Trying out Ilford's SFX this weekend!

luvmydogs · Jul 4, 2008

I bought a few rolls and have not had a chance to experiment. Well, we are expecting sunny skies (hopefully with a few clouds) and warm temps, so I've loaded a camera with a roll of SFX and a 092 filter (boy this filter is dark!). I've set my ISO to 12.

What would you guys recommend that I develop this film in? I don't have a lot of developers - Rodinal, HC110, Perceptol, and maybe one of Ilford's developers (not DDX but the other one - can't remember the name).

jim appleyard · Jul 4, 2008

I've used Rodinal, HC-110 and D-76 and to be honest, I can't see a bit of difference. This is a grainy film, but to my eye, the D-76 stock negs look the same as the ones in Rodinal!

Fun film; what I do is to set my camera meter to EI 160, compose, focus and then put the filter on, meter and then use the cameras' self-timer/cable release.

This is not a true IR film, only an extended red film, but it's much easier to use than Kodak's; with SFX you don't need to change your focus and you can load SFX in the daylight. While you don't get quite the same IRefeect with SFX, the trade IMHO is worth it.

Don't forget the tripod!

Toffle · Jul 4, 2008

I was a little skeptical when I first tried this film, but I have to say that it is really a nice film. The IR effect is not as pronounced as HIE or Maco Aura, but it is still a dramatic effect. I particularly like the mid-tones this film is capable of producing.

SFX 120 format, Rolleiflex 3.5f, developed 9 min in HC-110.

Rather than setting the EI as Jim does, I meter at ISO 6 and expose accordingly. A brightly lit scene would have a typical exposure of around 1/4 sec at f16. In 35mm or 120, SFX really has the ability to make ordinary scenes literally pop off the paper.

SFX 35mm format, Nikon N-80

[edit] Both shots with Hoya R-72 filter.

Enjoy your new film.

Cheers,

Snapshot · Jul 4, 2008

Hmmm... now I'm tempted to try SFX.

MattKing · Jul 5, 2008

Macy:

You need a TLR!

I recently went through the same experience with the Rollie near IR film. Take a look at my APUG gallery for a couple of the results (I used a Hoya R72 filter, and used a range of ISO 3 through 12). Bracketing is very important.

I do have some of the SFX in the fridge too, but haven't had a chance to do that trial.

It's fun, but I sense somewhat unpredictable.

Matt

markbarendt · Jul 5, 2008

Ordered some earlier today and want to hear about your results. I can hardly wait.

PhotoJim · Jul 5, 2008

I bought some SFX (both 35mm and 120) and the Ilford filter for it as an impulse at Beau Photo in Vancouver last month. These images here are making me hope for a free weekend and some sunny skies soon.

Toffle · Jul 5, 2008

PhotoJim said:
I bought some SFX (both 35mm and 120) and the Ilford filter for it as an impulse at Beau Photo in Vancouver last month. These images here are making me hope for a free weekend and some sunny skies soon.

Just a word of caution if you are not familiar with gel filters. They are very fragile and tolerate very little humidity. (I was very cautious of the first and not cautious enough of the second. ) Though I was very careful not to touch the surface, I made the mistake of using it on a hot, humid day. There are now a few perceptible dimples on the surface of the gel. I learned my lesson and picked up an R-72.

Also, keep in mind that unless you can compose, focus and meter with the filter in place, you tend to handle an IR filter more than any other filter. For me, that means doing my entire pre-shot routine, then attaching the filter to take the shot, remove the filter (put it in its case) and set up for the next shot. And doing it all over again for each shot. The good thing about this is that it forces you to slow down. The bad thing is, that on the whole, gel filters don't like to be handled all that much.

Cheers, and happy shooting.

luvmydogs · Jul 5, 2008

Toffle - wow!! Gorgeous!!

Thanks everyone! I am actually using the film in my rangefinder, and the IR filter I have is a screw-on one. I only managed about 15 shots today (kinda hard with two little ones!), but tomorrow I will hopefully finish the roll - I am anxious to see what I got.

Jim, glad to hear that I can use Rodinal and HC110, since I am most familiar with these two developers. Will post results if they're not too sh*tty!

Chazzy · Jul 7, 2008

Something tells me that I will not find the right filter in Series VI!

Frank Szabo · Jul 7, 2008

Sometimes, I really wish you buncha turkies would quit finding new stuff to play with - now I've got to get myself a roll or three of this stuff!

johnnywalker · Jul 7, 2008

SFX can have some very different and nice effects with a 25 red filter as well.

luvmydogs · Jul 7, 2008

Thank goodness Johnny. I will try that too. Having to dial in an ISO of 12 with that 92 filter gave me a hard time this weekend - even though it was extremely bright and sunny I still was only able to shoot at a shutter speed of only 8 or 15 at an aperture of 2 - 2.8. Couldn't use a tripod as it just wasn't practical (carting two little kids, etc.). I'll be lucky if the shots are not overly blurry from camera shake. Thank god it was a rangefinder at least so no mirror slap.

thefizz · Jul 7, 2008

I've been using this film lately with Rodinal Special (Studional) 1:30 for 10 minutes but the grain is still a bit too much for me.

I do like grainy images but SFX just isn't doing it for me at the moment.

Toffle · Jul 7, 2008

Hi Macy;
If this is your first roll, don't stress too much about assimilating everything you're being told. I read somewhere that SFX is a very forgiving film, with a side exposure latitude, so you will get something... probably enough to get you excited enough to try more. Your first prints will tell you what will work for you. (and how most of what I'm telling you is subjective garbage) Relax, enjoy... you're on the right track, or so near to it, you'll have it figured out by your second roll.

Cheers,

Toffle · Jul 7, 2008

thefizz said:
I've been using this film lately with Rodinal Special (Studional) 1:30 for 10 minutes but the grain is still a bit too much for me.

I do like grainy images but SFX just isn't doing it for me at the moment.

Yeah, the grain is a little much, especially in 35mm. (not nearly so apparent in 120) You could cut your agitation a bit and see if that helps any. I don't remember the grain being any worse than HIE.

Cheers,

thefizz · Jul 7, 2008

The funny thing is that I was using SFX in 120 but still the grain didn't appeal to me.

Aurum · Jul 7, 2008

A roll of SFX is sitting in my Fridge waiting for the correct deep red filter to arrive......

Just a thought. I wonder if this particular film is suitable for reversal processing?
Might try that once I get a feel for the stuff and what it can do in my grubby paws

luvmydogs · Jul 9, 2008

Just thought I'd post an update since many of you were so kind to help out.

The results were super grainy! I used 35mm though. Developed in HC110 dilution B (9 minutes) in 20 degrees. Agitated (inversion) 3 times per minute.

All water temps were within 1 degree of 20.

Toffle · Jul 9, 2008

Nice work, Macy. I think I like the middle one best, though the blurry bicycle is pretty cool too. Now that you're over your beginner's jitters, you can get out there and make the film do what you want.

Cheers,

timbo10ca · Jul 10, 2008

Hmm- I shot SFX rated at 200 and exposed through the fiter Ilford sends with their sample pack (89B, I believe), developed as you did in HC-110 dil B for 9 min 20 Deg C, agitating as I do for all 35mm (10 sec per minute- Ilford's directions on their site). I got pretty good negs with not alot of grain. Similar IR effect to HIE but less grain, actually. This was last summer, so the info's not in my forebrain, but I did some testing and made notes based on what my meter was telling me, compared to what Ilford's exposure recommendations are in bright sun through that filter (see the SFX fact sheet). Ilford's recommendation was bang-on every time: f/5.6 for 1/30 sec or equivalent.

Tim

luvmydogs · Jul 10, 2008

Tim, wow, your negs are MUCH better!! (way less grainy!!)

So let me get this straight...you rated the film at box speed (ie, 200), put on the 89B filter, and just let TTL metering of your camera do the metering? You were using an SLR I presume?

I just read the fact sheet and it appears that the 89B filter and the one I used (92) are both "very deep red," thus should be similar. I'll try it again using your exposure (f/5.6 at 1/30s).

timbo10ca · Jul 10, 2008

luvmydogs said:
Tim, wow, your negs are MUCH better!! (way less grainy!!)

So let me get this straight...you rated the film at box speed (ie, 200), put on the 89B filter, and just let TTL metering of your camera do the metering? You were using an SLR I presume?

I just read the fact sheet and it appears that the 89B filter and the one I used (92) are both "very deep red," thus should be similar. I'll try it again using your exposure (f/5.6 at 1/30s).

I didn't really "rate" it at all, I think that's just what the speed turns out to be with that filter and that aperture/shutter combo. I only used my meter (yes, on an SLR) to compare to what Ilford recommends. Usually the meter would agree, but when it didn't, it was *always* wrong on those test shots. I think it usually had to do with me taking my eye away from the eyecup to check the upper display for the aperture/shutter speed- this allowed light in and confused the meter (didn't know that would happen, but I was wondering why the heck the meter was jumping around all over the place- finally figured it out halfway through the roll). Sometimes it was just a "confusing" scene, I guess. If the meter agreed with Ilford, I made only one exposure.

I don't know alot about IR, having only used a 25 filter with HIE, but I don't think your 92 and the 89B are equivalent- you may be cutting off too much of the useable IR spectrum for SFX and underexposing using Ilford's guidelines. You can't just go by the "stops darkness". In this, I may be wrong but I'm sure someone will correct me if I am.

Tim

luvmydogs · Jul 11, 2008

Tim, yesterday I tried a roll of SFX and did what you did - ISO 200, f/5.6 and shutter speed 1/30 or equivalent. The negs turned out MUCH better!! The grain was much more normal looking, lol.

I will post some samples later. This leads me to ask, why would one rate this film ISO 6, 12, etc.?? I am confused.:confused:

MattKing · Jul 11, 2008

luvmydogs said:
This leads me to ask, why would one rate this film ISO 6, 12, etc.?? I am confused.:confused:

Macy:

Are you metering through the filter, or are you using a hand meter and dialing in a filter factor correction?

I used the latter method with my experiments with the Rollie film. The ISO 6 reflects the filter factor.

Matt

Trying out Ilford's SFX this weekend!

luvmydogs

jim appleyard

Toffle

Snapshot

MattKing

Moderator

markbarendt

PhotoJim

Toffle

luvmydogs

Chazzy

Frank Szabo

johnnywalker

luvmydogs

thefizz

Toffle

Toffle

thefizz

Aurum

luvmydogs

Attachments

Toffle

timbo10ca

Attachments

luvmydogs

timbo10ca

luvmydogs

MattKing

Moderator

Trying out Ilford's SFX this weekend!

Moderator

Attachments

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency