Trying Rollei IR400 again, want a warm fuzzy

Copperrein · Oct 13, 2011

Alright, here's my setup:

Pentax Spotmatic, R72 filter, tripod, bag-loaded Rollei IR400
First two tests metered everything at 25 and got just about nothing. Most of the shots I bracketed. I had one really faint frame on what should have been the darkest shot. First roll failure I blamed on developing, second one...started to realize my math had failed somewhere. The experience was so painful I made a rage comic: http://cheezburger.com/View/5277164032

OK...fast forward to today. FedEx will be dropping off more IR film, I grabbed 4 rolls of Rollei and two Efke. My plan today is meter the rollei at 6. At least if I blow all the frames out I will have accomplished more than last time. 2 stops aren't THAT massive on normal film, but I have come to respect the evil voodoo in IR film and wouldn't be shocked by much at this point.

Oh, all shots were with the R72 on, tripod'd

So plan is: Bag load the spotmatic (no IR sprocket sensors), meter at 6, develop in, well...anything really. Last time I used rodinal for the first roll then ID-11 for the second. I have a selection of chemicals so if someone has an epic recipe for this film, I would appreciate that too

anikin · Oct 13, 2011

In my experience, Rollei with R72 just start to produce acceptable images at about ISO 3. I'd say start at 6, but bracket down couple of stops: ISO 6, 3, 1. Also, it needs quite a bit more development compared to normal b/w films.

Copperrein · Oct 13, 2011

What would you suggest for development?

anikin · Oct 13, 2011

As far as I remember I was processing it in my sidekick with TMAX developer 1+4 for 6:30 at 75 degrees. This is more than twice the dev time compared to TMAX film.

Copperrein · Oct 13, 2011

Ok, that jives with the massive dev chart. They're saying 12 minutes for film shot at 25 not using a processor.

anikin · Oct 13, 2011

Yeah. I find it's rather hard to overexpose this film, but very easy to underexpose. And pushing the film does
not help much with underexposure. I'm saying is with so much confidence, which is funny since I only processed two rolls grand total ;-)
I love your cartoon, by the way!

Copperrein · Oct 13, 2011

Well, thank you for all your help. If I succeed I will post photos here. If I don't, expect another angry cartoon

ntenny · Oct 13, 2011

EI 6 has worked for me in conditions where I'd expect high-to-moderate levels of IR relative to visible (late afternoon on a sunny day, &c.) I generally develop IR films in Diafine, for the compensating effect.

Despite the much higher nominal speed, I don't find that the Rollei film used with an R72 has much if any advantage over Efke IR 820. The Rollei's IR response tails off very quickly and that seems to obviate most of the speed advantage.

-NT

DWThomas · Oct 13, 2011

ntenny makes a good point, I shot a bunch of the Rollei material last year and found it took a lot of exposure, speed is relative. I generally used an incident light reading at 400 and added 6 or seven stops with a 720 filter (about 12 or 13 stops with a 760!). My last run used HC110 Dilution E (1+47) for about 11 minutes @ 68ºF.

The EFKE 820 film I used 7 stops over ISO 100 incident with a 720, but it only required an additional stop with the 760; ie, the IR range goes out farther. I used HC110 Dil E for about 9.5 minutes with that.

I'm convinced that since we're dealing with a spectrum we can't see, intuitive adjustment is dubious - bracket, bracket, bracket! Certain lighting situations seemed to act like black holes for IR radiation.

And oh yeah an SLR with an opaque filter is unhandy!

kenaz · Oct 13, 2011

I guess I have been very lucky...
These were exposed at ISO 12-25 and developed normally by a lab at their reference ISO 400 times (t-max 400) using the house's standard developer Ilfosol (don't know if 3 or s).

I shot 2 rolls (filter and no filter) and mixed up the tags... long story short this which was meant to be the filterless, was obviously sent out to be developed as a normal 400... I guess it was the filtered one instead.

ntenny · Oct 13, 2011

Are those neg scans, kenaz? Very nice shots in any case.

I shot a test roll of IR400 split between EI 12 and 25, and if I remember aright, the frames at 12 were in the "thin but usable" range while the ones at 25 were more at the level of "no way this is printable but a scanner might salvage it". That was in midday light, though, and you might have picked up a higher IR/visible ratio than I did.

I agree with DWThomas---there's no really good recipe for figuring out how much IR is out there, though you can make some educated guesses. Basically, when the sunlight skews red, it should also have fairly high levels of near-IR.

-NT

mhcfires · Oct 13, 2011

I have ten rolls of Efke 820 to suffer through (bought at a good price for unexpired film). I shot a roll at EI 4. The negatives were horribly thin and grainy. Probably underdeveloped. I use an R72 filter on my Leica M2 Nokton 50/1.1 lens. How does this stuff compare with the Rollei film?

m

Роберт · Oct 13, 2011

Efke IR820 is in fact an Efke 100 film with extended NIR sensitivity.
So you can develop according Efke 100 specs. With an #88A IR filter it will be around iso 1,5-3.

Here an example of the Rollei IR-400(S) film with a Heliopan RG715 filter (#88A - 715nm). E.I. 12 and developed in AM74/RHS. Best results you will get in a semi-compensating developer.

Yashica Mat 124-G with Bay I filter. 1/30S f=4,0 handheld which is just possible with this IR film. For Efke IR820 you need always a tripod.

kenaz · Oct 13, 2011

Thank you ntenny I always try.
They actually are scans, my house is too small for even a 'flying' darkroom.
In any case from my almost gone knowledge of proper printing the negs looked more than decent on the light table and I clearly recall they were very very easy to scan, actually I was surprised for the broad curve on such a tight portion of light getting on the film.

The ship deck was shot at sunset.
The cross was shot at noon with an overcast sky.
The gobling ferry was shot a 6 p.m.

As stupid as it my seem (I still think it is...), the 'method' used for evaluating close to IR is to look through the filter which I wrap around my hand as to make a viewer and then count until I see the 'glow', if it doesn't take to long there would be enough quasi IR... (please do not try this pointing at the sun!!!).

To give some credit to the above pseudo-science I remember refraining myself from taking many shots, even if they seemed ok in theory, when I tried the stupid method on the scene it took ages to see any light through the filter. Sometimes was the angle sometimes there wasn't just enough light.

Really don't konw.

Again I am surprised by the amount of decently eposed frames I got in this roll.

ken

DWThomas · Oct 13, 2011

mhcfires said:
I have ten rolls of Efke 820 to suffer through (bought at a good price for unexpired film). I shot a roll at EI 4. The negatives were horribly thin and grainy. Probably underdeveloped. I use an R72 filter on my Leica M2 Nokton 50/1.1 lens. How does this stuff compare with the Rollei film?

m

Looking over my notes (which a year later don't appear as well expressed as I might wish) I got decent results with about 6 or 7 stops more exposure than an incident reading at ISO100. That is, down around ISO 1. But some of that roll was trying to repeat a shot that previously frustrated me where a somewhat shaded river in the foreground seemed to radiate no IR period! The biggest advantage with the EFKE film was that you could go deeper into the IR region (Ex: 760 nM filter) and get slightly stronger IR effects without too much exposure penalty. Most of my shooting was done from mid-morning to mid-afternoon in mid-summer sunlight.

Alas, it's even conceivable that some light meters might skew results a bit one way or the other depending on their spectral sensitivity curves. (Sorry I thought of that!)

Copperrein · Oct 14, 2011

ntenny: I got both rollei and efke to see. No offense to Rollei, but in my limited experience using film, rollei film seems a little... kitschy. Not really a bad thing, but my gut tells me efke will probably get better results.

DWThomas: thank you for the info. You also remind me to take a notepad with me and record expose and environment variables. Your shots are beautiful!

Kenaz: Lovely work. I'll have to give the 'spyglass' technique a try. Will this work with a 720 and up?.

ntenny · Oct 14, 2011

mhcfires said:
I have ten rolls of Efke 820 to suffer through (bought at a good price for unexpired film). I shot a roll at EI 4. The negatives were horribly thin and grainy. Probably underdeveloped. I use an R72 filter on my Leica M2 Nokton 50/1.1 lens. How does this stuff compare with the Rollei film?

I've only shot the Rollei film in 120; I did shoot a few rolls of Efke IR in 35mm, lo these many years ago. Both are very grainy---I think grain is intrinsic to IR film for some reason---and that's why I haven't gone back to 35mm with it, though I did get some images I liked in that format.

It seems to me like the results I've gotten from the two films are more similar than different; the Efke film's sensitivity goes deeper into the IR, which makes it effectively a bit faster behind an R72 filter than its ISO speed might suggest, but the different sensitivity range doesn't seem to translate into a big difference in the final image.

I've shot the Efke film as fast as EI 12 and gotten away with it (targetting a scanner, though, not optical prints), but lately I've converged on about EI 3 for afternoon light on a sunny day. (It's *slower* at midday, contrary to what you might expect. I don't know what happens in the morning, because I'm either asleep or at work.

