PDA

View Full Version : New IR film from Freestyle / Efke



DrPablo
6-Mar-2007, 18:58
Freestyle Photo is now selling an 820 nm infrared film from Efke. Right now they only have 135 and 120 (and I have 5 rolls of the 120 on order), but they will have it in 4x5 and 8x10 in about 5 weeks. They say it is identical to the previous Maco 820 nm film.

Efke is also making one without the antihalation layer called 820c Aura, but it's not clear whether that one will be sold through Freestyle.

I like that Rollei IR film, but it cuts out at 740 nm or so, and this Efke one will be a different story. It will also be neat (and incredibly expensive) in 8x10.

Brian C. Miller
6-Mar-2007, 22:05
Has anybody used Efke/Maco/Whatever recently?

When the Maco IR film first came out, I tried some rolls in 120. The one thing that really stood out about the film was that the emulsion did not like being wet. I had to keep the total wet time under something like 20 minutes, or else the emulsion would turn "foggy" from swelling.

Has anybody had a similar experience with the film, and/or has the issue been resolved?

Ralph Barker
7-Mar-2007, 07:12
Thanks for the post, Paul. That's good news, as I liked the Maco 820c film.

Brian - I never experienced the emulsion separation problem you describe, but my usage wasn't recent, nor extensive.

alec4444
7-Mar-2007, 07:18
That is good news about the Efke IR film. Efke has been really good about keeping a lot of sheet film sizes available...I wonder if they'll expand their IR beyond 8x10.

I get the feeling (can anyone confirm this?) that Efke is doing well as a company, perhaps even gaining market share and growing. Thrilled to hear they're making new stuff.

--A

Rob_5419
7-Mar-2007, 07:22
Freestyle Photo is now selling an 820 nm infrared film from Efke. Right now they only have 135 and 120 (and I have 5 rolls of the 120 on order), but they will have it in 4x5 and 8x10 in about 5 weeks. They say it is identical to the previous Maco 820 nm film.

Efke is also making one without the antihalation layer called 820c Aura, but it's not clear whether that one will be sold through Freestyle.

I like that Rollei IR film, but it cuts out at 740 nm or so, and this Efke one will be a different story. It will also be neat (and incredibly expensive) in 8x10.

It is Maco 820nm rebranded - no new film technology in its production . The name changes and relationship between Efke-Maco-Rollei are becoming confounding, now that Maco's own IR film excludes the current offering from Efke which it used to produce, and now only produces a grainier 850nm IR film. Maybe the softness of the emulsion makes it more fitting for Efke's stable ;)

The 820c or aura emulsion is beautiful - a little grainy for ISO100 and needs a proper IR filter (715nm+) for a true IR effect. With development, there is a risk of emulsion lift, particularly in sheets. This is posted widely on Maco IR stuff, although I don't believe it is any different from the Efke scratch scratch problems that users post.

At the end of the day, it requires a bit more care in processing - used in a deep tank processor, it is fantastic.

Terence McDonagh
7-Mar-2007, 07:38
My understanding is that the old Maco 820 was made by Efke to Maco's specs.

Maco/Rollei's current IR film is Agfa-Gaevert aerial film with no changes. Maco does not, nor did it ever, actually make anything, to my knowledge. They're just a middle-man/rebrander. Mitsubishi recently made a B&W film for them as well.

al olson
7-Mar-2007, 07:55
I'm looking forward to hearing more about this film. I have used MACO in the past ... about 4 or 5 years ago. At that time their WEB site showed a sensitivity curve for this film that had approximately the same level of sensitivity in the IR region as in the visible region and with a sharp drop-off at 820nm.

However, using a Wratten A (#25) the results were scarcely different from, say, Tri-X. It also seemed to drop off sharply around 700nm. The Wood effect was not apparent at all!

I discovered later that these sensitivity curves were erroneous and that, in fact, it is necessary to use a stronger IR filter such as an R72 that blocks most of the visible light. But this filter also requires a severe cut in the IE down to the 3-6 range because of the film's extremely low sensitivity in the IR region.

I am not sure what it will mean for the Efke IR to be like the MACO 820??? Don't Rollei and MACO IRs using the same coatings? I would hope to see an IR film that has much higher sensitivity out to 820nm.

I am still hoarding about 20 sheets of Kodak HSI and have an unused box of MACO 820 in my freezer. I hope that there are some members of this forum who will be testing the Efke film and who will offer their opinions and show us their results. It would be wonderful if the IE is improved for IR.

Rob_5419
7-Mar-2007, 07:56
I guess so. You'd think the film would be cheaper now that they cut out the middle man then? Maybe not.... ;(

DrPablo
7-Mar-2007, 13:24
At $10 per roll in 120 right now, it will be a tough pill to swallow if they're selling 25 sheet boxes of 8x10.

Robert Hall
7-Mar-2007, 14:30
I think that one of the major differences with the spectrum sensitivity of the film is due to the infrared dye being coated on a panchromatic film base. (I'm pretty sure it was their 100 ASA film base)

It is the same film that Maco sold as Maco 820c and has the same slow response.

I have 12x20 ir cut from the older stock and I rate it at 1/2 ASA with an 89b filter which is at about 695nm.

An example of a print can be seen in issue 2 of Emulsion (www.emulsionmagazine.org) in my article on IR films and printing with the platinum process.

I have about 8 sheets of the 1220 left and plan on using it up on my next trip at the end of the month.

I paid an arm and a leg (at the time) for th film, with shipping about $20US a sheet. I would probably buy a few more boxes of it if it were at the same price.

As with many of Efke's films, the emulsion is soft and they have a few quirks on quality, but for the most part, it does a fair job.

Oh, and Paul, the last box of 8x10 I bought of this stuff was $200 for a box of 8x10 25 sheets.

John Kasaian
7-Mar-2007, 20:14
I just heard that it will be available in 127----infrared brownies--WOW!

John Kasaian
7-Mar-2007, 20:15
The Efke stuff, that is!

Marco Annaratone
8-Mar-2007, 01:11
The Maco 820c was a really superb IR film, and I used to develop it with XTOL with robust prewash with excellent results. The film was rather tough, while all Efke film I tried is very scratch prone (although it provides deep blacks and scans extremely well). I just wonder what this "IR by Efke" means: a Maco 820 that is scratch prone?

Hopefully it is just my profound ignorance of film manufacturing technology that makes me say this. :D

I also thought that the new Rollei IR *was* in fact the Maco 820, but this wasn't the case? Confusing...

Terence McDonagh
8-Mar-2007, 07:22
See my post above. Maco 820 was made by Efke. The current Maco/Rollei is supposedly Agfa-Gaevert aerial film, which explains why it has extended red sensitivity, but not a serious IR sensitivity. Freestyle actually has it labeled as "extended red" and compares it to Ilford SFX and not any of the other IR films.

al olson
8-Mar-2007, 07:40
Marco, when you say that MACO 820c is a superb film, what filter and what IE were you using?

When it was first introduced, 820 was getting great reviews and the results looked wonderful, but nothing was said about it being so slow in the IR. In fact the articles talked about its IE of 100. The spectral sensitivity chart that they displayed on their web site showed a flat curve until the sharp drop-off at 820nm.

My experience with MACO 820, on the other hand, indicates an IE of around 3 with an R72 filter. There is such a large differential between visible sensitivity and IR sensitivity that if you use a filter that allows visible light, such as a Wratten A, you must use a higher IE, around 12 to 20, rather than an IE of 3 to 6 with an R72 filter. But with the higher exposure to accommodate the visible light, there is no Wood effect because the film is relatively insensitive to IR.

This does not jibe with the spectral sensitivity chart they initially showed on their web site. This makes me wonder if originally there was not a different, more IR sensitive coating. If so, what happened to it?

Agfa also produced a nice IR coating? It would be nice if one of the film makers would pick up the rights to it.

Ilford's SFX 200, on the other hand, does not venture as far out into the IR region, only around 740nm, but its sensitivity is comparable to visible light, which is good for using a a Wratten A or a Wratten 29 to achieve the Wood effect. In my view, this would compete well against the MACO 820 in the sheet film market.

I wonder if Ilford reads these threads?

Robert Hall
8-Mar-2007, 08:00
Just as an FYI, I expose Maco 820c at 1/2 asa to get decent shadow detail and with the filter supplied by Ilford (about 695nm IIRC) at ASA 3-6, again for shadow detail.

