The Big Exposure Table for IR Films - enter your data here!

If you are collecting data regarding exposure/handling for a film it strikes me that aperture/exposure time should be mandatory (ie camera exposure) and is probably a more useful than some diatribe about TTL meters, ASA settings and exposure compensations. Reflected light readings, strong primary colour filters, multi pattern metering etc may work for individuals/particular cameras
but are hardly a useful protocol or guide.

Realistically the aperture and shutter speed are of little use for this. We're looking at a point of departure from which we can start our own tests from which the "correct" shutter speed / aperture combination can be determined for each image with our own equipment and processing techniques.

Bob H

Well, I've learned something already.
You can get a good IR effect at dawn under a dark, cloudy sky.
With my ignorance of IR I wouldn't have expected that.
That illustrates the usefulness of logging all the data, I think.

The idea to create something like a IR chart is good. But if all our values stay in plenty of pages here in the thread, it will be difficult to understand or find the important information.

We shouldn't mix all the films in the same thread. It will be too confusing at the end.

First we should list the IR films that will be still available on the market. For my part, I just can buy the following IR films:

- Ilford SFX
- Efke IR820
- Efke IR820 Aura
- Rollei IR 400/820

Then, I saw some very interesting results with other Rollei films. It seems that some new Rollei film can be used with IR filter:

- Rollei Retro 80S
- Rollei Retro 400S
- Rollei Superpan 200

I agree what @Steve Smith said: "Bracketing is a good idea. However, if you use 6x7 format on 120 film, you are going to quickly run out of film."

But without bracketing, it will be difficult to get the right impressions.

I did just my first Efke IR820 with my Mamiya 645 S1000. Here my first results:

Mamiya 645 S1000 (format 4,5 x 6) - Objectif : Sekor C 80mm/f 1.9
Sensibility : 12 ISO - Filter : HOYA R72 - Aperture : f 5.6
Developer : Kodak X-Tol 1+3 - 14'00" - 20 °C

f5.6 - 1/4 s.


f5.6 - 1/8 s.


f5.6 - 1/15 s.


f5.6 - 1/30 s.

I really don't see much point in putting a lot of energy into an IR exposure chart when the biggest single variable is the % of IR component of the light, which is extremely variable.

Typical exposure charts (recommended EI, developers, dilutions, and dev times etc.) are based on specific metering info. By far, the biggest issue with the current crop of IR films is that they are near IR films with sensitivities poking out a bit into the 800-900 nm range, so that the steepest part of the sensitivity curve overlaps the steepest part of the filter cutoff. HIE as actually easier to work with, in my experience, because the sensitivity went much further than anything on the market now, so when you pick a filter for HIE you are not getting into the steepest part of the sensitivity decline... unless you use maybe a 93 or something much deeper like that.

My suggestion to anyone getting started is to pay attention to the wide bracketing ranges that people recommend and simply to do a clip test. I'll be testign some metering strategies when I get time but honestly the clip test strategy has worked very well for me. I don't mind losing a few frames off a roll if I know that I will nail the development on the rest.

Also, looking at the results posted by Georges-le-gard, all four exposures are acceptable and probably differently people would prefer different ones. The key, I think, is to avoid underexposure at all costs. If you err on the side of overexposure, then you will probably get a satisfactory result on the first clip test.... but you will almost certainly nail it after the clip test.

With other words - after reading the sense of keithwms' post, we can collect all our results and their parameters, this knowledge will always be a starting point to do our next IR photo. We never won't know in advanced the concentration of the IR in the atmosphere for our next shot.
And it's true, few persons around me watched this exposures. The preference of each person were different. As long as the photos are not to dark (underexposure), you still will find people who like the different ones.
For me I find it much more important to find out the results given by various developers. Personally, I didn't like the Efke IR results with the D76. Those things are just a question of my personal preference.

So, as I can see, there is no possibility to get enough information together for even a "Small Exposure Table for IR Films". After Kodak stopped the HIE there are just our Efke IR820/Aura and now the Rollei RETRO 80S, SUPERPAN 200 and the new RETRO 400S for doing IR photography. Oh, I forgot the Ilford SFX 200 that nobody is using.

It seems to be very difficult to create something like a "Exposure Chart for IR Films".

By the way, I studied the technical documentation of the Efke 100. It seems to have a lot of characteristics in common with the Efke IR820. Does Efke sell us the same emulsion under 2 different labels???

Georges, I described my experience and showed the results from my first film. It is much easier than expected. Based on the data on the 3rd page of this thread everyone will be able to achieve good results with the film I used without having to do a lot of bracketing. The data can be used for XTol or Diafine, there is not much difference in the results I had. In the meanwhile I shot all my 10 films, and I am quite happy so far. IR is a funny game, and I like the 'Aura' look of the Efke film. As soon as i have time to make some scans I will upload some more examples - a haunted castle with a very appealing ghost

I can't say much about Efke 100 film but as far as I know it has not the slightest IR characteristics and has a classic base. I heard it is a very old-fashioned film with a classic look. Why should anyone care whether it is similar, a relative, a brother or a sister? My 100 ASA favorite is Tmax 100 anyhow. Compared to that most films below 100 ASA are pretty weak.

By the way, there are films available with many different labels. There are only very few real manufacturers of films left:

Kodak, the remanings of Agfa, Fuji, Foma, Efke and some chinese companies.

All the other companies are just losegowcacks that glue labels on film cartridges, even if their n00bs put on the dog, strut down the street pretending to be buff and bawl at everyone that they are moments from achieving world domination...

I found that studio flash is a good, stable source of IR. I think its comparable to direct sunlight - I guess its about color temperature. There is absolutely no need for bracketing as it gives repeatable results when I use incident metering. Unfortunately I don't have anything scanned.

I think flash + incident metering can be useful as some reference point for testing IR film.

Georges-le-gard said:

After Kodak stopped the HIE there are just our Efke IR820/Aura and now the Rollei RETRO 80S, SUPERPAN 200 and the new RETRO 400S for doing IR photography. Oh, I forgot the Ilford SFX 200 that nobody is using.

Click to expand...

No, the list looks like this now:

* efke IR 820 (ISO 100/21°; up to 820nM)
* efke IR 820 AURA (ISO 100/21°; up to 820nM, same as efke IR 820, no anti-halation to create special highlight glow)
* KODAK AEROCHROME III 1443 (Colour, ISO 40/17°; up to 900nM)
* Kodak Ektachrome Professional Infrared (Colour, ISO 100/21°; up to 900nM (EIR)

Films with SOME infrared sensitivity; they are all well below 800nM and in general a plunge of sensitivity much earlier. That makes their ISO statement on the package very misleading for IR:

* Ilford SFX 200 (ILFORD's traffic film SP816T; ISO 200/24°; up to 740nM)
* KODAK HAWKEYE traffic film 2485 (ISO 400/27°; up to 720nM)
* Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 (aerial film, ISO 200/24°; up to 750nM)
* Agfa Aviphot ASP 400 S (traffic film, ISO 400/27°; up to 750nM)

These are the original manufacturer emulsions. Everything else in the market is a relabeled version of one of these or some older films.

(Did I forget something? Is something outdated?)

cmo said:

(Did I forget something? Is something outdated?)

Click to expand...

The Rollei is not on there. Is IR 400 the Aviphot ASP 400 S emulsion as Klaus sez?

I remember when EIR was discontinued. Is it back? AFAIK, Kodak Aerochrome spooled by that guy in Germany is the only way to get something like it.

2F/2F said:

The Rollei is not on there. Is IR 400 the Aviphot ASP 400 S emulsion as Klaus sez?

Click to expand...

Published spectral sensitivity curves are the same.

I remember when EIR was discontinued. Is it back? AFAIK, Kodak Aerochrome spooled by that guy in Germany is the only way to get something like it.

Click to expand...

EIR and 1443 seem to be same emulsion. Characteristic, spectral sensitivity, spectral-dye-density and MTF curves are the same. The differences in speed seem to be result of difference between aerial exposure at given altitude and at ground level. There is also a speed and RMS difference between film processed in AR5 and E6. The only real difference I've found in tech pubs is film thickness.

Domin said:

EIR and 1443 seem to be same emulsion.

Click to expand...

I understand that they are the same emulsion, or at the very least almost identical. However, the OP put both of them in his list, hence my question. AFAIK, EIR is entirely discontinued.

2F/2F said:

I understand that they are the same emulsion, or at the very least almost identical. However, the OP put both of them in his list, hence my question. AFAIK, EIR is entirely discontinued.

Click to expand...

Yes, its been discontinued for a few years now. There's only 1443 left.

2F/2F said:

The Rollei is not on there. Is IR 400 the Aviphot ASP 400 S emulsion as Klaus sez?

I remember when EIR was discontinued. Is it back? AFAIK, Kodak Aerochrome spooled by that guy in Germany is the only way to get something like it.

Click to expand...

Aviphot ASP 400 S is a black and white film with characteristics that look like a typical traffic film - some IR sensitivity, poly-something base.

Aerochrome is a false-color reversal film.

I know one company that re-labels Agfa stuff. But who spools Kodak Aerochrome?

But we are quite off-topic now. This thread has actually not been a discussion about film characteristics and makers resp. companies that put labels on cartridges. It is about exposure.

So, do you have any good recommendations how to expose IR films of one of those makes?

I use SFX200, started last summer with different results. Developed at the time in T-max, but now I develop in Rodinal 1+50 24c for 10.30 minutes. I always shoot when the sun comes from a clear sky, and use a Hoya R72 filter. I almost always expose at 1/4 and f16, both 135 and 120. That is EV 10. I've bracketed and found out this exposure/dev combo looks nice. I don't get much shadowdetail, but use this film more for graphic effects, and lithprint it. It looks very nice. I've never tried other IR-films, I like the more subtle effect from the Ilford film. I have tried to shoot it under a cloudy sky also, at 4 ISO with the same filter, and that exposure is fine, just very flat light. Hope this was a contribution of help. This picture is from last year, and I guess that was T-Max 1+4 8:30 at 20c. Dead Link Removed

edit: I'm in Oslo, Norway

Efke IR820 Aura 120.
Ilford SFX200 gel filter
exposed f16@1sec
Developed in D76 stock for eight minutes, two inversions on each minute - Will reduce development time for the next roll and/or use 1+3 single shot.

