PDA

View Full Version : will I see 8x10 infrared film ever again



uphereinmytree
29-Jul-2013, 21:20
I have a stash of 4x5 infrared film, but no 8x10. I rarely shoot other film so I may be confined to 4x5. Any chance I'll ever see 8x10 IR again? A buddy suggested some 8x10 x-ray film.

Peter De Smidt
30-Jul-2013, 06:31
http://www.mahn.net/TAIRe.htm

They have an infrared film available in 8x10.

Robert Hall
30-Jul-2013, 06:56
I don't see how X-Ray film would be sensitive to Infrared. I still have about 300 sheets in 8x10 and have used IR for a very long time. I still have to say that it's a finicky film and if I was going to invest in an IR solution it would probably be a higher end digital camera as it would save me gray hair and probably my liver from the drinking I do to set aside the anxiety of trying to get a really good image from IR film.

When I first bought IR film from Maco it was over $8 a sheet and for the most part was entirely light struck. Probably have never made back the investment, especially when you think of what I spent on 12x20 IR film. This latest batch I was able to acquire at a much cheaper price. I purchased it from a seller on E-bay that had bought an entire run and had more than he could use.

This latest batch has been significantly better but still gets a touch of fogging if I am not careful with the light trap. I was convinced with Maco that it was the plastic around the film holder that wasn't IR safe and invested in a bunch of wood holders which seemed to help but after this new batch of film I have tested in plastic holders, it seems that the early Maco was simply light struck from their poor handling.

I took a batch to the Caribbean this last year and shot about 25 sheets, of which I had one of my best images to date and it has sold quite well, but the rest are mediocre at best, mostly due to the way the film handles and not so much from me screwing up the exposure, although after 40+ years I can still pull that off -- old dogs and new tricks and so forth -- but the results remain the same.

I have a friend, Jim Collum who shoots IR with his expensive digital setup and I have to say the results are simply awesome. It's unfortunate I don't have a spare 20k laying around to capture images like he does. The small fact that it would take me years to make them look as good as he does after the fact might play in to that as well.

That, more or less, is my current perception of (fine art?) IR imaging.

Corran
30-Jul-2013, 08:07
Robert brings up a good point about digital IR. For probably less than $2k you could get a decent used 12-24mp DSLR, modify it for IR, and a few nice primes, and easily get the same level of quality as 4x5 IR, or better - as at least in my limited experience, IR film is always much grainier than traditional film. I know no one wants to hear that on this forum but it's probably true.

X-ray film has some similarities in look to IR film if you have the green-sensitive stuff (foliage is much brighter) but definitely not the same.

If/when I stop using my Nikon D700 for commercial work I'll probably get it IR modified.

redrockcoulee
30-Jul-2013, 08:21
http://www.mahn.net/TAIRe.htm

They have an infrared film available in 8x10.

Did not Maco IR become EFKE which is now out of production? I still have a half box of EFKE 4X5. I thought Rollei was the only IR film now in production.

uphereinmytree
30-Jul-2013, 09:15
I didn't mean to say that I wanted to do IR photography with x-ray film. It was suggested to me that I explore x-ray film as an inexpensive alternative to IR in 8x10 as the 8x10 gear is currently collecting dust. X-ray may fill the creative 8x10 void The cost of modern 8x10 films like tmax is prohibitive for me even though I would sell an organ for 8x10 IR film. Digital is not an option for me because of the digital lack of dynamic range ,loss of view camera movements, and most importantly, the loss of my favorite imagons that I feel are delightful with IR film. It's not the same and I already spend too much time in front of a computer.

I have a freezer full of efke 4x5 IR and never see any of the fogging issues mentioned. Not all bellows are IR tight, but mine are. I use Rodinal diluted 1;50 and get great shadow detail while maintaining highlight detail and basically have everything dialed in to consistantly get full tonal range with good contrast. It does get grainy when overexposed.

Rollei (agfa) still makes 4x5 IR and I was curious if they would produce 8x10.
I was hoping to hear that there's a great chance someone like Ilford will start rolling out 8x10 IR real soon. (just kidding!) I have seen some polaroid resurrection, but There is much more fun involved in that type of film which makes it appeal to more than niche artsy types.

I really don't expect to ever use 8x10 IR again and will have to consider digital IR when all the 4x5 is gone

Peter De Smidt
30-Jul-2013, 09:49
Another options is to use something like an RM72 filter with regular panchromatic film. The speed loss is somewhere between 7 and 15 stops. On the plus side, long exposures can have interesting characteristics, the film can have fine grain, and you can get black skies, white foliage...

sanking
30-Jul-2013, 14:35
Robert brings up a good point about digital IR. For probably less than $2k you could get a decent used 12-24mp DSLR, modify it for IR, and a few nice primes, and easily get the same level of quality as 4x5 IR, or better - as at least in my limited experience, IR film is always much grainier than traditional film. I know no one wants to hear that on this forum but it's probably true.

X-ray film has some similarities in look to IR film if you have the green-sensitive stuff (foliage is much brighter) but definitely not the same.

If/when I stop using my Nikon D700 for commercial work I'll probably get it IR modified.


Digital IR is fantastic because you can actually see the IR result and adjust your composition. I used film IR for a few years but eventually discovered digital IR and it opens a whole new world of visual discovery.

A small part of my work with digital IR can be seen at my experimental light gallery. http://www.sandykingphotography.com/photography-portfolio/experimental-light

In terms of final image quality I agree with Bryan in that FF DSLR converted to IR is at least as good as 4X5 IR film. But if that is not good enough, pick up an inexpensive older P45 and have it converted to IR!!

Sandy

vinny
30-Jul-2013, 14:45
Guys have been saying dslr's are as good as 4x5 since the 10D came out, nothing new there.
I'm not sure what most of these answers have to do with 8x10 infrared film but I'd guess that your only chance is with Rollei doing a $pecial run once a year or so.

Peter De Smidt
30-Jul-2013, 14:45
That's fine work, Sandy! Which camera and conversion did you use?

sanking
30-Jul-2013, 15:25
That's fine work, Sandy! Which camera and conversion did you use?


Hi Peter,

The images on the web site were made with several converted Digital IR cameras, including Canon G9, Canon 50D, and Panasonic Lumix G3. I have some more recent work done with a converted Nikon D800 but none of that is on the web site. With the exception of the 50D, which was to 810 nm, all of the other conversions have been to 720 nm.

If I could find a inexpensive IR digital sensor for 4X5 would buy it in a second.

Sandy

ImSoNegative
31-Jul-2013, 08:09
i have gotten some very good (to me) images with IR film, I have used efke 820, though I never shot it in 4x5 only 120 the only reason I didn't shoot it with LF film is because I didn't have a tank to develop it in and I figured it would have gotten fogged in the darkroom, too expensive to waste, what would 8x10 cost a sheet?

Denise Dognini
31-Jul-2013, 12:54
i have gotten some very good (to me) images with IR film, I have used efke 820, though I never shot it in 4x5 only 120 the only reason I didn't shoot it with LF film is because I didn't have a tank to develop it in and I figured it would have gotten fogged in the darkroom, too expensive to waste, what would 8x10 cost a sheet?

Just after the news about the end of Efke, I bought 5 boxes of IR820, with 10 sheets each. I paid 34,87 EUR each, plus 30 EUR shipping. (from Fotoimpex, Germany). I also bought some 4x5 IR820, too.

I should have bought more though...

desertrat
1-Aug-2013, 09:40
I understand what I'm about to suggest is kind of 'out there', but it might be possible to dunk ordinary blue sensitive X-ray film in a dye sensitizing bath to give it IR sensitivity. I suggest blue sensitive X-ray film because it is cheap, and I believe it has no sensitizing dyes in the emulsion. There is lively discussion over at APUG in the emulsion making subforum on sensitizing dyes. There might be one for IR that can be sourced by individuals. The old literature mentions di-cyanine dyes but I have no idea if they are available today. There might be something else that would work.

desertrat
1-Aug-2013, 10:39
I did some searching in relevant threads at APUG and saw some candidates.

xenocyanine is an IR dye

Neocyanine is available from Cole-Parmer $88.50 for 1/2 gram.
3,3'-Diethyloxatricarbocyanine iodide is 107.25 for 1/2 gram

so is 3,3'-Diethylthiatricarbocyanine iodide, available from Sigma-Aldrich for $56.00 per 1 gram bottle.

StoneNYC
2-Aug-2013, 00:20
A few comments, the person who mentioned lack of movements on a DSLR for IR, toyo just came out with a digital back system.. I think it's for MF backs but could probably be adapted for canon/Nikon as well to give you movement options.

Contact Rollie and just ask them if thy will do a special run of 8x10 how much the minimum order would be, and see how many people you can organize to "go in" with you.

As for your "grey hair" comment. Check out some old canon 10D's that have been converted to IR and get one cheap, use it like a Polaroid to check exposure and then you will be a little less grey.

If I'm saying obvious things, sorry, just trying to help.

Kodachrome25
2-Aug-2013, 15:33
Just after the news about the end of Efke, I bought 5 boxes of IR820, with 10 sheets each. I paid 34,87 EUR each, plus 30 EUR shipping. (from Fotoimpex, Germany). I also bought some 4x5 IR820, too.

I should have bought more though...

Upon the announcement, I picked up 150 rolls of it in 120 and now have 1,300 sheets of it in 4x5, I'm set, you could not pay me to shoot digital IR, it's the real thing or nothing....

StoneNYC
2-Aug-2013, 18:09
Upon the announcement, I picked up 150 rolls of it in 120 and now have 1,300 sheets of it in 4x5, I'm set, you could not pay me to shoot digital IR, it's the real thing or nothing....

Yea but Dan not everyone has your resources, but some of us have your lenses ;) thanks man, loving this so far, just have to say it, I'm hooked! No IR though except a few 120 Rollei 400IR rolls, but would love to shoot some good 4x5's now. Also thanks for the tips on IR from back in January, they did help, even if I was pressed for time and didn't get to shoot as much as I wanted.

Kodachrome25
2-Aug-2013, 19:44
Yea but Dan not everyone has your resources, but some of us have your lenses ;)

Quite a few on here own homes, a socially expected investment. I rent mine but own a ton of film, so for now, I have invested in myself. That was last year, this year I am putting all my profits in the bank and saving for a house...:-)

Enjoy the format!

Jody_S
2-Aug-2013, 20:41
There is lots of scanning/imagesetter IR film out there, yes it's difficult to shoot with, yes it's much slower than conventional IR, yes it has much higher contrast and requires a rigorous development to tame that contrast. But, I was able to buy 300 sq. ft. of Konica for $30 + shipping last fall. Yes I have to cut it myself into 8x10 and 4x5 to use it. No, it's not as nice as Kodak HIE or Rollei or any proper infrared film. But, it is a true infrared, with incredibly fine grain and it lasts forever. It's not really harder to use than X-ray, which lots of us are shooting also to save $. There are more deals to be had, if you look for them.

StoneNYC
2-Aug-2013, 21:48
Quite a few on here own homes, a socially expected investment. I rent mine but own a ton of film, so for now, I have invested in myself. That was last year, this year I am putting all my profits in the bank and saving for a house...:-)

Enjoy the format!

Well give me a 2 month advance warning when you plan to have a housewarming party and maybe I'll make arrangements to come out to it, I could be your first couch crasher ;) haha I can pay for food with frozen rolls of Kodachrome25 too! :) I'm absolutely loving this format!

StoneNYC
2-Aug-2013, 21:48
Duplicate post

uphereinmytree
3-Aug-2013, 06:45
would anyone reading this be interested in Rollei IR 400 in 8x10 if they would do a short run and how much would you pay per sheet

vinny
3-Aug-2013, 06:46
would anyone reading this be interested in Rollei IR 400 in 8x10 if they would do a short run and how much would you pay per sheet
not more than $7

desertrat
3-Aug-2013, 10:10
There is lots of scanning/imagesetter IR film out there, yes it's difficult to shoot with, yes it's much slower than conventional IR, yes it has much higher contrast and requires a rigorous development to tame that contrast. But, I was able to buy 300 sq. ft. of Konica for $30 + shipping last fall. Yes I have to cut it myself into 8x10 and 4x5 to use it. No, it's not as nice as Kodak HIE or Rollei or any proper infrared film. But, it is a true infrared, with incredibly fine grain and it lasts forever. It's not really harder to use than X-ray, which lots of us are shooting also to save $. There are more deals to be had, if you look for them.
OK, now I'm interested in graphic arts IR film. I dug out a Photo Warehouse catalog from last year and noticed they have a couple of different types. They have IR infrared image setting film and Ultrafine GIR infrared film. The latter is much less expensive. Any idea if it would be usable? Also, what filter do you expose through? How long are your exposures? I have used ortho litho film and have a low contrast developer that works well with it.
Thanks in advance.

Jody_S
3-Aug-2013, 11:59
OK, now I'm interested in graphic arts IR film. I dug out a Photo Warehouse catalog from last year and noticed they have a couple of different types. They have IR infrared image setting film and Ultrafine GIR infrared film. The latter is much less expensive. Any idea if it would be usable? Also, what filter do you expose through? How long are your exposures? I have used ortho litho film and have a low contrast developer that works well with it.
Thanks in advance.

There is one type of IR film that is double-sided like X-ray, I believe that is the cheaper version and I would stay away from it. The standard Konica one I use is single-sided with a very good anti-halation coating on the reverse, with a thinner base than any other film I've used but if you cut it in the right direction with the curl, it stays very flat in the film holders except for a 1/8" - 1/4" edge on either end that curls up. If it is cut short and this curl does not hook under the lip at the top of the film holder (under the light trap), you risk catching the edge of the film when you re-insert the dark slide, and you will ruin the sheet unless you carry your whole camera into a darkroom where you can open the camera to save it.

I shoot with IR 750 and 820 (?) filters. The film is sensitive from around 550-600nm right up through 1000nm-1100nm, so a higher IR range than most photographic IR films. However, it is not a twin emulsion film like conventional photographic IR, which is a normal-sensitivity film with a 2nd IR emulsion. This means it can be manipulated with a blue or deep green safelight, and you can get an IR effect with no filter at all.

I use it with my IR 820 filter because I have a step-up ring that allows me to mount the same filter on my Pentax V spotmeter. The film's sensitivity matches the IR response of the meter, once I started metering properly I've had much less trouble with exposure. I meter through the filter and use a base value of 3 ASA, though I bracket and shoot a 2nd sheet at 1 ASA. That means in deep woods, at f16 or f22, I have exposures of 3 to 15 minutes, with no correction necessary for reciprocity failure. In bright sunlight I can get as fast as 1/2s if I open up the lens a little. This suits me fine because I use it with all my old barrel lenses, I can get a manageable exposure without having to use a 'Galli shutter'. The other advantage I've noticed with this IR film is that I have never had any observable flare, with any lens and filter combination. I guess IR wavelengths don't bounce around inside a lens as easily as visible light; so no issues either with cheap ($13 for 77mm!) IR filters from China.

Jeff Bannow
3-Aug-2013, 12:16
There is one type of IR film that is double-sided like X-ray, I believe that is the cheaper version and I would stay away from it. The standard Konica one I use is single-sided with a very good anti-halation coating on the reverse, with a thinner base than any other film I've used but if you cut it in the right direction with the curl, it stays very flat in the film holders except for a 1/8" - 1/4" edge on either end that curls up. If it is cut short and this curl does not hook under the lip at the top of the film holder (under the light trap), you risk catching the edge of the film when you re-insert the dark slide, and you will ruin the sheet unless you carry your whole camera into a darkroom where you can open the camera to save it.

Very interesting Jody. Do you know the make of the K.M. film?

I see some on ebay right now for reasonable prices (VR-100E for $72 for 23.98" x 200', or $0.18 a shot (shipped!) on my 12x20).

desertrat
3-Aug-2013, 12:19
Many thanks for the info. I will be looking into this.

