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

[braxus]

As the title suggests, I have a IR 720 filter Im using with my 120 film camera shooting some Rollei IR film. What should I look out for when framing the scene or metering, etc? Andy had some pointers, like metering the dark areas. I have my Sekonic with me (has spot metering on it). I may also shoot some regular shots on the roll, which Andy suggests shooting at 200 ISO daylight.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Set your meter for ISO 6 and then transfer those readings to your camera. This will account for the filter and the general quirks of the film. I just posted two shots taken with that film and an R72 filter that will give you an idea of what it is capable of.

 

[Maris]

I've shot a lot of Rollei Infrared film behind an IR720 filter at an Exposure Index of 10. Consistent metering is possible by pointing my Sekonic L-758D spot meter only at things that look the same in visible light and near infrared.
Things like grey tree bark, dry yellow grass, rocks, bare dirt, concrete, metal surfaces, white clouds, and roadways, all seem to keep their recognisable tonalities in the NIR.
On the other hand clear sky goes toward black, still water goes dark, green vegetation goes from grey to white depending on the plant species so metering these things is too chancy for me.

Here's an example:

Sedges Lakeside #7 L.Cootharaba

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford Multigrade Classic photographic paper, image size 16.3cm X 16.3cm, from a Rollei Infrared film exposed at E.I. 10
in a Mamiya C220 camera fitted with the 55mm f4.5 lens set and a IR720 filter.

Meter reading was based on the bark of the near tree which kept its original tonality.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

EI 6 with the 720. Metre the shadows. Give 2 stops less. You're shooting roll film. Bracket.

 

[braxus]

You say to use ISO 6 and meter for the shadows. Do you do 2 stops less from that point, giving an effective ISO of 24?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You say to use ISO 6 and meter for the shadows. Do you do 2 stops less from that point, giving an effective ISO of 24?

Because the metre reads middle gray (zone V). To maintain the darker shadow, give 2 stops less from the metre reading (zone III). Or yes, you could take a metre reading, and transfer that directly onto the camera, if you set the ISO (EI) to 25 (can't set it to 24), and end up with the same tone.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I keep shooting IR all the time. What works for me is taking center-average reading from my TTL meter, put filter on and add +2 in sunlight and +4 in shadows with 715nm filter.
Then bracket a stop towards overexposure.

Works on every NIR film out there, all the repackaged Aviphot's including this one.

Gives me IR pics like these (slides):

Flickr Search

www.flickr.com

 

[retina_restoration]

No matter how thoughtful you are with your metering technique, it's impossible to be 100% accurate in measuring the IR in a scene: bracket.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, bracketing is a nice when you are using roll film. A luxury I cannot afford with sheet film When I metre scenes, I avoid objects that reflect IR energy or absorb it. That will lead to inaccurate readings. I've always found the best way, when taking reflective spot metre readings, is in the shadows. And there is nothing wrong with taking an incident reading, or reflective readings from a gray card.

 

[Mark J]

As above, I use a spot meter and start at ISO 6 then meter as I normally would for shadows on ZII or ZIII
However I usually bracket at ISO 12 too if it's a fairly bright or sunny day. The film doesn't tolerate much highlight overexposure and you can easily get shots that are burned out.

 

[Chuck1]

Is focus shift relevant with modern ir films, and different filters (than r25 and HIE)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Is focus shift relevant with modern ir films, and different filters (than r25 and HIE)

Not a concern. Current IR don't stretch far enough into the IR spectrum. Even when I was using HIE, I only compensated for focus when I used an opaque IR filter.
So, don't worry about it, even with a 720.

 

[GLS]

On a bright sunny day I meter at EI 25 with this film and an R72 filter, exposing for middle grey as I normally would with any other film. I then develop in DD-X at 20 C for 8 minutes. This generally gives the best results I find. In my testing, for this regime EI 12 is too much and EI 6 is way too much. In more overcast conditions then this will obviously vary.

