtol Replenished and develop for 11 .. 11:30 min. Here's a person on Flickr that uses Xtol 1:1 for 12 min and claims that the 17 min listed by Rollei is too long. Andy, how does does a Xtol-R time "roughly translate" to Xtol non-R 1:1? The main purpose for the negs is darkroom printing.

I developed the film today in Adox XT-3 1+1 for 12 minutes at 20C. Agitation was 4 gentle inversions/min. The negatives look good with sufficient shadow detail and contrast.

 

[braxus]

Yeah I dont know how the developer bungled up on my roll. Chalk it up to a mistake.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yeah I dont know how the developer bungled up on my roll. Chalk it up to a mistake.

Hey, shit happens! A couple of weeks ago I was developing two rolls of 120 with XT-3 replenished in my ss tank. Instead of putting the used developer back in my gallon jug I poured it down the drain. I don't know why I was thing "one shot". Like I said, it happens.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm in a similar situation. Shot my first roll of IR400 (120) with a Hoya 720 filter, metered at 6 ISO. I'm about to develop it in Adox XT-3 (fresh) 1:1. I did a lot of searching on Photrio but most people here seems to use Xtol Replenished and develop for 11 .. 11:30 min. Here's a person on Flickr that uses Xtol 1:1 for 12 min and claims that the 17 min listed by Rollei is too long. Andy, how does does a Xtol-R time "roughly translate" to Xtol non-R 1:1? The main purpose for the negs is darkroom printing.

My times are about the same in both Xtol-R and 1+1... It's been a while since I've used Xtol with Rollei IR. If memory serves me, around 11:30 - 12:30, 20C.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@braxus definitely something going on with the developer. At 14 minutes, you should have had decent densities.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I agree with Andy about it being a developer problem for sure. I developed two 4X5 sheet of FPP IR 200, which is the same film, in XT-3R (Xtol-R 1:1) for 13:00 minutes and it certainly gave me more than full development. Nothings worse than heightened anticipation and then total disappointed. At least nobody got hurt. Now you just have to hunt down the goblin and destroy it..

 

[MCB18]

I know I’m late to the party, but I gave some experience with this film. Not Rollei specifically, but Aviphot 200 (same stock) both new and 10-12 years past date. Shooting at EI 6-12 for IR and 100 for visible light works wonders. The IR images will be a bit grainier than visible light exposures but that’s nornal. As far as developing, I deved the new stuff in both HC-110 B for 7 minutes, although I might need to add just a bit more extra time, and D-76 1+1 for 14 minutes, worked very well.

 

[blee1996]

I tried Rollei IR 400 and Hoya 720nm filter for the first time yesterday, and the results matches with most of the suggestions here about effective ISO of 6-12. It was very cloudy day and the light shifts quickly between shots, and I have been metering the shadows. I developed the film in Paterson tank, using Clayton F76+ 1+9, 7 minutes at 70F. At least in medium format, the grain is not so obvious.

HassySWC_RolleiIR400B_003 by Zheng, on Flickr

HassySWC_RolleiIR400A_006 by Zheng, on Flickr

 

[Mark J]

Good work - you're ready to go !
ps. is that what counts as a cloudy day in California ?

 

[braxus]

@braxus definitely something going on with the developer. At 14 minutes, you should have had decent densities.

It was exhausted developer. I was reusing the developer for several rolls, and it was Xtol 1:1 which made it worse. It just so happened that roll reached the end of the developers usefulness and life.

I might trying to shoot it at ISO 12 next time. Where is the question.

 

[blee1996]

Good work - you're ready to go !
ps. is that what counts as a cloudy day in California ?

Thanks Mark. How about these two photos, do they count as "cloudy"?

Long and winding road - HassySWC_RolleiIR400B_005 by Zheng, on Flickr

Lone tree - HassySWC_RolleiIR400B_008 by Zheng, on Flickr

 

[Mark J]

Oh no, definitely not. Still huge patches of sky where the sun can shine through !

 

[Sirius Glass]

Partly cloudy, but I would consider it almost completely cloudy. There are a few places that the IR film and filter can make the sky look black.