PDA

View Full Version : Maco IR 4x5-total disaster, again



Guy Boily
26-Aug-2004, 14:01
Well guys, I really don't intend on buying anymore Maco IR sheet film. This is my second try at it and again total disappointment. There are finger prints all over the film and this time I have drip marks as a bonus. These drip marks are in the vertical direction, kind of like a heavy layer of paint that flows down. I do develop my sheets in tanks, in the horizontal position, though. My first batch, earlier this year, had finger prints all over. I brought it back and ordered a 2nd box, different batch #, same problem. Looks like whoever is loading these boxes is licking his or her fingers before handling the film. To bad because the results seem good. Has anyone elso experienced this problem, I can't be the only one, come on. www.guyboily.com

Peter C. McDonough
26-Aug-2004, 15:01
Hello Guy, I am currently using the Maco 820 in 8x10 size and have had no problems with fingerprints on the film. I hope you solve the problem as this is a good film, result-wise. Peter

ISO 2
26-Aug-2004, 15:20
Guy,

I've tried really hard for a 6 month trial with Maco Aura 820IR, Maco 820IR, 750IR and Maco Cube XS film (sensitivity up to 720nm) in medium format and 35mm format using LP Docufine at the recommended times and tailoring for myself. I had intended to start using it in 5x4 sheets after 'mastering' it.

After shooting 50 rolls +, I had to stop. This film and its siblings has to be one of the most frustrating experience I've ever had. When working from one roll to the next, a single hit with one image would have been enough to make me forget the rest of the spoilt roll. Six months later, I find that my own method and the yield of workable negatives was less than 15% return and the expense of photographic time, expenses and darkroom made it unsustainable to rely on, and non-dependable for professional purposes. The occasional shooter who is looking for a one-hit wonder is more likely to fare better with this film.

The main issues I found with this film were:

1. ISO batch variation from different suppliers (everyone will say this is the IR light or exposure/development technique)

2. Shortened film leaders resulting in less than 12 exp for 6x6cm format

3. Emulsion lift during wash cycle in over 15 rolls in total; the emulsion rubs off when touched.

4. Anti-curl layer dissolves during short washes 5. Spotted emulsion with cracks and breaks throughout strips of film as well as marks as described above.

6. Daylight loading isn't as safe as reported; 'subdued' light still results in fogging.

7. The combination of Maco IR film + LP Docufine works out more expensive than either Kodak HIE/Konica IR formulas, developped in Perceptol despite the cheaper outlay in the cost of the film. Two suppliers from whom I acquired the film quietly acknowledged quality control issues with Maco film.

I would sincerely love to hear from anyone who has mastered it on a consistent (and affordable basis): I doubt this is possible, as most users of this film experiment or use it intermittently. I really wanted (and needed) to love this film so badly; Kodak HIE in roll film format is too expensive to import from the States and only Konica IR750 exist(ed) as an alternative IR imaging film.

The grain of Maco film is nowhere near as fine as Konica IR750; the IR response through a Wratten 87 of the 820IR is still weak in comparison to what can be attained through a Red 29 on a Konica 750IR. I would love to say it had some redeeming characteristics however the only one that it seems to have is that of its availability in a market which is becoming bereft of traditional IR emulsions.

Sorry I can't be more positive. I hope someone else can.

Guy Boily
26-Aug-2004, 19:21
ISO 2, I'm glad to hear from others who have had a frustrating experience with this IR film. When I use a film professionally I have to be able to rely on it sheet after sheet, or roll after roll. We do make some errors on occasion but when you expose 4 identical sheets and get 4 different results, hoping to have one good shot, it's time to quit. My 4x5 sheets gave these kinds of unpredictable results. Each sheet had different markings, finger prints or drips. After loading(w/gloves), exposing (flashing) sheets for Zone V, unloading(w/gloves), loading stainless holders(w/gloves) and then ending up w/finger prints & streaks-I knew that there wasn't anything wrong with my techniques. I strongly suspect that this film is hand loaded one sheet at a time in a dark and humid dungeon where people eat with there hands, not that there's anything wrong with that. Guy

Diane Maher
26-Aug-2004, 20:44
I use Maco 820c with an 87 filter and get decent results in 120. I develop with D76 (1:1) and might try using D76 stock with my next batch of film. I have tried the 820c & the Aura films in 4x5 but it's been a while and I feel more confident using the film after exposing/developing several more 120 rolls and some 35 mm too so I will be trying some more 4x5 soon. I would love to try the 8x10, but haven't bought any yet. I have also tried the 750c film.

I usually wind up exposing for 1/2 sec to 1 sec using the 820c with either an 87 or an 88A filter. I found that the 87 & 88A filters worked best for what I wanted to see with this film. 25, 29 and even 89B didn't give me the results (IR effect) that I wanted.

I haven't seen the emulsion problems reported by ISO2. As for fingerprints, I don't recall having seen any. I've loaded the 820 film in subdued light in my 6x7 generally with no problems.

I'm glad to hear that someone can get decent results with Konica. I have struggled with that film for long enough. Once I get rid of my remaining rolls, I'll be happy.

Have you tried the Ilford SFX film? It's available in 35 mm & 120.

David R Munson
26-Aug-2004, 21:11
Have thes concerns been brought to the attention of the manufacturer?

Andre Noble
26-Aug-2004, 22:19
1) The Jobo Expert Drum is perfect for developing this sheet film. Minimal handling, no chance for rubbing the delicate emulsion with another sheet, or while loading. Otherwise, forget it.

2) Gotta handle sheet film by edges only to avoid 'finger fog'.

3) Fresh X-Tol Developer. (do more research on specifics)

4) B&W 093 (or is it 092?) Deep Dark Red Filter.

5) ISO = 6

6) Beautiful Results.

