Kodak Infrared film, Agfa Portriga paper and selenium toner -- any way to replicate?

[ScoopLV]

Hi!

I've.... found myself with some free time. I want to get back into photography, as I was once quite good at it. I registered just to post this question, even though I'm pretty sure the answer is "You need a time machine."

The most fun I ever had taking pictures was using Kodak HIE, and printing it on Agfa Portriga paper and then selenium toning it. I received stunning results. Considering that I live in the US Southwest, this combination would look simply fantastic -- Joshua trees, cypress, old buildings and lonely stretches of road, big skies, alien spaceships, etc. From what I've researched, when it comes to infrared film, my choices are 1) Rollei, 2) Expired "hope it's still good after all these years" film, or 3) A time machine.

(And maybe Doctor Who can pop back to the 1980s and get me a big supply of Portriga paper. Because I can't seem to find anything that even looks close.)

I don't really like what I see when I Google the Rollei film. Its OK, but doesn't have that ethereal quality that Kodak HIE had. Maybe I'm being too hard on Rollei film, though. I'd buy a 4x5 tomorrow if I thought I could replicate the shots I once took for granted. (And what I really want is 8x10 infrared film. But I think we're squarely in the realm of "get a time machine" for that.)

So... Doctor Who time machine? Marty McFly time machine? Or H.G. Wells time machine?

[dsphotog]

The Rollei Infrared is great, but different from HIE, avail in 35mm or 120, & 4x5.
I hate to say it, but, the best way to replicate HIE is a converted DSLR.

[John Olsen]

The Rollei Infrared is great, but different from HIE, avail in 35mm or 120, & 4x5.
I hate to say it, but, the best way to replicate HIE is a converted DSLR.

I agree. Losing HIE was terrible, and then even Konica 750 went. I've adjusted to the Rollei and get satisfying results, although not as exciting as in the good old days. It's slow and you have to use a completely black filter, but it has the advantage of existing. I'm printing on Ilford MG IV and pleased with that. None of us are what we used to be 30 years ago, so just make the jump and enjoy. (Say, if you do find that time machine, stop me before I do any one of the stupid things I did back then.)
111546

[dsphotog]

Great image, John!
I haven't invested in the opaque IR filter, I like my results with a deep red #29 on Rollei IR
The "glow" of HEI is part of what I miss. I wonder if Rollei could/would make IR film without the anti-halation backing....

[ScoopLV]

I agree. Losing HIE was terrible, and then even Konica 750 went. I've adjusted to the Rollei and get satisfying results, although not as exciting as in the good old days. It's slow and you have to use a completely black filter, but it has the advantage of existing. I'm printing on Ilford MG IV and pleased with that. None of us are what we used to be 30 years ago, so just make the jump and enjoy. (Say, if you do find that time machine, stop me before I do any one of the stupid things I did back then.)
111546

I like that shot more than most of what I've seen from Rollei infrared. But the vegetation isn't light and ghostly enough -- not compared to HIE, which I agree is a loss. There's really no other way to describe it other than "loss." If I could shoot Rollei infrared with the equipment I already own (8x10), I'd buy a box right now. If Rollei film behaved more like HIE or even that Efke film that came and went without me even noticing, I'd bite the bullet and buy a 4x5 field camera just to shoot it. But as it stands, that's a big investment for me just to shoot film that almost but not quite does what I want.

I can do other things instead of shooting Georges Seurat-inspired landscapes.

[Oren Grad]

Perhaps heavily-filtered SFX200 would get you results you'd find interesting - but alas, it's not available in sheets.

[Vaughn]

I wonder if a pre-exposure wash would remove the anti-halation layer for you. Of course, washing and drying unexposed film would be a chore.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Kodak IR film was the best ever. I've been keeping my fingers crossed over the years hoping that someone (China?) would make a similar film. Hasn't happened and probably for a reason. I keep hoping I'll win the lottery big time and approach Kodak and pay whatever to have this stuff made again.... dreaming? Yah... I know...
Efke IR was decent, but no where near Kodak's. You could get great Wood effect even with a #25 Wratten filter with HIE at EI 100. Good infra-red effect could be had on Efke with an opaque filter, but with dreadfully long exposures.... EI 1.5! I have two 8x10 50 sheet boxes that I am slowly going through. I also use SFX, but it's only an extended red film, as far as I'm concerned. If it were coated on 4x5 sheets, I'd still buy it, though. It's a nice film.
Eventually, I'll have a dlsr converted to IR... or make my own IR film.

