Favourite IR films...

[612tom]

Time to try some IR film in large format. I used Kodak HIR back in the day in 35mm, today my options for 4x5 are limited:

Efke IR820
Efke IR820 Aura - with no anti-halation backing whatever that means - so it "blooms"
Rollei IR400

Does anyone have any favourites? I think the Aura that allows the blooming affect is supposed to be the most like the Kodak - does that sound right?

If anyone can post some samples that would be great.

Plus - with 35mm when focusing, it's a case of shifting focus to the red-mark on the lens to cope with the different wavelengths of IR film. What do I do with a field camera? Focus and then knock-it off focus to the near slightly? Or just stop down and hope for the best?

I've been reading up on handling the film. Pick the best film holder out of my collection with the fewest light leaks :eek: and my Jobo tank is IR safe already?? Anything else to consider?


Cheers

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know about IR film, I stopped using it when Kodak discontinued it, but with respect to your red mark question - I used to make that adjustment when I could with 35 mm (as you know, most zoom lenses don't have a red mark or even if they do, it's only good at one focal length so it's not always possible to use a red mark even with 35mm). When I first used IR film with 4x5 I tried to mimic the red mark adjustment by making just the tiniest of little tweaks to the front standard after first focusing but it really isn't necessary IMHO, for several reasons.

IR isn't all that sharp to begin with. And depth of field will cure what tiny focus problems there might otherwise be with IR, especially with 4x5 where you're usually using a much smaller f stop that you do with 35mm so that you have greater depth of field (all other things being equal), and the magnification ratio of your prints is normally much smaller than with 35mm. So I wouldn't worry about it, just focus normally and shoot.

[redrockcoulee]

I have shot a few rolls of Maco IR which is the Efke now and one roll of the Rollei on 120 and for some reason liked the Maco better. Not shot enough to really make an informed recommendation.

Several places on the web have claimed you need to cover plastic tanks with aluminum foil according to Maco, however when you actually read the Maco fact sheets it only suggests that if you do not feel confident in your plastic tanks you COULD cover them with the foil but it should not be necessary. Not sure how this has been so misread.

Test your bellows to see if they are IR tight.

[drew.saunders]

If you do a search, there have been a couple recent threads on IR:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=34836&highlight=infrared
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=54084&highlight=infrared

The regular Efke IR820 has a stronger IR effect than the Rollei, although the Rollei is easier to work with, more sensitive, and less scratch prone. The Aura is very new, so there are fewer examples with it.

As far as focusing, you do both: you pull the focus to the nearest thing you may want to be in focus, then stop down to f16 or lower, and hope for the best, or at least the most interesting.

Lots of samples here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/efkeir820/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/68975634@N00/

There's an "Infrared" group in Flickr too, but it's about 99% digital conversions.

Drew

[SamReeves]

My favorites were Kodak High Speed Infrared and Ektachrome Infrared. Although I used both of those in the 35mm format. I do like the Maco 4x5 IR, and I have several sheets of that left. I am pondering what will be my next purchase of IR film since all of those films are now history.

[rguinter]

Everyone seems to be out of the Efke Aura at the moment. I ordered a big lot from Digitaltruth last month and couldn't get the whole order due to a glitch with that silly Worldpay service they use. Worldpay wouldn't authorize my (zero balance, $20,000 credit limit) VISA card for more than $500 so my order for a huge lot of 4x5 and 120 rolls of Aura was cut down a bit. When I tried to re-order the rest this month they tell me there is a supply problem from the manufacturer in Croatia and they don't know when my order will be filled.

So it is catch as catch can with the Efke IR 820 Aura at the moment. Bob G.

[al olson]

Efke 820c claims an extended spectral range, but it is very insensitive beyond 700nm.
I have liked the tonality and the grain. Last winter, though, I had a problem that I posted on a different thread.

I was photographing a ghost town on a sunny day above 11,200 feet, using an EI=1.5 and developing for 11 minutes in D-76 1:1, my usual. The negatives were so weak I couldn't print them. My HP5+ negatives, same day, same camera, same development, were right on.

A few weeks later I tried again at same altitude on a sunny day. This time using an EI=0.5 and developing for 15 minutes in D-76. I didn't post to the forum this time, but my negatives were just as weak as before.

Curiously, in June in New Hampshire I made some images in the woods with sheets from the same box. I again used EI=0.5 and 15 minutes in D-76 and my negatives came out very dense, but printable.

This experience seems to defy my assumption that at high elevations there should be sufficient IR in the sunlight. Perhaps the winter sun angle has an effect on the IR. I like the Efke, however, and I will continue to shoot with that film.

In June I exposed some Rollei 400 IR. Because the film base is so flimsy (more like 4 mil instead of the usual 7 mil) I have been nervous about using the Jobo with the 2509 reel for fear the film will pop out. I am considering using the Yankee tank with Pyro.

I am curious to hear from anyone who has had experience using the Jobo 2509 reels for developing Rollei IR. Or for using Pyro on Rollei IR.

For the past year I have been using a lot of Ilford SFX in my medium format. It is a shame that they don't produce this emulsion in sheets. While its sensitivity barely extends into the IR spectrum, it is sufficient to obtain a Wood Effect using an R-72 filter. It is sensitive enough that I can use an EI=12 for an IR filter and an EI=25 with a red filter.

Yes, I miss the old Kodak High Speed IR. I still have about 20 sheets that I have been hoarding in my freezer until I find the perfect subject and composition.

[rguinter]

Al: I've used the Ilford SFX quite a bit and found that I can use an 87 filter but the exposure times are exceedingly long. i.e., many minutes at f16.

Have you tried using your light meter with an IR filter to see if you can correlate an exposure value to the film? My old Adorama spot meter is sensitive to IR through the 87 filter and I've been thinking of trying this experiment myself. Just waiting for the proper weather and foliage to make it work. Bob G.

[al olson]

Bob,

The 0% transmission for an 87 filter is at 720nm and the 50% cutoff is at 795nm.

Examining Ilford's wedge spectrogram, the sensitivity of SFX peaks at 720nm and then takes a steep dive to zero at around 750nm. Ilford actually claims: "SFX 200 has a peak red sensitivity at 720nm and extended red sensitivity up to 740nm."

Thus the transmission of the 87 filter has a very small overlap with the sensitivity of SFX.

I use either a Hoya RM-72 or Cokin 007, both of which are comparable to the 89B with a zero transmission at 680nm and 50% transmission at 720nm. This provides greater overlap with the SFX sensitivity than you will get with the 87. This is why I am able to use an EI of 12 with this film, whereas your exposures are many minutes.

I use a meter to measure the visible light at EI=12, but I have not tried spot metering with my Sekonic C-508 through the filter. In the past, metering visible light at EI=12 has produced consistent results.

Taking your suggestion, it would be informative to measure the EVs, both visible ambient light and through the filter to determine the EV difference. I will try that on the next sunny day. I would expect the results to resemble ISO/EI = 200/12 ~= 16 or four f-stops.

Right now we are recovering from almost 36 inches of snow over a three day period. This was from the same series of storms that were flooding California. Forecast says we will get a break in the weather (sunshine!) tomorrow.

[Lachlan 717]

I think that Vanbar has some Rollei IR sheet in Melbourne. Nice timber case!!

[Vlad Soare]

As far as Rollei Infrared in large format is concerned, there's something you should be aware of. It's coated on the same base as its rollfilm counterpart, which means it's very thin and flimsy. Loading it into the film holders (and anything else that implies handling it in the dark, for that matter) will be a frustrating experience to say the least. So frustrating was it, that I ended up throwing away half a box and swearing I'll never buy it in 4x5" format again (I do use it in 120, though).
That being said, it's a gorgeous film. It's also nice as an all-around ASA 400 film - it has a nice tonality and fine grain.


I am curious to hear from anyone who has had experience using the Jobo 2509 reels for developing Rollei IR. Or for using Pyro on Rollei IR.
Al, my experience with using Rollei IR on a 2509 reel was absolutely horrible, precisely because of the thin base you're mentioning. I usually have no problem loading the reel. Fomapan or T-Max are a piece of cake. But the Rollei was an absolute nightmare.
I really threw away half a box. I'm not saying it figuratively. I literally threw the remaining sheets into the trash can. But I kept the box, just in case I needed it later to store exposed film. :D
Speaking of the box, that's another thing that used to annoy me. It's very small. It's a perfectly tight fit, no room to spare. But this is no big deal; I could have lived with it if it hadn't been for the flimsy base.