Late August in Norfolk, England, full sun at around midday.

Dead Link Removed

I have detailed information in word documents. If anyone is interested in seeing what I have done, with the caveat that I am not advocating this for others, but it might provide an interesting reference.
I generally try to get a base exposure for the environment I am working in. Then with the film rated at a low ISO, compensate by opening the exposure about 4 stops.

This summer I used quite a lot of this film - 10 rolls.

Here are some examples, all rated at 1.5-3, developed in XTol as described above.

CMO,

Were the above examples Rollei IR 400?

Trying to build such a table is useless. There is too much variance in IR radiation on various days, weather conditions, latitude, time of the year, time of day, weather patterns, atmospheric haze, etc. it is a waste of time.

Here's a synopsis of a recent experience in shooting involving several hundred frames of Efke IR 820 and Efke IR 820 Aura in 4x5 and 120 roll film formats. My subject matter was mountain landscapes in all weathers.

The "Aura" feature does not do much on big film as the image "halation" or "flare" is quite small. I imagine in the 35mm format where the enlargement ratios are greater the "Aura" would be more prominent. Bunches of green leaves which "glow" in the infrared tend to merge into fuzzy blobs with significant over exposure. This effect is worse with the Aura version of Efke IR 820.

There is a loose (did I say loose?) correlation between conventional meter readings and infrared exposures. My Pentax analog spot meter was set at EI=1.5 for front-lit sunny scenes, EI=0.75 for sunny day subjects where shadow detail was important, EI=0.3 for cloudy overcast days. Exposures were through IR680 and IR720 filters. Surprisingly it did not matter which filter was used. The results looked much the same!

The IR680 and IR720 filters, 77mm diameter, came from China via Ebay. They cost about $20 each. It is possible, for me at least, to see through these filters and preview the infrared effect. The filter has to be held close to the eye, extraneous light carefully excluded, and the eye "dark-adapted" for about 30 seconds. I suspect that with the iris of the dark-adapted eye being wide open looking at the sun through an IR transmitting filter would be a very bad thing indeed.

Efke IR 820 film shows significant reciprocity failure but the following corrections are what I use:
1 second metered, give1.5 seconds
2 seconds metered, give 3.0 seconds
4 seconds metered, give 6 seconds
8 seconds metered, give 12 seconds
15 seconds metered, give 30 seconds
30 seconds metered, give 80 seconds
60 seconds metered, give 3 minutes
120 seconds metered, give 6 min 40 sec
240 seconds metered, give 18 minutes
These reciprocity corrections pretty well guarantee you'll get something useable on film but not exactly what you will get. Shooting IR is rolling the optical dice everytime.

Infrared focus shift is real and horrible. Everything I shot with the 360mm lens on my Mamiya RB 67 is out of focus. I suspect I have to rack this lens out about 5mm to compensate the difference between the visible and IR focii. More exact measurements are planned. Wide angle lenses well stopped down yielded sharp images but only because increased depth of focus forgives imprecision.

Some development variations were tried including hot paper strength Dektol! This was supposed to cure the reputation IR negatives have for low contrast. Cure indeed! The resulting super-contrasty negatives still made acceptable (sort of) pictures on grade#0 and grade#1 paper. Optimum development for my film now seems to to be 11 minutes at 20 Celcius in straight replenished Xtol. YMMV, naturally.

In practice Efke IR 820 like other IR films I have tried both disappoints and exhilarates. A lot of subject matter I had high hopes for yielded unremarkable schmutz but some plain things turned to visual magic. That's the deal.

Maris, thanks for your detailed findings, very helpful.

There are many hundreds of permutations with IR film with no single defining "table" for doing it correctly, rather than experimentally. Individuals spend time exposing and re-exposing, processing and re-processing, refining their own experiments which may not auger well when transposed to different equipment or processing situations.

The halation of IR film is of interest to me. How is this exaggerated? I thought taping aluminium foil to the inside back of my camera (EOS1N) would increase halation of IR film (Efke Aura). An experiment using IR film in a Zero Image pinhole is pending after it is verified that an exposed but unprocessed slice of negative is a substitute for an IR filter, which otherwise must be mangled/cut down to size for the pinhole. The post by Maris is very interesting indeed, and I recall somewhere a previous post featuring an IR image of a snowgum that was visuallly exhilarating.

Poisson, yes, I think you could use foil as you say, I've been meaning to try it for a long while, though actually I am not such a fan of halation so it hasn't been a priority. Anyway the obvious problem is that you have to take care not to scratch the film with the foil. You could also pre-wash away the AH layer from sheet film. Another thought that I've not had time to try is to make a dupe neg over foil using sheet film with the AH layer washed away. I am guessing that you can add halation to any image that way, as long as the enlarger bulb emits enough IR light. ( And if the IR component is small then a visible blocking filter over the enlarger bulb could probably boost the balance of IR, at the cost of a much longer exposure of course)