Jonathan Brewer
20-Jun-2006, 11:29
I promised that I would give a rundown on the tests I did w/my last rolls of the new Rollei/Maco 400 infrared film. First off, I believe this film to be closer to 200ISO, not the 400ISO advertised.
I shot a roll of this film, using my Silhouette 612 and 250mm Apo Tele-Xenar and Horseman 612 rollfilm back, I exposed three frames, using a 25 red @ F5.6-1/125, F8-1/125, F11-1/125, and then the remaining three frames w/an 89B repeating the first three exposures. The three frames came back looking just looking like conventional black and white film, w/no hint of the 'wood' effect, or the look of an infrared film. The frames shot w/the 89B were extremely dark.
The film was processed by master printer Alan Wedertz who does all my infrared including what I've shot in Kodak 400 HIE, if you go to my website, perusing the 'Metal-Infrared' and 'Infrared' galleries everything except the 'Out of Ivory' image was shot with Kodak HIE exposed @ F11-F16 @1/125sec using an 89B filter. I've gotten consistent results shooting Kodak HIE this way to the extent that using this EV range on a cloudless day and I simply shot all my Kodak HIE this way outside.
The 'Out of Ivory' was shot with the original Maco infrared film which is rated at 100ISO. Alan loves shooting infrared himself and knows what he's doing processing infrared film. Alan from his experience has felt that infrared film that hasn't been frozen, will tend to lose some of its infrared sensitivity after time.
I've seen some of the test shots with both the slower Maco infrared films, and the newer Rollei/Maco 400 film, many of the test shots with both films exhibited a pronouced 'wood' effect, I've gotten similar results ONLY occasionally, in terms of the 'wood' effect, and the infrared 'look' using an 89B, and unlike the results I get with Kodak HIE, my results with the earlier Maco 100 and the Rollei/Maco 400 film have been all over the place. I've shot approx. 25 rolls of the Rollei/Maco 400 film using an 89B, I've ended up with about 8 frames that looked like 'infrared', with 6 of those frames exhibiting the 'wood effect'. One of the posters on the thread that started this reported great results using the Rollei/Maco film using the equivalent of the 89B, if I'm understanding this correctly, and taking him for his word about his results, something might be up in terms of how the film I got was stored, and/or quality control.
The Maco 100 film and Rollei/Maco 400 film was purchased from freestyle, I did notice that they had the Rollei/Maco 400 film on the counter and it had not been refrigerated, the Kodak film I purchased was the Aerographic equivalent of Kodak HIE which has been cut down and machine wound by David Romano into daylight loadable 120 rolls, and I would freeze this film immediately after it was shipped to me from David Romano.
I've discussed all this w/Alan Wedertz, he seems to feel that there's the possibility of quality control issues in terms of the performance of these films, also variables in terms of how these films are stored/how quickly they're used, that affect how they perform, I tend to agree, the Kodak Hie I got from David Romano was frozen until I needed it, was thawed out and then used the next day, and I got consistent results using an 89B, that's EVERY FRAME shooting the same way, w/plenty of 'wood' effect.
I don't claim to have made a scientific test, this was a test for myself, which simply tells me, that I've got problems with a film that I've bought from a particular vendor that I'm shooting in a certain way that isn't working, and 8 frames out of 25 rolls is no good for me. I'm still interested in shooting these films, I may buy some of this film from another vendor, experiment, but I won't be shooting anything serious with this film until I solve my dialemma.
I shot a roll of this film, using my Silhouette 612 and 250mm Apo Tele-Xenar and Horseman 612 rollfilm back, I exposed three frames, using a 25 red @ F5.6-1/125, F8-1/125, F11-1/125, and then the remaining three frames w/an 89B repeating the first three exposures. The three frames came back looking just looking like conventional black and white film, w/no hint of the 'wood' effect, or the look of an infrared film. The frames shot w/the 89B were extremely dark.
The film was processed by master printer Alan Wedertz who does all my infrared including what I've shot in Kodak 400 HIE, if you go to my website, perusing the 'Metal-Infrared' and 'Infrared' galleries everything except the 'Out of Ivory' image was shot with Kodak HIE exposed @ F11-F16 @1/125sec using an 89B filter. I've gotten consistent results shooting Kodak HIE this way to the extent that using this EV range on a cloudless day and I simply shot all my Kodak HIE this way outside.
The 'Out of Ivory' was shot with the original Maco infrared film which is rated at 100ISO. Alan loves shooting infrared himself and knows what he's doing processing infrared film. Alan from his experience has felt that infrared film that hasn't been frozen, will tend to lose some of its infrared sensitivity after time.
I've seen some of the test shots with both the slower Maco infrared films, and the newer Rollei/Maco 400 film, many of the test shots with both films exhibited a pronouced 'wood' effect, I've gotten similar results ONLY occasionally, in terms of the 'wood' effect, and the infrared 'look' using an 89B, and unlike the results I get with Kodak HIE, my results with the earlier Maco 100 and the Rollei/Maco 400 film have been all over the place. I've shot approx. 25 rolls of the Rollei/Maco 400 film using an 89B, I've ended up with about 8 frames that looked like 'infrared', with 6 of those frames exhibiting the 'wood effect'. One of the posters on the thread that started this reported great results using the Rollei/Maco film using the equivalent of the 89B, if I'm understanding this correctly, and taking him for his word about his results, something might be up in terms of how the film I got was stored, and/or quality control.
The Maco 100 film and Rollei/Maco 400 film was purchased from freestyle, I did notice that they had the Rollei/Maco 400 film on the counter and it had not been refrigerated, the Kodak film I purchased was the Aerographic equivalent of Kodak HIE which has been cut down and machine wound by David Romano into daylight loadable 120 rolls, and I would freeze this film immediately after it was shipped to me from David Romano.
I've discussed all this w/Alan Wedertz, he seems to feel that there's the possibility of quality control issues in terms of the performance of these films, also variables in terms of how these films are stored/how quickly they're used, that affect how they perform, I tend to agree, the Kodak Hie I got from David Romano was frozen until I needed it, was thawed out and then used the next day, and I got consistent results using an 89B, that's EVERY FRAME shooting the same way, w/plenty of 'wood' effect.
I don't claim to have made a scientific test, this was a test for myself, which simply tells me, that I've got problems with a film that I've bought from a particular vendor that I'm shooting in a certain way that isn't working, and 8 frames out of 25 rolls is no good for me. I'm still interested in shooting these films, I may buy some of this film from another vendor, experiment, but I won't be shooting anything serious with this film until I solve my dialemma.