Also, gotta remember that IR films have wide ranging ISO depending on the type of light you're using. Cloudy vs sunny skies, etc. etc.

Don't give up on this film. This is a fine art film, not 'professional film'.

Eirik Berger
27-Aug-2004, 00:25
I agree with André, dont give up this film.

I have used this film several times (not the aura version) and I have only good experiences. Since it does not record visible light when using ex. wratten #87 filter (as I do most of the time) it is difficult to predict the final result. Extended practice will help you to predict the results to a certain point, but there will always be som kind of surprises. Some find it frustrating, others find it truly exciting.

My way of doing it:
Wratten #87 (black) filter
ISO 3-6 depending on weather conditions
Wash out anti-halo layer with water before developing (the water turns deep blue)
Xtol developer 1+2 in 16 minutes (as suggested in Macos technical applications)

I have made 40x50 cm enlargements from 6x7 negatives and I love the results. The grain is much finer than I expected. I have only used it as 120 roll-film yet, but I will try it as sheet film on my 4x5 camera one of these days.

Ryan Spencer
27-Aug-2004, 00:41
I have gone through 2 boxes of maco IR in 4x5 and haven't had any fingerprints, changes in speed, or any problems accept when they got fogged through the box which was my fault( always keep IR film in the packaging). I have 1 1/2 boxes left and think they should turn out fine as maco hasn't given me problems yet.

I used a #25 red filter probly lightest red for some IR, AND D76. I even had a lab develop(in xtol) about 10 sheets and they did wonderful. It may be my favorite film but expensive and hard to find sometimes. Bad news hearing others with all these problems.

Armin Seeholzer
27-Aug-2004, 04:18
Hi

I'm not in any connection to Maco, but I think the fingerprints are maybe your own penalty on the process of film loading? I know IR film is in the beginning very frustrating and it is after years sometimes again frustrating. But my first box of maco was okay, but I still have 6 boxes of Kodak in my fridge wich I use now first. I worked also with XTol and I know not every developer can be used with good success on an IR film!

Andre Noble
27-Aug-2004, 10:43
If you want to try again with this film, Freestyle (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=1000000178)
has recently expired Maco IR820C sheet film version on sale at half price for
$35.00 a box. I got three boxes myself, and there are now 13 boxes remaining at this
price. B&H's price is now $75.00 a box.

Nature Photo
29-Aug-2004, 12:42
Sorry to hear some of you had an unfavorable experience w/ Maco IR. I have bought a few weeks ago a box of the expired sheet (4x5) film described immediately above this post by Andre. I am a novice LF shooter in general, and this was my first ever IR experience in LF.
My workflow: 1. Meter with Nikon SLR set at ISO 6, without a filter. 2. Expose with Hoya R72 filter.3.Develop in D76 1:1 for 12 min @68F.4. Scan with Epson flatbed & do some minimal adjustments in PS.
Results can be seen a here (http://www.vassar.info/gallery/list.php?exhibition=7&pass=public&lang=eng). These shots may not be artistically great, but reinforced my interest in IR, and have proven (to me, at least) that Maco is worthwhile. I will actually buy another box of expired film.

Nature Photo
29-Aug-2004, 12:48
Addendum to step 3 above. I soak the film in tap water for ~1 min before development (see Eirik Berger's post above).

ramin
30-Aug-2004, 04:57
How do you manage to get this film flat? In their PDF instruction Maco recommends hanging a heavy weight while drying at the bottom of the film, up to a few Kilo grams since the film has a polyester base. This is another unique thing about this film. Does this work with out damaging the film?

Diane Maher
30-Aug-2004, 06:47
For sheet film, I hang it up the same way I hang up other films, using a black medium size binder clip. I have no problems and do not add any additional weight to the bottom of the sheet. It dries flat.

Nature Photo
30-Aug-2004, 12:31
Ramin:
I must admit that I missed the part with the heavy weights in the pdf, although I read it upon purchase of the film. Have noticed that the film base is a bit slippery, so that the dedicated metal clips I generally use for hanging sheets to dry slipped off. So I improvised by using a set of wire hangers (from thr dry cleaners) and hanged wood clothespins from the horizontal part of the hangers. The wood clips worked great, and the film came out flat. No weights, though, and frankly, can't see how could (and why would) one want to hang kilos from the sheet.

KRIS
1-Sep-2004, 01:17
Hi all .I think Maco 820 ir is a great film with fine grain.It gave to me very sensational pictures but I must agree with comments on quality control and ISO variations. Also I dont know if it worths the pain to get one or two succesful shots in a 120 roll.In my last try after a long walk (3 hours) in a mountains top with tripod and a heavy camera I got very nice shots but when I develloped the negatives I found the markings and the number that is printed on the paper that wraps the roll on my best shot! How nice to have a black background with a nice tree in wood effect and the number -10- somewhere in the background! Come on guys at MACO ,it must be a better way to live with this film... But I dont give up ,I like this film. Also a big problem of it -i think- is his very low speed compared to HIE. Even the subltle movement of leaves etc is recorded. Kris

Nature Photo
2-Sep-2004, 10:09
Have only used it in 4x5 sheet, but there indeed seems to be some unevenness in quality. Some sheets have stippling on them (white dots) that I have not noticed on TMax developed by me the same day with the same chemicals and technique. Also, less critical to the quality of the final image but perhaps illustrative to Maco's QC, the notches on the sheets are ocasionally very shallow, making it difficult to appreciate which is the emulsion side. These points nothwithstanding, Maco is the only manufacturer that I know about to (still) make IR sheet film. I will try to learn to live with its idiosynchracies, in order to make LF IR.

BTW the link to my Maco shots above is outdated, the new link is here (http://www.vassar.info/gallery/list.php?exhibition=1&pass=public&lang=eng).