[Wallace_Billingham]

Curiously, in June in New Hampshire I made some images in the woods with sheets from the same box. I again used EI=0.5 and 15 minutes in D-76 and my negatives came out very dense, but printable.

This experience seems to defy my assumption that at high elevations there should be sufficient IR in the sunlight. Perhaps the winter sun angle has an effect on the IR. I like the Efke, however, and I will continue to shoot with that film.


Green leaves like you would have had in June on the woods both reflect quite a bit of IR light but also fluoresce visible light into near IR.

Winter sun has plenty of IR light in it, however unlike with UV, air is a pretty poor filter for the extra long wavelengths of IR as such altitude does not really matter much so it really does not matter if you are on top of a mountain or at sea level.

I have found the biggest influence of IR light on exposure to be how much reflective (to IR) material is around. If you have lots of leaves (even dead brown ones) and/or snow you will have much more IR than if you don't.

Also with the Efke IR films anyway they don't like underexposure at all and the line between no exposure and working exposure is very thin

[al olson]

Thanks, Vlad, for your information. I got as far as loading the Rollei into the 2509 reel. The film is so flimsy, though, that it did not feel firmly seated in the tracks. I put the lid on and then thought about what would happen to the film with the developer sloshing around.

I then removed the film and put it into storage while I thought about other alternatives for development.

My current thinking is to first develop six sheets at a time in a Yankee tank using Pyro. The tank is 1.5 l. but since the A and B solutions are very small, the fact that Pyro is a one shot developer doesn't matter.

Then I would use Rubbermaid sandwich containers for stop and fix. I think the smaller volumes would be more economical for 6 sheets and it would be easier to grab the negatives to shuffle because they would be constrained to a smaller area.

The unknown here is that I have never used Pyro on Rollei film, nor have I found any information regarding the use of Pyro with Rollei. There is only one way to find out.

[rguinter]

Bob,

The 0% transmission for an 87 filter is at 720nm and the 50% cutoff is at 795nm.

Examining Ilford's wedge spectrogram, the sensitivity of SFX peaks at 720nm and then takes a steep dive to zero at around 750nm. Ilford actually claims: "SFX 200 has a peak red sensitivity at 720nm and extended red sensitivity up to 740nm."

Thus the transmission of the 87 filter has a very small overlap with the sensitivity of SFX.

I use either a Hoya RM-72 or Cokin 007, both of which are comparable to the 89B with a zero transmission at 680nm and 50% transmission at 720nm. This provides greater overlap with the SFX sensitivity than you will get with the 87. This is why I am able to use an EI of 12 with this film, whereas your exposures are many minutes.

I use a meter to measure the visible light at EI=12, but I have not tried spot metering with my Sekonic C-508 through the filter. In the past, metering visible light at EI=12 has produced consistent results.

Taking your suggestion, it would be informative to measure the EVs, both visible ambient light and through the filter to determine the EV difference. I will try that on the next sunny day. I would expect the results to resemble ISO/EI = 200/12 ~= 16 or four f-stops.

Right now we are recovering from almost 36 inches of snow over a three day period. This was from the same series of storms that were flooding California. Forecast says we will get a break in the weather (sunshine!) tomorrow.

Al: I envy you. I haven't seen actual 3-feet of snow in my neck of the woods in a very long time. Sometimes we get a surprise though in February with a couple of feet. I like the photo ops the deep snow produces but in the congested East it makes for a difficult time getting to good spots for photos. Just too much traffic.

Yes I have the same filter set that you have and the SFX works better with a larger overlap and my ev measurements are the same.

Have you tried the Efke IR 820 plain or aura versions? I have these in 120 and 4x5-inch but haven't had the chance to shoot more than a few sheets.

Bob G.

[rguinter]

As far as Rollei Infrared in large format is concerned, there's something you should be aware of. It's coated on the same base as its rollfilm counterpart, which means it's very thin and flimsy. Loading it into the film holders (and anything else that implies handling it in the dark, for that matter) will be a frustrating experience to say the least.