[Brian C. Miller]

We will never see the likes of Kodak HIE/HIR again. Lament and weep.

Using Rollie or SFX in a roll holder, you'll need a B+W 092 deep red filter. It's nearly black, and it's at the hairy edge of the film's sensitivity.

As for halation, there never was enough of an area to give it that crazy glow effect like 35mm. Great sensitivity, but not much for glow. Use Rollie for what it will give you, but that's all you can do.

[StoneNYC]

We will never see the likes of Kodak HIE/HIR again. Lament and weep.

Using Rollie or SFX in a roll holder, you'll need a B+W 092 deep red filter. It's nearly black, and it's at the hairy edge of the film's sensitivity.

As for halation, there never was enough of an area to give it that crazy glow effect like 35mm. Great sensitivity, but not much for glow. Use Rollie for what it will give you, but that's all you can do.

Now I'm picking your brain, but I've owned the B+W 092 for a while now with not very satisfying results and everyone tells me to use the Hoya R72 because they are different filters (which they are as I've discovered doing more research).

So what makes you say that filter is better for Rollie and SFX, since Rollie and SFX are also different sensitivities?

Thanks, I'm interested in learning from your point of view.

[Kodachrome25]

It's one of those things, IR is largely gone and if you did not stock up, you are either paying out the nose on ebay, using Rollei IR400, SFX200 or out of luck...

Rollei IR400 is good for that uber stark contrast and black sky effect, seen in the canyon photo below it does wonderfully on rock as it is by far the sharpest IR film ever made, tight grain. It is thin as hell in 4x5 though, you are pretty much either rotary or tray processing it, other wise the sheets can become dislodged. I use it in both 120 and 4x5 with an R72 filter.
111577

Efke IR820 seen in the evening corporate landscape shot holds it's own against HIE and can get quite a nice halo effect, it is my overall favorite IR film, I shoot it in 120 and 4x5 with an R72 filter. It's super slow so that can have amazing effect in the right light but can not be handheld like HIE and needs a water stop bath to avoid pin holes. Sharpness is a good bit better than HIE as is tightness of grain. It's still out there on ebay in anything from 35mm to 8x10 if you keep an eye out and pony up the coin.
111578

Kodak HIE is by far the king of IR, there is still some 35mm around and you might be surprised at how it will hold up. I use it in 35mm and 70mm re-spooled to 120, the photo of the apres ski below was shot on 120 & a 29 red. I use it with anything from a 29 red to 89 or 87.
111579

So that is it really for the "classic" look in IR, you are either sitting on a stash of the good stuff or you are looking for one, IR as most people know it is pretty much done and is not likely ever coming back....

[EdSawyer]

It's still out there to find (HIE) if you care to look. While you might lose some sensitivity, you still get the glow from the halation. I have a decent stash of 35mm but not much 4x5 and no 120.

[StoneNYC]

Do graflex holders work for IR? Or do fidelity / regal holders work? Or do you need a special one?

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm pretty well stocked up on IR (Efke), although my stock of HIE is now gone. Rollie is a nice film but I wasn't happy with the disappearing notch code as I went further into the box, as well as ultra-think film base. If you're not careful, it is very easy to slip two sheets together into the holder. But beggers can't be choosers today... And yes, it is a very sharp film, probably the sharpest I've used out of all... SFX is pretty sharp, too.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I just checked freestyle and they are out of stock until April 4. You really can't beat $40 for a box! I'll order some when it comes in... hopefully it'll come with notch codes this time..... :)

[John Olsen]

I like that shot more than most of what I've seen from Rollei infrared. But the vegetation isn't light and ghostly enough -- not compared to HIE, which I agree is a loss. There's really no other way to describe it other than "loss." If I could shoot Rollei infrared with the equipment I already own (8x10), I'd buy a box right now. If Rollei film behaved more like HIE or even that Efke film that came and went without me even noticing, I'd bite the bullet and buy a 4x5 field camera just to shoot it. But as it stands, that's a big investment for me just to shoot film that almost but not quite does what I want.

I can do other things instead of shooting Georges Seurat-inspired landscapes.