Dan Jolicoeur
8-Mar-2007, 08:19
I rate it at 1/2 ASA with an 89b filter which is at about 695nm.

An example of a print can be seen in issue 2 of Emulsion (www.emulsionmagazine.org) in my article on IR films and printing with the platinum process.


Robert do you have a direct link to your example print, i could not find issue 2 let alone the article.

I am surprised the film is that fast! I was getting fair results with Konica's 750, with a 120 roll back, before i lost my 89b filter down a cliff. I was only using an ASA of 6 in late spring/full sun with not too bad wood effect.

Thanks,

Brian C. Miller
8-Mar-2007, 08:28
IIRC, I shot at IE 6, and then bracketed using B+W 092.

The wood effect for the non-Kodak films is pretty sketchy. What I mean by that is that a decidous tree or grass gets it fine, and then the effect for connifers depends on the variety. Some will give a half-way decent effect, and others don't reflect in the film's spectrum at all.

Marco Annaratone
8-Mar-2007, 08:51
Marco, when you say that MACO 820c is a superb film, what filter and what IE were you using?

Al,

I used an 89B filter (092) with the film rated between 1 ASA and 8 ASA depending on the amount of IR radiation. You can see four examples on my site, i.e.,

http://www.resonantlink.com/RL-Site/Pix_Gallery_Home/image2.jpg

http://www.resonantlink.com/RL-Site/Pix_Gallery_Home/image6.jpg

http://www.resonantlink.com/RL-Site/Pix_Gallery_Home/gg-IR3.jpg

http://www.resonantlink.com/RL-Site/Pix_Gallery_Home/image4x.jpg

and also read some considerations in a paper a friend of mine and I wrote on digital (but not only) IR photography.

http://www.infraredphoto.eu/IR_Paper_Part_one.htm

Part Two of the paper is linked to Part One above.

I used the Maco 820c for about five years and I have only good things to say about this film.

Cheers

al olson
8-Mar-2007, 10:20
Thanks, Marco, for the information. My difficulty with the MACO 820 is that it is impossible to include part of the visible spectrum with a Wratten A and still get the Wood effect. Ilford does this weakly and I forgot about the Konica 750. (Didn't realize that it is still being marketed.)

Your images are very striking. I especially liked the last two. Your guide is very helpful as well, especially for the digital shooters. I like the fact that you also address the effect of diffraction.

Since Kodak discontinued the HSI sheet films I have gone back to 35mm, using their HIE and EIR films. I have some images on my WEB site: www.photo-artiste.com/infrared.html. The B&Ws were exposed with a Wratten A (red) and the colored ones were exposed primarily with a Wratten G (orange) with several having an additional cyan filter added.

Marco Pauck provides some interesting film and filtration comparisons on his site:
http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/infrared/comparison_of_films/comparison_of_films.html. These comparisons are very informative.

I have produced an infrared guide on my site: www.photo-artiste.com/infraredguide.html. This guide will be updated with descriptions of current films and with images added for illustration.

Andrew O'Neill
8-Mar-2007, 12:30
Thanks for this info. I used Rollei IR 4x5 and didn't really like it...but that was only because I was comparing it to Kodak's 4x5 IR. At $100 Canadian for a box of 25, I don't think so. I imagine Efke's will be costly...I'll wait and see when Freestyle gets it in.

Scott Rosenberg
14-Mar-2007, 12:16
freestyle will have 25 sheet boxes for $40 in two weeks... i loved the maco 820c, so this is fantastic news!

Robert Hall
14-Mar-2007, 12:56
Robert do you have a direct link to your example print, i could not find issue 2 let alone the article.

I am surprised the film is that fast! I was getting fair results with Konica's 750, with a 120 roll back, before i lost my 89b filter down a cliff. I was only using an ASA of 6 in late spring/full sun with not too bad wood effect.

Thanks,


Sorry for the late reply Dan,

Here is a 1220 image from the Maco IR. 30 second exposure at f/64 (palladium/platinum print)

http://www.roberthall.com/new/pages/irbodie.htm

And here is an 8x10 at the same exposure. (on Azo)

http://www.roberthall.com/new/pages/cajon1.htm

Patrik Roseen
25-Apr-2007, 12:09
I have produced an infrared guide on my site: www.photo-artiste.com/infraredguide.html. This guide will be updated with descriptions of current films and with images added for illustration. Al, I have read your IR-guideline and again I am both grateful and impressed. So much information in one place and so well structured! Thank you!