Vlad: Ditto here. The curl with Rollei IR is so bad that I gave up after only a few 120 rolls and I never bought any 4x5. I still have a bunch of it in the freezer but am reluctant to waste time with it. It does produce really nice images though, although trying to get the film to stay flat on the flatbed scanner is near impossible. So I really haven't been able to scan them Bob G.

[al olson]

Al: I envy you. I haven't seen actual 3-feet of snow in my neck of the woods in a very long time. Sometimes we get a surprise though in February with a couple of feet. I like the photo ops the deep snow produces but in the congested East it makes for a difficult time getting to good spots for photos. Just too much traffic.

Yes I have the same filter set that you have and the SFX works better with a larger overlap and my ev measurements are the same.

Have you tried the Efke IR 820 plain or aura versions? I have these in 120 and 4x5-inch but haven't had the chance to shoot more than a few sheets.

Bob G.

Bob:

Before these storms we had gone perhaps 6 weeks or more without more than a trace of snow, but with a foot of accumulation on the ground. The interesting thing is, because of the elevation and clean air, the snow stays white except along the road edges. There is no dirt that comes to the surface when it melts or sublimes.

I have more than enough snow photos to last me two lifetimes. Now days I only take a digital point and shoot so I can email snow photos to friends and family.

Yes, I have used both a box of MACO 820c and Efke IR 820. I have not purchased any since my experiences at high elevations during winter light.

After the photos I took last June, however, I intend to buy more Efke. I have also burned a few rolls of Efke in 120 as well. I like the results.

My only complaint is how slow it is in the IR spectrum. It is not even close to the visible sensitivity. Its lack of speed makes landscape work difficult with just slight breezes blurring the vegetation. Around here, except early in the morning, there is always a breeze coming down the slopes.:(

Recall that with Kodak's High Speed IR you could obtain a Wood Effect with just a red filter. Not so with Efke.

I have not tried the Aura. It was marketed for a while, then withdrawn, and then being sold again. I was stocking up when it was not available and now I have an abundant supply of outdated film that I need to use first.

[al olson]

...
Have you tried using your light meter with an IR filter to see if you can correlate an exposure value to the film? My old Adorama spot meter is sensitive to IR through the 87 filter and I've been thinking of trying this experiment myself. Just waiting for the proper weather and foliage to make it work. Bob G.

I just tested my meter against an IR filter. I used a Sekonic C-508 with 1 degree spot to meter against a clear blue northern sky. Then I metered again through a Cokin 007 filter which is equivalent to an 89B. With the meter set at 100 ISO, the first reading averaged 15.5 EV and the second 9.0. (I repeated each of these several times and the spread was never more than 0.2 EV.)

According to the meter, the measurement drops off by a factor of 2^6.5 or about a factor of 90. It would be interesting to further compare this drop off with what it would be at midday during the summer at higher sun angles.

Using Efke, a good EI from experience for this filter is 1.5. Dividing the ISO of 200 by this EI gives a factor of 133.3 which is slightly more than 128. (128 is 2^7) So there is a difference between visible and IR of slightly over 7 EV.

As I calculated above, SFX with the Cokin filter loses about 4 EV. So there is a difference of 3 EV for a factor of 8 between the IR sensitivities of these two films.

Now to be careful about this, the exposure readings that I am making for the IR films are measurements of visible light, not the IR that is transmitted through the filter. If I were making my exposure reading through the filter, I would be getting an additional 2.5 EV of overexposure for the SFX (because the meter is reading 2.5 EV less than the EI that I would use) and 0.5 EV underexposure for the Efke.

[rguinter]

Al: Great data. Thanks for sharing it. I plan to do something similar as soon as some foliage appears. Although I don't usually think in terms of the zone system, I usually use side-lit green foliage in the summer as my preferred exposure which I guess is usually zone V. Since I now have two spot meters my plan was to buy a second set of IR filters to fit the spotmeter and do essentially the same comparison that you did above.

Regarding winter photos to me they are some of my favorites and I don't think I will ever get tired of doing it. But getting more difficult as I get older and more sensitive to the cold. This one from a few weeks ago when we had a few inches snow. Sun came out for a few minutes late in the afternoon and there was time for one quick test sheet of HIE that I bought from someone who was cleaning out his freezer.

Cheers. Bob G.

[brianam]

Thanks Vlad and rguinter for saving me some trouble with the Rollei in sheets. I was about to buy a large box from freestyle.
I've shot a lot of IR in the past few years; HIE, SFX, Rollei and Efke, in 135 and 120. wanted to try out a sheetfilm IR to get a wee bit more grain reduction.

I've had a similar experience to others with the Efke -- even rating it as slow,slow,slow the negs can still be thin. it's somewhat unpredictable. Though, I should pay really more heed to the amount of visible IR (sun) in the scene and mentally adjust exposure time..

I use Rollei IR in 120 quite a bit --usually passing it through a Mamiya 7 or Fuji 690. I find scanning still somewhat exaggerates the grain of this film, though it's pretty fine grained for IR. Hence going as large as possible. (next up, 6x12?:-)
Scanning in a Nikon CS8000 with the glass holder you can certainly keep it flat, since it's sandwiched between AN glass.

Attached is a Rollei IR shot, sans the usual tree foliage. It's fun, but leaves no doubt as to the film stock ;-)
http://midiliphoto.com/waterstudies/images/Pacifica_M7_2009-04_01.jpg

[brianam]

oops, sorry for the large image. Shoulda downsized it first. it's from Mussel Rock, just north of Pacifica, CA.

[rguinter]

Brian: And a beautiful rock it is. A very nice shot. I shall aspire to do as well with my own infrared sometime soon. I'm using the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner with the stock holders and the Rollei IR film is a real bear to work with. I've thought about going with a fluid mount system but haven't done it yet. Not sure I want to deal with the cleanup mess. But it might help with the curling if I could get the film flat against the glass. I'm getting Newton's rings wherever the film touches with air mounting. A higher end scanner would probably help also but not in the cards at the moment.

Thanks for sharing that nice shot. I like the water flow lines with IR film and long exposures. Cheers. Bob G.

[SergeyT]

[QUOTE=brianam;552785]Thanks Vlad and rguinter for saving me some trouble with the Rollei in sheets. I was about to buy a large box from freestyle.
QUOTE]

Despite all the warnings I went ahead I got some Rollei in 4x5. Everything that has been said about that film in 4x5 is true.

But so far I have not had any issues with loading the film into the holders, except that once I picked from the box and loaded two sheets at a time on one side of a holder.

Not much of a problem loading it into the Jobo with 2509 reels neither. I do develop on a motorized roller base. Just have to be very careful not to shake the tank filled with chemicals or water too much.

I like it very much. Ability to shot it as a regular BW is a huge plus. When shot as a straight BW , I think I like it even more then Tri-X.

[Vlad Soare]

Brian, apart from its thin and flimsy base, Rollei IR is a gorgeous film. If you want a good infrared film in 4x5", you can't go wrong with it. Since I never enlarge more than 12x16" (usually even less than that), I've decided that for me the 4x5" version wasn't worth the trouble, because the rollfilm (which has no such quirks) gives me all the image quality I need. Loading the sheets into the film holders, or in a Jobo reel, is indeed annoying and will probably teach you new and innovative ways of cursing, but if you can live with this you won't be disappointed.

As a normal daylight film, I also prefer it to Tri-X (but only in 120, not 4x5" :D). Too bad it's too expensive to be used like this on a regular basis. :(

[612tom]

I think that Vanbar has some Rollei IR sheet in Melbourne. Nice timber case!!

Thanks Lachlan - its great to have your local intelligence :)

Have you done much IR stuff - how do you find the results with the harsh light we have - do the very high UV levels help with IR stuff?

[Lachlan 717]

Thanks Lachlan - its great to have your local intelligence :)

Have you done much IR stuff - how do you find the results with the harsh light we have - do the very high UV levels help with IR stuff?

Pleasure!

Nup, never tried it in any format. I think that it could be great down here due to the lack of ozone in this hemisphere. I'd like to see how it goes in the Outback, with the red sand/blue sky juxtaposition...

Have you worked out where or how to develop it?

[612tom]

Have you worked out where or how to develop it?

No real idea as to how I'm developing it yet, just ordered 2 boxes of the stuff, give it a week or 6 for USPS to get it down here! I expect the first box will be mostly experimentation in both exposure and developing. The Massive Dev Chart has some timings (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Efke+IR820&Developer=&mdc=Search) (fantastic resource) for plenty of different soups, so I'll see how I get on. And I'm just going to dev them in my jobo tank as I understand it's IR safe. Famous last words :eek:

[Vlad Soare]

And I'm just going to dev them in my jobo tank as I understand it's IR safe. Famous last words
Yup. It's safe. Tried it myself.
In fact, I doubt that any modern tank, plastic or non-plastic, lets infrared light in. I think it's an urban myth.

[rguinter]

Brian, apart from its thin and flimsy base, Rollei IR is a gorgeous film. If you want a good infrared film in 4x5", you can't go wrong with it. Since I never enlarge more than 12x16" (usually even less than that), I've decided that for me the 4x5" version wasn't worth the trouble, because the rollfilm (which has no such quirks) gives me all the image quality I need. Loading the sheets into the film holders, or in a Jobo reel, is indeed annoying and will probably teach you new and innovative ways of cursing, but if you can live with this you won't be disappointed.

As a normal daylight film, I also prefer it to Tri-X (but only in 120, not 4x5" :D). Too bad it's too expensive to be used like this on a regular basis. :(

Vlad: (or others) Have you tried the Rollei Universal 200 that is being advertised these days? It is supposed to have an extended red sensitivity iwell nto the IR range. I know it is cut down to MF size from a large batch of surplus stock (and not available in 4x5-inch) but I'm wondering if it is any better than the Rollei IR regarding the curling. I'm finding significant curling with the Efke also. Cheers. Bob G.

[brianam]

Thanks Bob for the tip on Rollei Universal! It's pretty cheap; think I'll grab some and give it a try. Extended red up to 750nm so it says. As a Hoya R72 is--presumably--a 720nm cut filter, it should be sufficiently infrared-sensitive. Question is, since it sounds like Ilford SFX, will it be less grainy? I stopped using SFX b/c it's grain is only somewhat less than old Kodak HIE! (OK I exaggerate...there was little that was grainier than HIE. But it had its virtues of course.)

I can't speak to how these roll films handle for development (for that I patron an excellent local lab, LightWaves) but for scanning, there's the option of a BetterScanning 120 holder with AN glass. That's what I used prior to picking up a used 8000ED, and the BS holder+glass sufficiently flattened curled films every time.

And yes, I think the Efke film base is thinner and even more likely to curl. :-/

[rguinter]

...for scanning, there's the option of a BetterScanning 120 holder with AN glass. That's what I used prior to picking up a used 8000ED, and the BS holder+glass sufficiently flattened curled films every time.:-/

Anyone have any significant experience scanning images with (and without) Anti-Newton glass? It was mentioned here in this thread to solve the Efke and Rollei Infrared film curling problem.

But my guess is any additional pieces of glass in the light path would be detrimental in some way. As a scientist with significant experience in microscopy I suspect that: more glass = more light loss and decreased sharpness.

Comments from those who may have tried a comparison would be welcome. Regards. Bob G.

[Wallace_Billingham]

Anyone have any significant experience scanning images with (and without) Anti-Newton glass? It was mentioned here in this thread to solve the Efke and Rollei Infrared film curling problem.

But my guess is any additional pieces of glass in the light path would be detrimental in some way. As a scientist with significant experience in microscopy I suspect that: more glass = more light loss and decreased sharpness.

Comments from those who may have tried a comparison would be welcome. Regards. Bob G.

I am guessing you are talking about with roll film. I have shot quite a bit of Efke IR820 in roll film form and just use the standard Epson holder. Yes the negatives are curley but they flatten out nicely once in the holder. I do however wear powder free disposable netrile exam gloves when I handle them to keep fingerprints off.

[rguinter]

I am guessing you are talking about with roll film. I have shot quite a bit of Efke IR820 in roll film form and just use the standard Epson holder. Yes the negatives are curley but they flatten out nicely once in the holder. I do however wear powder free disposable netrile exam gloves when I handle them to keep fingerprints off.

Wallace. Yes the roll film primarily is what is giving me the trouble. I have a lot of it in 4x5-inch but haven't had the curling problem with it like with the 120.