Well, that was a December use of the Rollei infrared. The vegetation is a little more sparkly in other IR images in better weather on that film, but they're only from my 6x6 camera. By the way, this historic building is a two-seater at the old Ebey's Landing ferry house. Finally, somebody cut back the brambles! Rollei may not be the best-ever IR, but it's pretty much my favorite now. Thanks for looking at the image - I'm just waiting for my knee to recover enough to get back out shooting.

[Brian C. Miller]

Stone:
I have the B+W 090, 091, 092, and Hoya R72.

All of them produce essentially the same effect for the same given scene, for Konica, Ilford SFX, and Rollie. Yes, 092 and R72 have different curves, and the various non-Kodak films have different curves. But if you look at the curves, all of them are very close to each other. Except, of course, for Kodak.

See, the thing is the vegetation. That's what's doing the reflecting, and when it comes right down to it, there isn't a lot of difference unless it's brand X compared to Kodak. There will never be anything again like what Kodak produced. Maybe Kodak would do it if Bill Gates came up and said, "Hey, run me a roll for a billion dollars." They would do that. Money talks, and that much money talks very, very loudly. Kodak would sit up and beg. But Bill doesn't photograph, and if he did, it would be something digital.

So back to the grass, trees, and shrubs. Conifers will give various degrees of reflectance, based on the tree. I have photos of mixed conifers, with some showing light grey, all the way down to black. And I also have one that I did in the shade with Konica, and everything is totally snow white. But only Kodak delivered the spot-on blinding white all the time. So you have to make a bunch of notes and exposures, and just wing it. Choose your scene carefully for the effect. Remember, with black and white everything is relative to where we place it. So if I was making, say, macro shots in IR of pine trees, I know that relatively the lightest will be grey. But I can slam that into white on the print, and drop the rest into black.

You will not get the halation, because all of these films have an anti-halation layer. Sure if you were shooting half-frame, you overexpose and get a usable halo. Just ignore the grain, and be happy.

If you want maximum effect, you can only photograph deciduous trees and fresh green grass with what we have today. That's all there is to it. Otherwise you have to really carefully pick the scene, like a pine tree next to a dark building or rock. Anything else and it won't matter at all. Also, make sure to use a polarizer to make the sky go black. The best way is focus the scene, put the polarizer on and adjust it, and then put on the red filter.

Another cool thing I've found is there's a conifer that has a really red bark. Photograph that with a deep red filter, and it turns ghostly white. If in Washington goes up above Winthrop into the Okanogan National Forest, that's where those trees are. Those are nifty!

For holders, you can use whatever you have. The metal Graflex should be just fine, but I've only use them with normal film, not IR. If in doubt, just use one sheet, and cycle it through all of the plenums to check for IR leaks.

[StoneNYC]

Stone:
I have the B+W 090, 091, 092, and Hoya R72.

All of them produce essentially the same effect for the same given scene, for Konica, Ilford SFX, and Rollie. Yes, 092 and R72 have different curves, and the various non-Kodak films have different curves. But if you look at the curves, all of them are very close to each other. Except, of course, for Kodak.

See, the thing is the vegetation. That's what's doing the reflecting, and when it comes right down to it, there isn't a lot of difference unless it's brand X compared to Kodak. There will never be anything again like what Kodak produced. Maybe Kodak would do it if Bill Gates came up and said, "Hey, run me a roll for a billion dollars." They would do that. Money talks, and that much money talks very, very loudly. Kodak would sit up and beg. But Bill doesn't photograph, and if he did, it would be something digital.

So back to the grass, trees, and shrubs. Conifers will give various degrees of reflectance, based on the tree. I have photos of mixed conifers, with some showing light grey, all the way down to black. And I also have one that I did in the shade with Konica, and everything is totally snow white. But only Kodak delivered the spot-on blinding white all the time. So you have to make a bunch of notes and exposures, and just wing it. Choose your scene carefully for the effect. Remember, with black and white everything is relative to where we place it. So if I was making, say, macro shots in IR of pine trees, I know that relatively the lightest will be grey. But I can slam that into white on the print, and drop the rest into black.

You will not get the halation, because all of these films have an anti-halation layer. Sure if you were shooting half-frame, you overexpose and get a usable halo. Just ignore the grain, and be happy.

If you want maximum effect, you can only photograph deciduous trees and fresh green grass with what we have today. That's all there is to it. Otherwise you have to really carefully pick the scene, like a pine tree next to a dark building or rock. Anything else and it won't matter at all. Also, make sure to use a polarizer to make the sky go black. The best way is focus the scene, put the polarizer on and adjust it, and then put on the red filter.

