Maco Infrared Sample Arrived Today.

[Gene McCluney]

I got the samples sent out by Maco of their new Infrared emulsion in 4x5 (10 sheets). Also enclosed is a sample of Rollei R3, and another box of 25 sheets of
Rollei Infrared R1410. And a small container of ACU-1 developer powder concentrate.

I guess I am going to have to get an Infrared filter or two.

I wonder what the difference is between the Roelli infrared film, and the Maco Infrared prototype sent?

Not particularly eager to try the developer, as it has very long developing times.

The cover letter is in rather broken English.

[Scott Rosenberg]

gene, was the maco ir film boxed as efke? i was under the impression that the maco ir film wasn now only being put out by efke.

scott

[Gene McCluney]

gene, was the maco ir film boxed as efke? i was under the impression that the maco ir film wasn now only being put out by efke.

scott

I got two different infrared films from Maco, plus a sample of Roelli R3 or R2 whatever that multi-speed film is.

The existing infrared film is boxed as Roelli Infrared, and says "Made in Germany", The new "test" infrared is in package labeled Maco and says "Made in Germany" and they state in the letter that it is made by Agfa/Gevaert in Belgium.

They also state in the cover letter that it "IS NOT" made by Efke.

[Scott Rosenberg]

thnaks for the info, gene. do you have any idea who is going to be distributing the maco ir film in the usa?

[Gene McCluney]

thnaks for the info, gene. do you have any idea who is going to be distributing the maco ir film in the usa?

I don't know about distribution, but Freestyle carries Maco/Roelli films now, so I guess they would have it when it is widely available. I think B&H also has Maco products.

[Scott Rosenberg]

hi gene, i'm glad you mentioned freestyle. i just today recieved from freestyle my efke ir film, which i was told by them was the same as the maco, as maco was no longer making this particular emulsion. if that's not the case, and maco is making their ir seperate from the efke branded stuff, the folks at freestyle are going to have some 'splaining to do.

[PMahoney]

Gene-
Are they still shipping samples of their film and if so, what is the link for those of us that may want to try?
Thanks,
Peter

[Andrew O'Neill]

I wasn't happy with Rollei IR. To get IR affect you need to shoot with an IR opaque filter. The price for the stuff was outrageous up here ($99 Cdn for 25 sheet box). The stuff I got had barely any notch codes which progressively vanished as I went through the box. I didn't like the ultra thin base, either. Other than that, a nice sharp, smooth tone b/w film.

[Gene McCluney]

Gene-
Are they still shipping samples of their film and if so, what is the link for those of us that may want to try?
Thanks,
Peter

This was a "test" of the new Infrared Porotoype from Maco. The Roelli Infrared and the Roelli R3 are just extra goodies thrown in. We are supposed to try out the new Infrared Prototype and communicate our views directly to Maco first for their use, then we can chat about our results in public. I don't think the offer is still going on, there was a sign-up period some time back. I hope I can use the film in a timely manner, but never having shot Infrared, I don't even have filters at this moment, and I'm not inclined to spend much money on filters for a film I would probably not in the future use.

Seriously, I doubt I would ever "buy" any Maco products at their current prices.

Also included was a vial of ACU-1 developer powder, which is a USA made BKA product, basically a variation of Accufine for fine grain.

[Jan Pedersen]

The Maco IR film are sent out to those that responded to postings on the APUG forum.
Maco would submit free of charge a new prototype IR film for those willing to test.
This is not the EFKE IR film but a new film being developed. Results from testing was not supposed to be shared until Maco had reviewed all samples. I completed mine 4-6 weeks ago and i believe it is a done deal.

[Gene McCluney]

So where can I get cheaply a black filter for infrared photography? Do they make these in gel?

[Helen Bach]

Lee make polyester 87 camera filters in both 3x3 and 4x4. B&H have them in stock for $14 and $24 respectively. Wratten 87 gelatin filters are $58 and $90 for the same sizes.

Best,
Helen

[Marko]

So where can I get cheaply a black filter for infrared photography? Do they make these in gel?

What size? Cokin makes 89B P Series, costs just under $50 - model P007. Same cost as Hoya 58mm 89B. Larger sizes cost progressively more.

[Gene McCluney]

Ordered a filter from B&H. I understand we are not supposed to chat about our results until we give a review to Maco., therefore I have been confining my discussion to other aspects of this film, I can't comment anyway on performance, as I haven't tried it yet.