Mine is so curly that even getting it into the holder requires more hands than I have. I also haven't gone the route with gloves yet. I've been rather good at handling most all films by the edges so far... except for these. I'm doing 6x9- and 6x17-cm formats. The longer ones are near impossible.

The problem may lie with the film processor since I take mine to a local lab. I've been recently asking them to hang the film strips straight until I pick them up and this helps a bit. Thanks. Bob G.

[Wallace_Billingham]

Wallace. Yes the roll film primarily is what is giving me the trouble. I have a lot of it in 4x5-inch but haven't had the curling problem with it like with the 120.

Mine is so curly that even getting it into the holder requires more hands than I have. I also haven't gone the route with gloves yet. I've been rather good at handling most all films by the edges so far... except for these. I'm doing 6x9- and 6x17-cm formats. The longer ones are near impossible.

The problem may lie with the film processor since I take mine to a local lab. I've been recently asking them to hang the film strips straight until I pick them up and this helps a bit. Thanks. Bob G.


I develop my own and no matter what they have major curling issues. Even when I hang major weight on them when they dry.

Anyway what I do with the Epson holder is lay it down on my lap and open the swinging holder part, then I position the film in the holder using my gloved hands and close the holder. It still will not be quite right in position but you can still move the negs a bit in the holder.

Another trick that works very well but takes a bit more time is to put them into sleeves and place the sleeve under a large stack of heavy books. After a few days most of the curl will be gone

[rguinter]

...Another trick that works very well but takes a bit more time is to put them into sleeves and place the sleeve under a large stack of heavy books. After a few days most of the curl will be gone

Wallace: Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately I've been there done that... or at least something similar. We get tons of unwanted magazines here due to an address similar to a local beauty shop. Some of the magazines are extra large.

Since I sleeve all my roll film anyway in the Printfile archival sleeves I tried putting a sleeve in the middle of a magazine and rolling the magazine backward against the film curl. then rubber banding it to hold tight.

I found that even after leaving the film like that for several days rolled against the curl, the curl seems to come right back when I take it out.

So I'm still searching for a solution. The film gives great IR images though and I bought a ton of it in aura and standard versions, 120 and 4x5-inch. So I guess I'm committed somehow to getting past the curl problem.

Cheers. Bob G.

[rguinter]

Thanks Bob for the tip on Rollei Universal! It's pretty cheap; think I'll grab some and give it a try. Extended red up to 750nm so it says. As a Hoya R72 is--presumably--a 720nm cut filter, it should be sufficiently infrared-sensitive. :-/

Brian: I finally got around to shooting a test roll with the Rollei Universal 200 last week. I wish it were available at similar prices in 4x5.

My test roll was f16 @ 1 sec, 1/2 sec, 1/4 sec, and 1/8 sec in bright sun with my Fuji G617 camera and a B&W 092 filter. The 1/8 sec exposure was perfect and all the others were overexposed. I don't have my field notes handy so I don't remember the ev values but it was bright sun (north sky ~ ev 16 I would guess).

Looks to be a great film for IR but still the chronic Rollei curling problem. So I have the film sleeved and reverse curled in a magazine for a few days to see if it will straighten.

Cheers. Bob G.

[612tom]

No real idea as to how I'm developing it yet, just ordered 2 boxes of the stuff, give it a week or 6 for USPS to get it down here! I expect the first box will be mostly experimentation in both exposure and developing. The Massive Dev Chart has some timings (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Efke+IR820&Developer=&mdc=Search) (fantastic resource) for plenty of different soups, so I'll see how I get on. And I'm just going to dev them in my jobo tank as I understand it's IR safe. Famous last words :eek:


Thanks everyone for your helpful hints and suggestions. I've just developed my first couple of photos, nothing special, just experimenting to start with.

I rated the Efke 820 at ISO 1 through the opaque filter, which in the images below gave exposures around 4 seconds at f22, doubled to 8 seconds for reciprocity as I dont think this film likes underexposure.

Dev was 2 x 1 minute presoaks in tap water, followed by lfosol 3 for 8.5 mins reduced to 7.5 for constant agitation in rotary tank.

Not bad for a first attempt I thought, will definitely have some fun with this in the future. Thanks again :)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4372160771_3fc23a5de6.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4372912166_ae9e4c1a95.jpg