-NT

Copperrein · Oct 14, 2011

If I can get my 'warm fuzzy' in 35mm I will most definitely switch to 120 immediately. 6x6 FTW!

Though with the grain, I've seen a lot of really smooth, grainless film IR like DWThomas' work. Grain is ok for some things, but the dream-state feel of IR is the reason I was attracted to it.

And another random question: Is digital IR photography (sensor mod or conversion in software later) REALLY IR photography? From what I've read film responds to different wavelengths and responds differently to said wavelegths than digital sensors. Would it be safest to say that digital IR will never equal traditional and digital IR is it's own thing?

Andrew O'Neill · Oct 14, 2011

EI 1.5 through Wratten #87 (opaque) filter. Be careful not to accidently load two sheets of film in the holder like I did. It's so thin.

Helinophoto · Oct 14, 2011

You cannot really calculate this, because the level of IR radiation vary according to the sun position etc.....for example, where I live, I had my exposures around 1-2 seconds @ f11 - f16 with Efke (35mm).

The IR light varied so much, that it was impossible to really tell anyway (this time of year, the sun doesn't come very high up here).

Here's my review on that one and the resulting (hardly usable) photo: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) You may have to use google translate

Problem was, that the contrast was so high on some (white stuff and black skies), while other photos (pine threes/forests) were so dark in general that they weren't usable at all.
Mostly they looked like they'd been shot trough a night vision camera.

It's a touchy-feely game I would assume, comes with trial and error...at least that's my impression

My photos were all developed in a Tmax developer, probably the totally wrong choice, next time it will be ultrafine or a Rodinal stand or something.

But for all intents and purposes, my IR antics are over until next summer, due to the light conditions here.

I hope you get it to work, it can create something really stunning when it works out ^^

Copperrein · Oct 14, 2011

Like I said... voodoo. I would be happy with 3 frames out of 36 at this point. The film arrived, the sun did not. Perhaps tomorrow. This is worse than an elementary school crush :-|

Helinophoto · Oct 14, 2011

Haha =)

But the drawing was nice though, liked, voted and shared to facebook ^^

kenaz · Oct 14, 2011

Copperein the filter I use which is the only one I own is a 720nm.
Anyway, I can't stress enough how the 'trick' applied, has very little scientific basis and was only tryed by a troubled mind (my own...) out of frustration...

The camera used is a 1938 6x9 balda super pontura (trioplan lens).

This winter I will try a bit of DIY and try to make a filter holder for my lightmeter (which I didn't use...), and get a bit more scientific...

As the other posters (which are surely more experienced than myslef), have stated above midsummer is the best time to shoot.

Thank you for your generous remarks about the samples.

Good luck!

Please show some samples as soon as you get some!!!

Helinophoto · Oct 14, 2011

By the way, have you read this article/review?
http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/rollei_ir_400_first_impressions

DWThomas · Oct 14, 2011

Copperrein said:
And another random question: Is digital IR photography (sensor mod or conversion in software later) REALLY IR photography? From what I've read film responds to different wavelengths and responds differently to said wavelegths than digital sensors. Would it be safest to say that digital IR will never equal traditional and digital IR is it's own thing?

I don't see how an equivalent effect could be "done in software" because without removing the IR filter from the sensor, there is basically no information recorded from the IR portion of the spectrum. Modifying the sensor can work, but last I heard much about that, it cost something like $250 to modify the camera and effectively void your warranty (and I don't have another camera to fall back on).

My previous IR work was in 19-ought-65 with 4x5 negatives, so I got warm fuzzies working with film.

On the page I linked to above, there is one shot taken with an unmodified EOS 40D through a 760 nM filter; a grande experiment in "well, since I have it." I had to dynamite it out of the mud with a photo editor and it was a 17 second (at f4) exposure in bright sun -- not all that handy! But yes, there is some IR effect.

As to other comments, a little staring through my loupe suggests the EFKE film is grainier than the Rollei. I'm flattered by the comments, but as to "smoothness," the IR shots I have in my gallery are all medium format. There's no substitute for negative area!

Trying Rollei IR400 again, want a warm fuzzy

Copperrein

anikin

Copperrein

anikin

Copperrein

anikin

Copperrein

ntenny

DWThomas

kenaz

Attachments

ntenny

mhcfires

Роберт

kenaz

DWThomas

Copperrein

ntenny

Copperrein

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Helinophoto

Attachments

Copperrein

Helinophoto

kenaz

Helinophoto

DWThomas

Trying Rollei IR400 again, want a warm fuzzy

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency