PDA

View Full Version : Efke infrared



radchad
16-May-2008, 15:36
I posted a previous post about infrared and you all helped me find this film. i was wondering how you would use this film in the 4x5 size? focusing, exposing with fall off etc.
thanks
chad webb photography
www.chadwebbphotography.com

Scott Rosenberg
16-May-2008, 16:26
chad, i shoot it like any other film... with the addition of an IR filter of course :)

seriously, i don't handle it differently in any way.

Ralph Barker
17-May-2008, 07:00
IR light has a different wavelength than the visible spectrum. So, in theory, the focus should be adjusted a bit for precise focus. I forget the exact amount, but it's a small fraction of the focal lenth of the lens being used. In practical terms, if you are shooting at "normal" distances out doors, and use a typical LF aperture (around f/22 or so), no focus adjustment is usually required. You'll have enough DOF to cover the theoretical adjustment. Thus, I'd suggest focusing normally, add the IR filter, and then expose.

Note, too, that the amount of IR light varies with latitude, time of year, and time of day. As such, you'll need to bracket /experiment to determine the proper exposure for your area. My approach is to meter normally, and then apply the IR adjustment to arrive at the actual exposure.

al olson
18-May-2008, 07:25
Chad,

First of all, your choice of filter is critical. A Wratten A (#25) is not sufficient to obtain the Wood effect (like it was with HIE) because the film is far more sensitive in the visible spectrum than in the infrared. The result will appear similar to panchromatic film. The vegetation is medium gray, not white and the skies are not very dark.

Best is a filter that blocks everything below 720nm. Also because the infrared range only goes to 820nm, the infrared filters above 720nm are impractical. I use a Hoya R72 or a Cokin 007 for this film.

Because these filters do not pass visible light you must do your composition with the filter off the camera and then replace it for your exposure. Of course your other choice is to leave the filter on your lens and compose with a separate viewfinder.

I usually meter the film at an EI of 1.5. I add a couple of minutes to the recommended development time because the negative image is so thin that it barely looks usable. However I find that it, surprisingly, makes a very acceptable print with a good contrast range.

As Ralph says, use small apertures to accommodate the shift in focus. I also often times tweak (very small change) the focus slightly closer which also seems to help. With an EI of 1.5 and small aperture your shutter speed is going to be very long. This makes landscape work very tricky because the vegetation will have motion blur at the slightest breeze.

I hope this is the kind of information you are looking for.

John O'Connell
19-May-2008, 07:52
The old rule of thumb for focus adjustment when using infrared film (for distant subjects) was to focus closer by 1/400 of the focal length of the lens---but this was with Kodak HIE. The need for focus adjustment is lower with modern infrared films.

SAShruby
9-Sep-2008, 17:23
Will Red 29 be enough for this film to achieve typical infrared pictures or do I have to go with infrared filter?

jetcode
9-Sep-2008, 17:33
I believe that with the current Infrared offerings most certainly Rollei Infrared Red 25 or 29 will not be suitable. I used Red 25 with HIE and it worked as expected. When I used Red 25 with Rollei not much in the way of Infrared made it to the film. I suspect the Infrared sensitivity is overwhelmed by visible light spectra which is why these films are rated in the low ISO's.

al olson
9-Sep-2008, 17:47
Joe,
You are absolutely correct. I have found that when using MACO/Efke/Rollei it is necessary to use an infrared filter that cuts off the visual light below 720nm. For this I use either a Hoya R72 or a Cokin 007. Because of this it is necessary to use an EI of 1.5, maybe a 2 or 3 will work if the IR light is strong.

Peter,
I have never used a #29 with these films. However, the cutoff is far enough to the edge of the visual that you might get a partial Wood Effect. I am sure that it would darken your skies. The only 29 I have fits my Kodak Retina iiic and it worked well with Kodak's HIE films.

SAShruby
9-Sep-2008, 18:44
Thanks for the answers. I also found a gelatin wratten #87. It cuts off light at 800nm (100 transmittance, however it has about 50% transmittance at 750nm. Would this filter be better than Red 29?

Thanks.

al olson
12-Sep-2008, 14:33
Peter,

I would be interested in hearing of your results with the #87. The Efke sensitivity in the IR region is so low that I would be discouraged from trying it.

Although I have never tried the #29 on anything except Kodak HIE, I would surmise that the cutoff is close enough to the edge of the visual spectrum that you might get some modest IR results.

Andrew O'Neill
17-Sep-2008, 18:37
Will Red 29 be enough for this film to achieve typical infrared pictures or do I have to go with infrared filter?

Hi Sashruby. NO, the #29 is not enough to get typical infrared pictures. You get a little. It's certainly nothing like Kodak's version (I miss that film).
I use #87. On a sunny day my exposures are typically f/8 @ 21 seconds with reciprocity failure added (EI 1.5).
I've also found that I get better exposures if I read the shadows and place them on zone IV. Normal development for me in Xtol 1+1 is 16 minutes (BTZS tube).

SAShruby
18-Sep-2008, 01:05
Thanks Andy,

The sunny rule is F8-21s (EI1.5). I'll use it for to compensate for other times.
I will try the film in Grece. Pity, I won't be able to see results till my return.

Al,

I will post some pictures from Greece when I get back.

shmoo
18-Sep-2008, 10:53
Thanks for the answers. I also found a gelatin wratten #87. It cuts off light at 800nm (100 transmittance, however it has about 50% transmittance at 750nm. Would this filter be better than Red 29?

Thanks.

The 87 filter is good to have if you don't want tooooo much of the wood effect with the film, but a nice controlled whitening. The effect is more subtle, but useful if that's your aesthetic. It usually takes about 1-2 more stops than an 89b filter though.

Navy Moose
18-Sep-2008, 11:23
I use Cokin's on my DSLR and MF gear. Using a Cokin 007 allow visible light to be seen around the Cokin frame on the lens?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Navy Moose

BryanSoderlind
18-Sep-2008, 15:20
Has anyone done any infrared shots using strobes? Can you put infrared gels over the strobes to get a better effect? I know there was a photographer awhile ago doing photos inside movie theaters that were infrared and the flash was not visible, he was catching people making out and stuff like that. Does anyone know his name?
www.bryansoderlind.com

Andrew O'Neill
18-Sep-2008, 17:36
The 87 filter is good to have if you don't want tooooo much of the wood effect with the film, but a nice controlled whitening.

Shmoo, you mean the #29 filter, right?


Peter,
When I was photographing in Saskatchewan this past summer, I was constantly up against the wind there. Rarely could I get away with using Efke IR. I've never been to Greece, but it's something you should be aware of.
Have a great time in Greece! Looking forward to seeing some of your images!

shmoo
18-Sep-2008, 22:45
Shmoo, you mean the #29 filter, right?



Actually I was using the 87 filter with the Maco phot 820 IRc which is somewhat similar. For some reason, I got into metering at ISO 50 then opening up 5-7 stops. Don't know how I came upon that combination...just worked for me with the 87 filter. Don't own a 29 filter.

With my luck, my shutter's off and everything's wrong. :)

al olson
19-Sep-2008, 11:15
Here is a useful reference for those who wish to shoot infrared films. The material is a little dated, 2002, but the information on filters and developing for the films that remain is very helpful.
http://www.cocam.co.uk/CoCamWS/Infrared/INFRARED.HTM
I should mention that this reference prints out to 43 pages.


Some useful filter information from this source:

Wratten Rating----0% Transmission----50% Transmission
25----------------580 nm-------------600 nm
29----------------600---------------- 620
70----------------645-----------------675
89B---------------680-----------------720
88----------------700-----------------735
88A---------------720-----------------750
87----------------740-----------------795
87C---------------790-----------------850
87B---------------820-----------------930
87A---------------880----------------1050

The Hoya R72 and the Cokin 007 I believe are very close to the 89B.

Shmoo,
If you meter at an EI of 50 and then open up 5 EV, and are then exposing at an EI of 1.5. I.e., 50/(2^5) = 50/32 = 1.56 ~ 1.5. I am using an EI of 1.5 for an 89B equivalent (Hoya R72 and Cokin 007). Since you are using an 87 I think that your opening up 7EV gives you the best exposure. [This means, however, that you are exposing at an EI of 0.375!!!]

Merg Ross
19-Sep-2008, 11:53
Al, thanks for the reference and link. It provides a good deal of helpful information.

shmoo
19-Sep-2008, 12:04
Al,

Thanks for the explanation. I was just doing trial and error when I hit on the combination...I probably wasted a lot more film than was necessary at the time. I did find that 6 worked well, but more often than not the 7-stop negative was easier to print.

S

al olson
23-Sep-2008, 11:01
A little more information regarding MACO/Efke infrared coatings for anyone who wishes to try them.

The following documents on IR 820c and 820c AURA is currently available at the following links:
http://www.mahn.net/TAIRe.htm
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/MACO_IR820c_AURA.pdf

The second document has not been updated since 2004, but but at one time was available via links from several sources, including Freestyle. About 2 years ago one of the links from Mahn/MACO had a cover sheet attached to the front of the document, purportedly from Hans O. Mahn, stating that the MACO IR film was being branded and marketed under the Rollei name. Then about a year ago there was a new cover sheet announcing that Efke was now doing the coating. These links have since disappeared and I have been able to locate these document versions via Google to confirm my memory.

This information plus the fact that MACO/Rollei/Efke IR films also seem to have the same low sensitivities out to 850nm which leads me to conclude that all three are using the same coating formulae.

I should also mention that on page 9 of the second link above there is a plot of IR 820 spectral sensitivity that in my experience is terribly generous in the IR region. I have also found their development times optimistic, and the recommendations for N+2 and N+3 development as shown in the table at the bottom of the first link are probably more accurate.

There are two other links worth looking at although they are not as informative:
http://www.jackspcs.com/dsmaco.htm
http://www.fsdistribution.biz/index.php?l=efke

Mattg
28-Sep-2008, 22:48
Hi Sashruby. NO, the #29 is not enough to get typical infrared pictures. You get a little. It's certainly nothing like Kodak's version (I miss that film).
I use #87. On a sunny day my exposures are typically f/8 @ 21 seconds with reciprocity failure added (EI 1.5).
I've also found that I get better exposures if I read the shadows and place them on zone IV. Normal development for me in Xtol 1+1 is 16 minutes (BTZS tube).

Here's an example of Rollei 400 IR used with a number 29 filter, I posted it to ther IR images thread a week or two ago to give people an idea of the kind of effect you can get with this combination. Rated it at E.I. 6 for this shot and gave very generous development to try to maximise the IR effect. Processed in Xtol 1:1, I'll need to look up my times later.

It's pretty obvious that the scene had very high contrast anyway. I suspect that if I'd given as much development to a "normal" film, I may have got a result very similar to this.

Andrew O'Neill
30-Sep-2008, 14:41
...and if you would have used a #87 filter, you would have maximized the IR effect. I don't see it in your example. The #29 does very little...but then again, that depends on how much IR there is bouncing around when you make your exposure.