Efke 820IR

[Joe Forks]

I don't know if this is old news or not, but I'm posting it anyway.

A quote from the Freestyle Web site:

Freestyle has partnered with Fotokemika to bring you Efke IR820 (true infrared) film in multiple formats!

This is the exact same formulation you knew as Maco IR820c Precision Infrared film. It has a spectral sensitivity up to 820nm and available in a variety of formats including 35mm, 120 size, 127 size, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10.

When used with filters that are deep to opaque red it is effective in creating scenes where foliage and clouds are pure-white, while water and blue sky is coal black.

Warm skin tones and lips will appear white. It has infrared spectral sensitivity up to 820nm.

[vinny]

It's been out for a few weeks but it's already out of stock in 4x5 and 8x10 in 25 sheet boxes.

vinny

[Brian C. Miller]

Have you used Ilford SFX200? The pictures look the same. As long as Ilford is producing SFX, I'm not touching Efke/Maco/whatever.

[Jan Pedersen]

Ilfords SFX200 don't come in sheets and does not really get into the IR like the Efke IR film does.

[Brian C. Miller]

What filter did you use with Efke IR?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, that's good news. I'll have to try some.

[Joe Forks]

It's been out for a few weeks but it's already out of stock in 4x5 and 8x10 in 25 sheet boxes.

vinny

That's what I was afraid of, because that is what I ordered right before I posted this! Typical of my luck. I Haven't heard from them yet regarding my order last night.

Best
Joe

[Marco Annaratone]

I have used the Maco IR 820c for many years.

IF (all capital...) the formulation is indeed the same the Efke 820ir can be developed in XTOL 1+1 13 minutes at 20 C with abundant prewash. Best is to use a dark red 89B filter. DO NOT USE a true infrared filter like 87C. The film dies after 820nm, the 87C wakes up after 1000nm...you get the picture (pun intended: actually, you won't get the picture). Sensitivity depends on amount of infrared radiation, but with the 89B filter on is anywhere --- in a sunny day --- between 2 and 8 ASA.

Cheers!

[Joe Forks]

I have used the Maco IR 820c for many years.

IF (all capital...) the formulation is indeed the same the Efke 820ir can be developed in XTOL 1+1 13 minutes at 20 C with abundant prewash. Best is to use a dark red 89B filter. DO NOT USE a true infrared filter like 87C. The film dies after 820nm, the 87C wakes up after 1000nm...you get the picture (pun intended: actually, you won't get the picture). Sensitivity depends on amount of infrared radiation, but with the 89B filter on is anywhere --- in a sunny day --- between 2 and 8 ASA.

Cheers!

Hoya R72 should be fine for this film, correct? If I am reading this chart correctly http://www.hoyaoptics.com/pdf/R72.pdf

[Marco Annaratone]

The 89B cuts above 650nm, the Hoya R72 above 720nm. Both will work fine with the Efke. The former will simply capture a bit more 'deep red' radiation than the latter, it's a matter of taste. I tend to tread lightly on the IR 'look' because I believe it bores the viewer after a while if it's "in your face" too much, so my personal preference goes to the 89B.

:)

[Joe Forks]

The 89B cuts above 650nm, the Hoya R72 above 720nm. Both will work fine with the Efke. The former will simply capture a bit more 'deep red' radiation than the latter, it's a matter of taste. I tend to tread lightly on the IR 'look' because I believe it bores the viewer after a while if it's "in your face" too much, so my personal preference goes to the 89B.

:)

Thanks Marco!
I will give them both a workout, and while I'm at it I'll try a 25A and an 041 red-orange for my own comparisons to see which I prefer.

Best
Joe

[Brian C. Miller]

I use the B+W 092 (Kodak 89B), which is just this side of opaque. The 25A filter is OK for Kodak HIE, but will not make a dent with other IR films. You will need to use a B+W 091 (Kodak #29 deep red) at the minimum.

I just reviewed some images last night, and yep, same scene photographed with SFX 200 and Maco 820 looks the same. Kodak HIE looks different.

The main reason that I don't like the Mako/Efke film is that when it first came out, I found that the emulsion would swell if it was wet for too long. I have never had that issue with any other film. I had to absolutely keep the film wet time under 20 minutes. Usually my development process would have a wet time of at least 40 minutes, including wash time. Since the Ilford material didn't have that issue and there was no real difference between the scenes and what was on the negative, I never bothered with Mako again.

As for a 750nm response not being IR, I must disagree. Mako calls its 750nm film IR, and Konica called its 750nm film IR. Therefore I'll also categorize Ilford SFX200 as being infrared, even though it's called "extended red."

[Joe Forks]

I actually like the Rollei near infrared real well, it's sensitivity starts dropping off rapidly at about 675nm. Possibly I should have just stuck with Rollei but I have heard so many RAVE about the Maco and saw the Efke in 8x10 sheets I had to make the order and try it. I guess that is our only option in 8x10 sheets?

I still have 15 or so rolls of Konica 750 IR in 120 that was given to me. A really dirty rotten trick to get me rolling down this slippery slope of buying expensive sheet film where you must have some internal gauge of elevation, sun angle, time of season, and so forth to make an educated GUESS of the EI! You had also better have some idea of what plants really reflect IR and which don't. You can blow out a prickly pear really quick at elevation on a spring morning.

Hoya R72's are the only IR filters I have at the moment, but I did do some work with the Konica through a 25A which did not have the true IR look but it was nice regardless. That's the nice thing about the Konica is that you could forgo the filter altogether if you didn't want the stark look. I'm not sure this is the case with any of these other emulsions such as the Rollei, Maco, or now Efke. Maybe the Rollei but at 3 bucks a sheet I won't be using it to find out what it's like without the filter.

[Marco Annaratone]

Three examples of Maco IR 820c with 89B filter.

Rt 1 (http://www.resonantlink.com/RL-Site/Pix_Gallery_Home/image2.jpg)

Golden Gate 1 (http://www.resonantlink.com/RL-Site/Pix_Gallery_Home/image6.jpg)

Golden Gate 2 (http://www.resonantlink.com/RL-Site/Pix_Gallery_Home/gg-IR3.jpg)

The SFX 200 and Maco IR 820c have significant different spectral sensitivities, the former dropping to zero around 780nm, the latter before 900nm. From this standpoint the two films are not identical. From this figure alone two prints from these two films of the same subject taken with an 89B or R72 filter should look quite different ... unless there was no radiation above 720nm (give or take) to start with, of course. Or maybe there is some other reason I am missing.

Without a filter though I believe the two prints would look very similar indeed, i.e., normal BW pictures with little or no IR effect, that is.

Cheers!

[Brian C. Miller]

When I refer to similar images, I refer to how the vegetation looks on the negative.

The Maco, Ilford, and Konica all render vegetation similarly. Deciduous trees, grass, and leafy plants all render "white." Conifers and shrubs will render "gray" in comparison to grass. Kodak, on the other hand, will render every photosynthetic plant as "white." That's why when Kodak discontinued HIE in 4x5 I stocked up.

Some varieties of conifers will not reflect any IR light for Maco/Konica/Ilford. I have a few photos with a variety of conifers together, with some reflecting and some not. Therefore, Kodak's sensitivity is significant.

The B+W 092 and Hoya R72 are functionally identical. I know, I own both of them. The Hoya IR-76 (http://www.hoyaoptics.com/color_filter/ir_transmitting.htm) glass is available (http://www.newportglass.com/) and it might make a difference, so maybe I'll buy some and make a filter and then retest the film.

Graphs and charts are one thing, but real results are what count. Therefore, always test films and compare them.

[Scott Rosenberg]

i love the maco stuff, so am thrilled that it's available again... by the way, freestyle has three boxes of 4x5 left as of noon pst today.

[Scott Rosenberg]

to those of you who have shot a lot of 820c, what iso do you use? i have general guidelines and a liberal bracketing policy. i find under most conditions, somewhere around 6 seems to be pretty close...

have any of you done testing? i was going to sacrifice most of my first box to REALLY get a handle on metering with this stuff...

[Brian C. Miller]

ISO of 3 or 6 is about right. Personally I recommend that you get familiar with exposure with the roll film, and don't use the sheets for just messing around. However, don't bother exposing it at all unless you have at least a #29 filter. These should be readily available.

The real problem with IR is that you have no idea what the IR light really is. There are many times that I have grossly overexposed when I was in deep shade. Then when I got home and saw my mistake, and also how unearthly everything looked. OK, I admit it, I really like white pine needles.

[Joe Forks]

My film shipped last night, both the 4x5 and 8x10. sweet!

Scott,
At the locations I'm shooting it's closer to 6 or even higher. I don't think there is anyway around bracketing though. Supposedly there is more reflected IR at elevation, when the sun is at low angles, and in the spring time. I read that somewhere and as far as I can tell it is accurate.

[Helen Bach]

... DO NOT USE a true infrared filter like 87C. The film dies after 820nm, the 87C wakes up after 1000nm...you get the picture (pun intended: actually, you won't get the picture)...

The 87C has a 3% transmittance at 800 nm, 16% transmittance at 820 nm, 50% transmittance at 850 nm and 80% transmittance at 900 nm. I have found that it is marginally useable with Maco 820c, albeit at very low sensitivity. I normally use an 87 or an 89B.

Best,
Helen

[Marco Annaratone]

Helen,
your numbers are absolutely correct, but my experience with the 87C and the Maco IR 820c is that I always got a completely unexposed film. Maybe I should have used a sensitivity even lower than 2 ASA, maybe there was not enough IR radiation, maybe both, but in any case I would still recommend to stay away from this filter.

Cheers!

[Ron Marshall]

Link to transmission spectra for various filters for use with IR film:

http://photo.net/photo/edscott/ir000020.htm