Kirk Gittings
25-Apr-2007, 12:14
One more example of Freestyle's commitment to LF. Not only do they import existing products, but they work directly with foreign manufacturers to expand their product line and develop new ones.

Gene McCluney
25-Apr-2007, 23:07
Agfa also produced a nice IR coating? It would be nice if one of the film makers would pick up the rights to it.



Agfa/Gevart STILL makes it as an aerial film. That is what Maco is having cut and spooled to fit consumer cameras now. It was only Agfa/Germany that stopped film production and went belly-up.

j.e.simmons
26-Apr-2007, 07:18
Has anybody tried this IR film with an IR flash to take photos at night as Weegee did?
juan

Marco Annaratone
26-Apr-2007, 11:23
I have taken in the past year a number of macros with my Rebel XT permanently modified for IR photography because I discovered that the Canon ring flash I was using was very generous in terms of emitting light well inside the near-IR range.

I do not know whether this means that all modern flashes emit wideband radiation or this is a characteristic of the specific flash I am using, but I was somewhat surprised by this. Maybe the expectation that flashes shoot 'bluish light' and therefore no-way-their-light-will-also-have-such-a-strong-near-IR-component was at the root of this wrong idea of mine.

It would certainly be interesting to see some flash photography using one of the films we have discussed thus far.

Cheers!

Brian C. Miller
26-Apr-2007, 13:35
What Weegee did was place a filter over the flash, and not the lens. When this is done, care must be exercised to make sure the flash doesn't overheat.

PMahoney
26-Apr-2007, 14:06
Has anyone had a chance to shoot and test the new film yet? I'm curiously awaiting peoples opinions, but having never shot IR film before, cannot reliably test and provide an opinion myself. I'm certainly looking forward to nice, affordable IR film available in sheets.

Thanks,
Peter

Andrew O'Neill
26-Apr-2007, 17:50
Freestyle is all out of it. It's on back order. I hope they get more in soon. I too, would like to hear from people who have used this film...compared to Kodak's long gone 4x5 version.

Brian C. Miller
26-Apr-2007, 20:01
I was just down at Glazer's Camera Supply (http://www.glazerscamera.com/) and they have at least six boxes. They have an internet store, too.

RDKirk
28-Apr-2007, 19:54
I do not know whether this means that all modern flashes emit wideband radiation or this is a characteristic of the specific flash I am using, but I was somewhat surprised by this.

Indeed, most electronic flash do emit a great deal of near-IR.

Brian C. Miller
4-May-2007, 22:32
Has anyone had a chance to shoot and test the new film yet?

OK, out the window of my apartment, afternoon at about 6:30pm. Windy day.
Efke EI6, 1/2sec, f16, Hoya R72
Efke EI3, 1sec, f16, Hoya R72
Kodak Plus-X, no filter, just for comparison. (I should have put the filter on it, too)
All developed in Xtol 1:1.

al olson
6-May-2007, 05:08
What Weegee did was place a filter over the flash, and not the lens. When this is done, care must be exercised to make sure the flash doesn't overheat.

Actually, I believe that he used IR flash bulbs. There were a couple of different flash bulbs available that were covered with an IR coating. One, as I recall, was the #25R and I believe the other may have been the 5R. There may have been another larger bulb around as well, my recaller is broken so I can't say what it was.

I was using these bulbs back in the mid-50s to early 60s, mainly for photographs at social events. You got the usual IR effects, pale lips and cheeks, glowing eyes (the b&w counterpart to red eye), etc. No one was aware of the flash unless they were looking directly at it. If you looked directly at the flash you would see the bulb give off a brief red glow, but there was no visible illumination away from the bulb.

Helen Bach
6-May-2007, 07:18
In general, electronic flash (the photographic type, not all types) and sunlight emit roughly the same proportion of very near infrared (ie the stuff that can be recorded on film) to light. Incandescent lamps emit a higher proportion of VNIR to light - in fact many household lamps will have their peak emission in the VNIR or very close to it.

Best,
Helen