[walter23]

What size? Cokin makes 89B P Series, costs just under $50 - model P007. Same cost as Hoya 58mm 89B. Larger sizes cost progressively more.

Do those cokins actually work well? With the long exposures and spaces between holder & filter I always imagined you'd have a huge problem with reflections wrecking your shots (at least with IR - I do use a cokin P grad ND set).

[Marko]

Do those cokins actually work well? With the long exposures and spaces between holder & filter I always imagined you'd have a huge problem with reflections wrecking your shots (at least with IR - I do use a cokin P grad ND set).

When I use the Cokin IR filter, I use it with a modular lens hood in front and I wrap a piece of black cloth around the space between the hood and the lens. It's clumsy, really, but it's considerably cheaper than a large, say 77mm, glass filter and it works well. I just don't use it often enough to justify the cost difference and the original question was about cheap IR filters.

[Gene McCluney]

I was thinking maybe the filter could be put on the back of the lens? If a tight seal is not possible on the front?

[Eirik Berger]

I guess I will have my samples in a few days, the postal service up here is rather slow. I have 3 boxes of the "old" Maco IR820C that I will compare it to.

It is still plenty of snow here, and I have never shot IR in winter before. I am not sure how snow will turn out on IR-film, will it reflect IR ans just be washed out with no detail?

[Ole Tjugen]

I haven't shot IR in winter, but my one try at shooting a glacier in summer shows that ice is --- white. :)

[Eirik Berger]

Hehe, surprise!
If I will not be able to capture texture in snow/ice I will wait until spring/summer. I can´t waste good film.

[Eirik Berger]

And glacier fronts are ANYTHING but white. At least if shot with velvia or Fortia. ;)

[Marko]

I haven't shot IR in winter, but my one try at shooting a glacier in summer shows that ice is --- white. :)

That's interesting because water does not reflect IR at all. I never tried shooting snow or ice in IR and I'd like to hear (and possibly even see) what kind of results are you getting.

[Eirik Berger]

I will try next saturday if the weather allows it. And then scan/post the results.

I have used Xtol with Maco IR before, but I am out of it so I have to order some. I do have a lot of Fomadon Excel though, but I am not sure what times to use. Foma compares it with Xtol in their charts maybe I can use the same times as Xtol?

[Brian C. Miller]

I just shot some Macophot IR820c 4x5 film. I used my Hoya R72 filter. I also shot Kodak Plus-X for comparison. The photos were made at about 6pm.

At IE6, the vegitation comes in fine. The shadows drop into nothing.
At IE3, the shadows are doing a little better. I developed these sheets with Xtol 1:1 for 10min instead of Xtol 1:3 for 14min like I did before, and I think I'll do another test with the higher dilution. The film received so much IR exposure that I'm seeing it block up and some halation. I would go with IE6 if it weren't for the shadows.

I wonder how this stuff would do with Pyro.

[Eirik Berger]

Brian.
I use a Lee #87 filter, I think it blocks sligthly more "visible" light than Hoya R72 (starting at 750nm instead of 720). Would you recommend me to try ISO 3 and Xtol 1:3 for 14 minutes as a start?

[Brian C. Miller]

The Lee specs say that transmission begins above 730nm, so I would recommend that you first try some roll film to nail down the speed. After all, the sheets are awfully expensive, and the filter may only be transmitting 10% or less in the film's sensitivity range. Then develop in Xtol 1:3 or another dilute developer due to inherent scene contrast.

The B+W page used to have a combined graph for their filter specs, which was really great. I can't find that image any more.

One thing that really strikes me about Maco/Efke is that the Kodak film was sensitive enough to pick up reflected IR. I would shoot HIE at 400 with B+W 092, and the reflected IR would give weird lighting to the scene. The Maco/Efke just drops like a rock. Get some roll film and experiment with it, and then use the LF for the real stuff.

[Helen Bach]

The B+W graphs are in the pdf version of the full handbook and of just the technical section of the handbook on their website: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/handbook/

If the Lee 87 has the same spectral properties as the Wratten 87, the transmission begins at 0.8% at 740 nm; then 12% at 760 nm; 45% at 790 nm; and 68% at 820 nm.

Brian,

"One thing that really strikes me about Maco/Efke is that the Kodak film was sensitive enough to pick up reflected IR."

Apart from photos of fairly hot objects (over about 250 °C for HIE) aren't all these films most commonly used for reflected IR imaging?

Best,
Helen

[Marko]

Helen, it sounds as if Brian is referring to the aura due to the lack of anti-hallation layer on HIE. Maco used to produce two versions, one with and the other without anti-hallation layer. As a matter of fact, they called that version "aura".

[Brian C. Miller]

What I am referring to is reflected light.
First photo: Seattle Space Needle. Note the weeping willow tree is illuminated very strangely. The leaves act as reflectors, and the tree looks as if it is illuminated from within as well as without.
Second photo: Denny Lutheran Church, Seattle. This demonstrates aura, which is completely different from the reflected IR in the willow tree.

[Marko]

What I am referring to is reflected light.
First photo: Seattle Space Needle. Note the weeping willow tree is illuminated very strangely. The leaves act as reflectors, and the tree looks as if it is illuminated from within as well as without.
Second photo: Denny Lutheran Church, Seattle. This demonstrates aura, which is completely different from the reflected IR in the willow tree.

OK, I think I see the difference between the two, but what gets me confused is the term "reflected IR light" as a separate category. Isn't all of near-IR (the kind we get on film) reflected light?

[Helen Bach]

... but what gets me confused is the term "reflected IR light" as a separate category. Isn't all of near-IR (the kind we get on film) reflected light?

Brian,

That's also what puzzled me. Almost all the IR photography that we do with film is of reflected infrared radiation, so I haven't managed to grasp what you are saying. (Of course infrared is not light, but referring to 'infrared light' isn't exactly a federal offense.)

Best,
Helen

[al olson]

Helen, I think what Brian is talking about is the difference between radiated IR and reflected IR. I read something about this in a Kodak document some time ago, but am unable to locate the document today as I searched their site.

What the document stated (as best I recollect, and I was not aware of this) is that some objects, like vegetation, cause a frequency shift when they are illuminated with visible light so that they radiate IR, much like some objects will cause a frequency shift of UV to radiate visible light. This combination of reflected and radiated IR can be so strong that vegetation appears nearly white (the Wood Effect).

But most objects do not radiate IR, they only reflect it and often they simply absorb it. For example, if you are photographing old wood, or dark rocks that do not radiate IR but only reflect it, and maybe not well, the illumination is not nearly as strong and the shadow detail may disappear.

Perhaps someone can shed more light on this and maybe provide a source that has more information.

[Helen Bach]

Al,

Chlorophyll does fluoresce, but at 673 nm (deep red) rather than in the infrared. In most cases the fluorescence is very weak in comparison to the simple reflection of IR from foliage - foliage is a very good reflector of IR, though there is quite a lot of variance. It is safe to say that pictorial images made on IR-sensitive film are reflected IR images in almost all cases.

As we are discussing IR, here is a list of the 50% transmission wavelengths for some common filters, to the nearest 5 nm. Heliopan filters are given their Schott RG numbers, which correspond to the 50% transmission wavelength.

Wratten # 25 (Old designation: A): 600 nm
Wratten # 29 (Old designation: F): 620 nm
B+W 091 (Schott RG630): 630 nm
B+W 092 (Schott RG695): 695 nm
Wratten # 89B: 715 nm
Hoya R72: 720 nm
Wratten # 88A: 745 nm
Wratten # 87: 795 nm
B+W 093 (Schott RG830): 830 nm
Wratten 87C: 850 nm

All Wratten data from Kodak Photographic Filters Handbook, B-3, 1992

The B+W Handbook gives the Schott glass used for each filter. The Schott website gives complete spectral data, but it isn't really necessary for obtaining the 50% transmission values because the designation is a giveaway.

I haven't used the Efke IR film yet, but with the old Maco IR film I normally used a B+W 092. I found the Wratten 87 to be marginally useable. I'll be interested to see how the new Maco film performs with an 87 - my film has just arrived.

Best,
Helen

[Brian C. Miller]

Helen, this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=25358&page=4) is where I posted scans of Efke/Maco 4x5. Please note the difference between the trees in the Efke/Maco and the Kodak HIE. The Kodak tree has a luminance inside of it, but the Maco trees don't. Where it the sunlight touches on the Maco trees it is reflected, but not a reflection of another leaf's reflection.

Attached is a crop of the Space Needle shot (Filter B+W 092, EI400). Note that the branch in the upper-left is illuminated by the reflected IR light from the leaves. The light is reflected, from leaf to leaf, and brilliantly.

[Helen Bach]

Brian,

That 'luminance inside' looks like halation combined with plentiful exposure.

Best,
Helen

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5132527-md.jpg

[Brian C. Miller]

Now try it with the Maco/Efke! :)

BTW, are you sure that EI400 is overexposure for HIE?

[j.e.simmons]

Doesn't HIE lack an anti-halation layer? The Efke film is produced in two type - one lacks the anti-halation layer and is called Aura.
juan

[Helen Bach]

Brian,

"BTW, are you sure that EI400 is overexposure for HIE?"

I was basing my comment about 'plentiful exposure' (I didn't write 'overexposure') on the image, not on the numbers. Even knowing the details of your meter, metering technique and development it would be difficult to judge just by the numbers. For example I set my meter to EI 1600 for HIE with an 093, and I consider that combination to give generous exposure.

Just out of interest, what kind of tree is that in the Maco/Efke shot?

Thanks,
Helen

[Brian C. Miller]

Its a fir tree of some sort, but I don't know what species. My cat uses it as part of her race track, zooming from tree to tree.

[Brian C. Miller]

OK, I'm fairly certain the tree is a Western Red Cedar. According to the forrestry web site, it has a ways to grow, up to 150ft tall.

[al olson]

Helen, you always come up with some great information and I am wondering if you can give me some guidance for sources regarding the frequency shift from visible to IR for vegetation.

The Kodak paper I was referring to, a Tech Pub I believe, has disappeared from their web site. [I have spent several hours wading through all the pubs come up on a search for IR. It's a shame I didn't print a copy.] It was more focused on discussing IR rather than the specifics of their film.

As I recall from what I read from this source a couple of years ago, the implication was that most of the IR from vegetation was caused by frequency shift. I was surprised because I had never seen anything about this in any prior references. If this is in error, it may be the reason that the pub is no longer retrievable.

Regarding the frequency shift, or flourescing, I would believe that this would have a band width that is wider than a single wavelength. Is 673nm the peak radiation, or is it the upper limit to the wavelength band? I am also curious about the relative strength of this frequency shift. I presume that it would vary accord to the type of vegetation and the spectrum of the light source.

I have worked with IR films off and on since 1954 and am always searching for information about IR and its effects. I find my college texts on Optics and Light to be woefully lacking on topics like frequency shift. For that matter they barely mention anything of interest about UV and IR, it's mostly about wave theory and geometric optics. Would you be able to refer me to sources that are more enlightening?

Thanks for your help.

[Helen Bach]

"Regarding the frequency shift, or flourescing, I would believe that this would have a band width that is wider than a single wavelength. Is 673nm the peak radiation, or is it the upper limit to the wavelength band? I am also curious about the relative strength of this frequency shift. I presume that it would vary accord to the type of vegetation and the spectrum of the light source."

Al,

My bare '673 nm' was inadequate, wasn't it.

Here is a graph of the relative fluorescence of chlorophyll. I had it in a spreadsheet without a reference, so I'll have to find the reference - and I'll have to attempt to work out the relative strength of the reflectance vs fluorescence.

Regards,
Helen

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5948493-md.jpg

[al olson]

Thanks, Helen, for providing the response curve showing the fluoresence of chlorophyll from the visible spectrum. It would be interesting to read about the research behind this. For example, I would be curious to know which wavelengths of the visible band fluoresce the most.

Your information is greatly appreciated.

[Helen Bach]

Al,

Here is a graph for corn. It shows the percentage of apparent reflectance (Ra) caused by steady-state chlorophyll fluorescence (Fs) for the top of a corn leaf. The red line is an unhealthy leaf and the green line is a healthy leaf. It is from a 2002 paper: Contribution of Chlorophyll Fluorescence to the Reflectance of Corn Foliage by Entcheva Cambell, Middleton, Corp, McMurtrey, Kim, Chappelle and Butcher. They are either NASA/GSFC or USDA personnel.

Their technique was to illuminate the leaves with a steady Xenon source and compare the reflectance with and without a 665 nm long pass filter over the source. The reflectance with the filter in position was assumed to be pure reflectance (R), while the apparent reflectance (Ra) without the filter was assumed to be a combination of reflectance and fluorescence (Fs + R). The graph is shown as percentage of R, while the accompanying text says that it is percentage of Ra.

Best,
Helen

[al olson]

Helen, this is good thought provoking information. I have gained a further understanding of the IR process while at the same time looking to find out more data if it is around.

Thank you for the charts and references.