Another cool thing I've found is there's a conifer that has a really red bark. Photograph that with a deep red filter, and it turns ghostly white. If in Washington goes up above Winthrop into the Okanogan National Forest, that's where those trees are. Those are nifty!

For holders, you can use whatever you have. The metal Graflex should be just fine, but I've only use them with normal film, not IR. If in doubt, just use one sheet, and cycle it through all of the plenums to check for IR leaks.

Hmm

But the R72 has a cutoff that's sharp, the 092 is graduated. I seemed to always over expose the 092's because too much normal light was hitting the film, I just bought the R72 but you're saying I wasted my money?

Also I thought SFX200 was a lot less IR than Rollie400IR...?

[Jac@stafford.net]

Recently my sweetheart stocked up on freezer food to anticipate a storm. She sighed, "no room left in the freezer", so I went to the bottom of it to move some of the very old film to the shed outdoors (it is colder there!).

I found four unopened boxes of HSIE 4x5. Anxiety struck at once. Surely it cannot still be good, and if it is, then it is the last I am likely to have.

Time to read up on processing to reduce fog.

[StoneNYC]

Recently my sweetheart stocked up on freezer food to anticipate a storm. She sighed, "no room left in the freezer", so I went to the bottom of it to move some of the very old film to the shed outdoors (it is colder there!).

I found four unopened boxes of HSIE 4x5. Anxiety struck at once. Surely it cannot still be good, and if it is, then it is the last I am likely to have.

Time to read up on processing to reduce fog.

HC-110(B) :)

Have fun! Or send me a box! ;)

[Jac@stafford.net]

HC-110(B) :)

Have fun! Or send me a box! ;)

:) if it is fogged, it is all yours.

The last time I used it, in the same month Kodak discontinued it l, all my exposures were terribly fogged. I was busy at the time and put it into the freezer.

The camera I used was an entirely alloy and steel affair, including the bellows which was steel, so I do not think IR transparency was an issue, but I am open to correction.


Dunno. When the snow drifts clear I will try again.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I found four unopened boxes of HSIE 4x5. Anxiety struck at once. Surely it cannot still be good, and if it is, then it is the last I am likely to have.

When did they expire? I have a couple of boxes from 1967 that are fogged, but a bit of 1% benz added to developer really cuts it down. They scan very nicely.

[Brian C. Miller]

Hmm

But the R72 has a cutoff that's sharp, the 092 is graduated. I seemed to always over expose the 092's because too much normal light was hitting the film, I just bought the R72 but you're saying I wasted my money?

Also I thought SFX200 was a lot less IR than Rollie400IR...?

Like I said, it's the vegetation, so your mileage will vary. When I use IR, I bracket like mad, +/-1 and +/-2. Give the R72 a whirl, and see how it works for you. I did not do a rigorous test, just eyeballed my prints. From my perspective, the filters and film produce the same degree of effect for the vegetation in my area.

[StoneNYC]

:) if it is fogged, it is all yours.

The last time I used it, in the same month Kodak discontinued it l, all my exposures were terribly fogged. I was busy at the time and put it into the freezer.

The camera I used was an entirely alloy and steel affair, including the bellows which was steel, so I do not think IR transparency was an issue, but I am open to correction.


Dunno. When the snow drifts clear I will try again.

Deal! ;)

[ScoopLV]

Deal! ;)

My thread and YOU are getting the potentially fogged film? :)



Hey, part of my original question was about Agfa Portriga paper. That's another thing I'd really like to replicate if it is at all possible. I loved that paper. Anything out there even remotely close?

[StoneNYC]

My thread and YOU are getting the potentially fogged film? :)



Hey, part of my original question was about Agfa Portriga paper. That's another thing I'd really like to replicate if it is at all possible. I loved that paper. Anything out there even remotely close?

Squeaky wheel? Lol

I suppose you can have the opened/test box... Hehe

[Dan Dozer]

I've played around a little with the Efke 820 and an opaque #87 filter. Exposure times were really slow - like up to a minute. Makes it a real challenge if you have people in the photo. I normally develop with PMK Pyro and I'm not sure if that developer works the best with this film, because my negs were seriously thin (required printing with a grade 5 filter).

[sanking]

I've played around a little with the Efke 820 and an opaque #87 filter. Exposure times were really slow - like up to a minute. Makes it a real challenge if you have people in the photo. I normally develop with PMK Pyro and I'm not sure if that developer works the best with this film, because my negs were seriously thin (required printing with a grade 5 filter).