 

[GLS]

Not a concern. Current IR don't stretch far enough into the IR spectrum.

I disagree. I can clearly see a focus error with this combo on frames where I forgot to use the IR index.

 

[abruzzi]

I shoot it at EI12 here in New Mexico where almost every day is bright, sunny, and hot. I've always used the focus shift. I also use a rangefinder so I can shoot handheld (Kodak Retina IIIC), unless I'm shooting it in 4x5.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I disagree. I can clearly see a focus error with this combo on frames where I forgot to use the IR index.

You can disagree, but tests that I conducted several years ago show zero difference.

 

[braxus]

I think I blew my first roll of this stuff. First off, my Sekonic meter (using spot meter mode), was giving the same reading every time I used it, aiming at the shadows. I dont think I was using the meter right. I did bracket, but had no idea how much in range I was. Secondly, what I just realized, was I left the UV filter on the lens (putting the 720 over top of it). I think that might cancel out any IR effect I'd get. So I flubbed the roll. I still have 2 rolls left, but I'm going to have to use my cameras meter instead, and take off the UV filter.

 

[bluechromis]

I disagree. I can clearly see a focus error with this combo on frames where I forgot to use the IR index.

The safe thing is to stop down a good bit.

 

[bluechromis]

Because IR needs long exposures, beware of vegetation moving in the wind.

 

[MattKing]

Secondly, what I just realized, was I left the UV filter on the lens (putting the 720 over top of it). I think that might cancel out any IR effect I'd get.

I doubt that that will make much difference. The 720nm filter would block out the UV all by itself - along with much of the visible light.

 

[MattKing]

Because IR needs long exposures, beware of vegetation moving in the wind.

Unless you like ghost images

 

[braxus]

I doubt that that will make much difference. The 720nm filter would block out the UV all by itself - along with much of the visible light.

Ok. I wasn't sure if UV affected the IR range or not. For some reason I thought it did. If it ever cools down in here, I'll develop the roll. Any ideas on times for Xtol 1:1 if shot at 200 ISO?

 

[bluechromis]

Because IR requires long exposures, one can get into reciprocity failure. Knowing the one number of the exponent to adjust the exposure time is less to keep track of than using a whole table of adjustment times. I saw someone share the reciprocity exponent for Rollei IR 400 (Aviphot 200) but I can't find that now. Does anyone know what it is?

No matter how thoughtful you are with your metering technique, it's impossible to be 100% accurate in measuring the IR in a scene: bracket.

I agree with bracketing in the E.I. 10 - 6 range with IR filter. It is sometimes recommended to take at least one unfiltered shot per roll, especially at first, as a baseline. Henning Serger says that effective E. I. for this film unfiltered is well below 200 and probably below 100. This film is really Aviphot 200, an aerial surveillance film, but its speed is not really 200. There are previous threads that go into how the speed for military surveillance films is rated differently. Their speed for pictorial use is half or less than the rated speed. Yes there are Zone System adherents that routinely shoot film at half the box speed. But this is more than that. Basically, these are not conventional pictorial films. They are made for military applications and have an extreme "S" shaped, super contrasty curve. Unless one accepts a lot of blocked shadows, we have to make heroic efforts to try to mitigate the contrast. It is often desirable to develop in ways that mitigate the blocked shadows. One way is to use speed-increasing developers.

 

[GLS]

The safe thing is to stop down a good bit.

I did. One particular example I recall was f11 on a 50mm with the Hasselblad, and the focus error was unmistakable in the end result when focused on parts of a building perhaps 6-10 feet away. For whatever reason, I had forgotten to correct for focus on that entire roll, and every single frame duly had focus errors (with multiple lenses). This was not due to the film back, the mirror or the focusing screen either as hundreds of frames exposed before and since show no issues.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I find focusing not to be an issue at all and can give a closeup examples in 135:






This test shows that no compensation is needed - at least with Zuiko 50mm 1.4, Zuiko 24mm 2.8 and Vivitar 80-200mm f4