Jody_S
3-Aug-2013, 12:56
Very interesting Jody. Do you know the make of the K.M. film?

I see some on ebay right now for reasonable prices (VR-100E for $72 for 23.98" x 200', or $0.18 a shot (shipped!) on my 12x20).

No, I don't know any other makers, though when I looked I saw a lot of names (rebrandings?) that were unfamiliar. On a 12x20, you might need to tape the edges in place to get it to stay flat. But yes, I've seen it in very wide rolls (up to 48"), and I wondered why more ULF shooters weren't using it.

Jeff Bannow
3-Aug-2013, 13:05
No, I don't know any other makers, though when I looked I saw a lot of names (rebrandings?) that were unfamiliar. On a 12x20, you might need to tape the edges in place to get it to stay flat. But yes, I've seen it in very wide rolls (up to 48"), and I wondered why more ULF shooters weren't using it.

The VR-100E is Konica Minolta made. Here's the datasheet - does it look similar to what you're using? http://image2output.com/media/pdf/hn_film.pdf

Thanks!

Jody_S
3-Aug-2013, 13:43
The VR-100E is Konica Minolta made. Here's the datasheet - does it look similar to what you're using? http://image2output.com/media/pdf/hn_film.pdf

Thanks!

No, that's not an infrared film (?). I saw a couple of curves like that, and I decided to stick with infrared because 1) I like the look of IR, and 2) I thought color rendition would be unpredictable with that film. The one I have has a simple curve that ramps up from 600 or so up to the 1000nm range, in a fairly linear fashion. So it has higher sensitivity the longer the wavelength, therefore using a 820nm filter does not require exposure compensation over using a simple red filter.

I've tried locating the graph I saw just now, I'm not having any luck with The Google. I might have saved it on my office computer, so I might yet be able to find it.

BetterSense
3-Aug-2013, 21:18
I hope this does not break any rules, but i have a sealed, cold-stored box of 4x5 IR820 for sale in the classifieds section. I never did get time for the project I bought it for and now I'm moving.

I had good luck with the 35mm using stacked RGB rosco/lee color gels as a very cheap IR filter. Maybe you would notice an image quality problem on 4x5, but 35mm was too grainy for what I wanted anyway.

Andrew O'Neill
3-Aug-2013, 22:27
My supply of 8x10 IR is running low. I would definately be in if Rollie did a special run.

uphereinmytree
4-Aug-2013, 05:07
graphic arts IR film seems interesting. thanks for the info

Jeff Bannow
4-Aug-2013, 09:35
No, that's not an infrared film (?). I saw a couple of curves like that, and I decided to stick with infrared because 1) I like the look of IR, and 2) I thought color rendition would be unpredictable with that film. The one I have has a simple curve that ramps up from 600 or so up to the 1000nm range, in a fairly linear fashion. So it has higher sensitivity the longer the wavelength, therefore using a 820nm filter does not require exposure compensation over using a simple red filter.

I've tried locating the graph I saw just now, I'm not having any luck with The Google. I might have saved it on my office computer, so I might yet be able to find it.

Thanks for the tip Jody! I see the difference now, and have ordered some infrared imagesetter film to play with.

Roger Cole
4-Aug-2013, 14:08
graphic arts IR film seems interesting. thanks for the info

As cheap as it looks to be someone should start a small business cutting it down to standard sheet film sizes and reselling it.

Jody_S
4-Aug-2013, 14:38
As cheap as it looks to be someone should start a small business cutting it down to standard sheet film sizes and reselling it.

I think as printers abandon the imagesetter technology, there will be a lot of deals like I got, basically shops cleaning out their fridges of leftover film. I got mine from an eBay seller who had something like 15 boxes of 12.2" x 100', and I bought 3 of them for $10/ea. But with printing supply shops that are still selling their film as 'fresh', for use in graphic arts, the prices aren't nearly as interesting, though still comparable to X-ray film.

And, from experience, I can tell you it's rather tedious to cut these down to size in the dark. I have a no-name guillotine-style paper cutter on a particle-board base, I've drilled holes for stoppers at 10", 8", 5" and 4". So I cut off a 10" length, cut that down to 8x10, then cut the remaining strip into 2 4x5s. It takes me about 20 minutes to do 8 8x10s and 16 4x5s (out of 80" off my 12.2"-wide roll), including the time to load all of these into my film holders. I suppose I could cut the time down a little if I were doing hundreds, but it's still a precision job that has to be done to low tolerances, in the dark (I don't have a blue safelight, I have to rig something with blue LEDs I guess, like I've done with red LEDs for X-ray). And there's always the potential for scratches (nowhere near as bad as X-ray), not to mention you have to keep it right-side-up or use some means of punching notches into the film.

Andrew O'Neill
4-Aug-2013, 21:07
Jody_S could post an image you made with imagesetter IR film? I would love to see what these types of are capable of. Thanks!

Jody_S
4-Aug-2013, 21:26
Jody_S could post an image you made with imagesetter IR film? I would love to see what these types of are capable of. Thanks!

My first decent image is at post #187 here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?34836-How-about-some-infrared-images/page19).

Roger Cole
5-Aug-2013, 03:29
Yeah, it's tedious and many of us lack both the time and the patience. Thus being willing to pay someone else. ;)

Actually I doubt *I* would right now - I don't shoot sheet film other than 4x5, at least not yet, and I have two unopened frozen boxes of Efke 820, plus I can still buy Rollei new and fresh. But if I ever got into 8x10 (or any other size) that would be different.

uphereinmytree
5-Aug-2013, 06:05
I went to the Rollei film website and found a contact e-mail.
I asked, "Hi, Is there any chance Rollei would consider a short run of 8x10 IR 400? thanks, Vincent"

The response was,
"Currently no chance, Vincent.
We have no 175Ám base to coat the film on.
Cheers,
Stefan, MACO+++

uphereinmytree
5-Aug-2013, 18:02
I contacted freestyle photo about rollei 8x10 and received this response:
"Hello Vincent,
We have approached them with this before and so far there is not enough
quantity demand. There would have to be hundreds of boxes ordered and
then the time and finances to work out any larger format qc issues that
may arise. It looks as though 4x5 is the largest they will produce in
the foreseeable future. Our next run is due at the end of October.

Sorry for the bad news and thank you for the inquiry.
Sincerely, ~Sherry

StoneNYC
5-Aug-2013, 18:48
I contacted freestyle photo about rollei 8x10 and received this response:
"Hello Vincent,
We have approached them with this before and so far there is not enough
quantity demand. There would have to be hundreds of boxes ordered and
then the time and finances to work out any larger format qc issues that
may arise. It looks as though 4x5 is the largest they will produce in
the foreseeable future. Our next run is due at the end of October.

Sorry for the bad news and thank you for the inquiry.
Sincerely, ~Sherry

Tell them you want 400 boxes and see what they say ;)

Andrew O'Neill
6-Aug-2013, 09:07
Thank you Jody. When I'm back from my prairie road trip I'll see if I csn source some up here. Be neat if I can find some for my 14x17!

Andrew O'Neill
6-Aug-2013, 09:08
It sure sucks typing on a cel phone!!

StoneNYC
6-Aug-2013, 11:12
It sure sucks typing on a cel phone!!

Funny, I usually only use my iPhone to access forums, I find it easier to navigate than the website (which for me is totally disorganized, especially finding the new posts in threads..)

Anyway question. I know IR reacts different to light in terms of holders, are there any to avoid? Like light leak issues because the holders are not IR light proof? I haven't had issue with my 120 camera but no experience with 4x5 and don't want to spend the crazy money and then have fogged film because of bad holders.

I have fidelity elite and fidelity deluxe ones...

uphereinmytree
6-Aug-2013, 11:41
There may have been issues with holders and kodak HIE because it was so very sensitive, but I've never had any leaks in any modern plastic 4x5 or 8x10 with efke or maco. never used any wooden holders though