My experience with the Efke IR film and #87 filter is the same, exposure times are really very long, about two or three stops more compared to a R72 filter, which already requires about five stops more exposure compared to exposing this film with no filter. A staining developer like PMK (or Pyrocat-HD) should work fine with Efke 820 if you use the right dilution and time. The thin negatives are most likely due to the #87 filter.

On the other hand, the really long exposures might be interesting with some subjects, moving water for example.

Sandy

[Jac@stafford.net]

My thread and YOU are getting the potentially fogged film? :)



Hey, part of my original question was about Agfa Portriga paper. That's another thing I'd really like to replicate if it is at all possible. I loved that paper. Anything out there even remotely close?

I would like to know as well.

[EdSawyer]

Wasnt' there a recent paper that was like Agfa Portriga? MC-111 or something? (Made by Adox maybe?)

[Drew Wiley]

I haven't fooled with any IR film since Konica near-IR was discontinued. But in terms of paper, I've gotten darn close to that Portriga look with MGWT and 130 dev,
appropriately toned, of course.

[ScoopLV]

I've played around a little with the Efke 820 and an opaque #87 filter. Exposure times were really slow - like up to a minute. Makes it a real challenge if you have people in the photo. I normally develop with PMK Pyro and I'm not sure if that developer works the best with this film, because my negs were seriously thin (required printing with a grade 5 filter).

Unfortunately, Efke falls into the "need a time machine" category for me.

If I could reliably lay my hands on any size sheet Efke, my only question would be how to keep it as fresh as possible for as long as possible.

[StoneNYC]

I still want to understand the difference between ILFORD SFX200 and Rollie400IR, same/different? In terms of IR sensitivity?

Does the slower film have an advantage at being able to highlight the IR better because the regular sensitivity is less?

[John Olsen]

I still want to understand the difference between ILFORD SFX200 and Rollie400IR, same/different? In terms of IR sensitivity?

Does the slower film have an advantage at being able to highlight the IR better because the regular sensitivity is less?

I was disappointed with Ilford SFX, as it's a pretty mild extended red. I much prefer the stronger effect of Rollei 400IR. There's a comprehensive collection of infrared films, all shot at the same location and time, preserved in the api.ning.com under some heading like "digitaltruthphoto." This used to be on a website that was easier to find. You'll know you've found it if it's a bunch of pictures of the Nevada desert. It includes HIE and Efke, but no Konica 750.

[StoneNYC]

I was disappointed with Ilford SFX, as it's a pretty mild extended red. I much prefer the stronger effect of Rollei 400IR. There's a comprehensive collection of infrared films, all shot at the same location and time, preserved in the api.ning.com under some heading like "digitaltruthphoto." This used to be on a website that was easier to find. You'll know you've found it if it's a bunch of pictures of the Nevada desert. It includes HIE and Efke, but no Konica 750.

I'll try and find it, sounds like darkweb stuff...

[John Olsen]

I'll try and find it, sounds like darkweb stuff...

I can't follow my own path back either. Go to Google and enter "infrared film comparison". the top link should be "infrared film comparison - Digital Truth Photo". This test blog by Gary Reese is an excellent resource. The site I was trying to send you to has lower resolution versions of his work. This is a better link.

[StoneNYC]

I can't follow my own path back either. Go to Google and enter "infrared film comparison". the top link should be "infrared film comparison - Digital Truth Photo". This test blog by Gary Reese is an excellent resource. The site I was trying to send you to has lower resolution versions of his work. This is a better link.

Thanks!

[ScoopLV]

I thought I'd update everyone. I bought a 4x5 camera and 100 sheets of Rollei film. Just shot four exposures to try to dial in film speed with the filter I'm using -- deep, deep infrared.

I also just bought a Beseler 45mx enlarger -- and now I need parts for it. I will post the long sad story in a more appropriate area. If you have experience with these enlargers, please check out the post. I could use a hand finding parts.

[StoneNYC]

If it's too deep you might not get an image... depending on the spectrum, as someone said a B+W 093 might not let any light in that the film isn't sensitive at the spectrum that's coming in. I wish I could get my hands on a 093 honestly because I wonder if perhaps SOME of the light maybe at a super long exposure would get in.... but I'm not spending hundreds of dollars on a Maybe...