... or is that what the Rollei film is supposed to be?
... or is that what the Rollei film is supposed to be?
I have some in my mother in law's freezer. I bought it but never used it. Email me if you're interested in it.
He's not the only person who wants some! I would email you but I don't know what your email is! So please check your private messages. I left you one.Originally Posted by paul stimac
Cheers
Hi Paul,
wow, that is some interesting news. Of course, I would be most interested in that film if you don't need it. If you could email me the quantity you have and a price idea, I would let you have my email address. Regards, Duschan
I use the rollei 400 IR, I like it very much. I used it a fair amount in 120 size and then recently tried 4x5. Here's a pic, taken with a #72 filter metered 6 stops over normal.
I personally don't care for over-the-top IR effects. I have found that I can get everything from extreme IR effects to barely noticeable with this stuff. It might be my favourite b&w landscape film.
It's brutally sharp, even in this flatbed scan from a contact print:
Hope this helps.
Last edited by keithwms; 10-Oct-2006 at 19:37.
Keith-
Do you control the degree of 'IR effect' not only with the filter on this film, but by how much you overexpose it?
Peter
Check out my thread........ 'Rollei infrared test results', the image I uploaded which was shot @F5.6-1/30sec w/the 89b ........an image from my third test w/Rollei-Maco 400 infrared, I was interested in the wood effect/what this film would do w/an 89b, as opposed to the Kodak Hie. As was pointed out, looking at the image I uploaded, you can that the cement is somewhat blown out, so I'll be shooting this film @ between F8-11-1/30sec. Nothing w/infrared is predictable, so I try to 'hedge' my bets w/infrared film, I shoot pretty much outside the same, on very clear/cloudless days, no heavy haze, no overcast.
Most of the infrared shots on my website were shot w/the David Romano machine wound aerographic equivalent of Kodak Hie, between F11-16 @125sec w/the 89b, so two observations regarding the two films, it seemed to me from my tests, that Kodak Hie was/is WAY faster than the Rollei film shooting through the 89b, and Kodak Hie presented you with a very soft pallete as opposed the very crisp detail from the Rollei/Maco film, the implication being, at least to me that I would need to resort to diffusion w/the Rollei film to try to approach the 'look' of the Kodak film.
That said, I very much like the sharpness of the Rollei film now that I'm beginning to get a handle on how to expose it to my taste, I'll probably use it both ways, with and without diffusion/a soft focus lens.
Forgive me I forgot to mention development, this test shot was exposed @ F5.6-1/30sec through an 89b, souped w/xtol for 14 minutes @70 degrees.
Peter, so far I am indeed controlling it with with exposure and with different filters; I have tried #87 and also a 72. The 87 works fine in medium format with faster glass; this is probably my best shot so far with the #87, taken on a mamiya 6.
But so far I don't like the #87 on LF glass because it bumps the exposure times up so much that I worry about reciprocity failure. I had a few unexplainably thin negs when using a #87 so that might be it.
Two other possibilities that I plan to try:
1) The film is also a decent 400 speed b&w film so you could, I suppose, combine two exposures in one and get an infinite variety of visible/IR proportions that way, you know, one with and one without the IR filter.
2) I suspect that one could also control the contrast quite finely in the darkroom, i.e. by selenium toning the negs. That might be a safe way to keep white from blowing out excessively.
Hope that helps.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks