Rollei 400 IR

[tgtaylor]

Last night I printed a cityscape that I had shot on Rollei 400 IR film with a 150mm lens and Cokin IR filter on a Toyo 45AX. The image itself is not a 'winner' IMO for several reasons which I'll not go into here. Nevertheless I came away very impressed with this film.

The grain was so small that I had real difficulty focusing on it and instead used an object in the scene. For a 400 speed film, this suprised me. The print itself has excellent tonal ranges from whites to the blacks and absolutely beautiful mid values and is soo sharp that reflexively you reach for a magnifying glass to read the signs and look into the windows of the houses. And if that wasn't enough it gave this image a 1950's 'film noir' look. Posted below is a low resolution scan of the print on an Epson 3200 by an inexperienced operator (me) but it pales in comparison to the print itself. I wish you could see it.

This is truly a great film!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1434/5396750309_556cc1dcb2_z.jpg

Thomas

Tech note: Developed in D-76 1:1 and printed on Ilford MGIV glossy RC at grade 2.5 with a Beseler 45S head.

[natelfo]

I have been looking into this film and will probably get a box of 4x5 and some rolls of 120. I already have Hoya 72 IR filters I use with Ilford SFX (which is a little too grainy for my taste, even shooting 6x7). A question I have had recently is, how do you compensate for focus with IR on a view camera? Do you just stop down a lot and hope the DOF covers any differences? Nice shot by the way!

[Brian C. Miller]

From Kodak:

For best definition, make all exposures at the smallest lens opening that conditions permit. If you must use large apertures and the lens has no auxiliary infrared focusing mark, establish a focus setting by trial and error. Try extending the lens by 0.25 percent of its focal length beyond the correct focus for visible light. For example, a 200 mm lens would require a 0.50 mm extension as 200 mm x 0.0025 = 0.50 mm.

Stop down just a little bit, but as you see the extension is 1/2 of a millimeter for a 200mm lens.

[tgtaylor]

Brian is correct. I believe that I asked pretty much the same question on this forum a while back and the response that I got was that if you stopped-down to f11 or f13 you didn't need to offset the lens.

Thomas

[vinny]

It depends on the lens. Some need compensation, some don't.

[JohnN]

I've been shooting this film in 4x5 with an R72 filter (ASA 1.6) for about 2+ years now. I tried many developers (Acu-1, Xtol, D76, HC-110, DDX, Rodinal, etc. etc.) for the "right" look (small grain, high acutance, great separation, and proper bright tones), without muddying them.

I tried FA-1027 recently, and it blew me away. Nothing else gives me this effect. Low fog compared to other developers, very high acutance, tones are beautiful, and with Oriental FB VC paper with Formulary 130 developer, I'm producing my best IR work ever in my life.:) :) :)

[al olson]

I have gone through a 25 sheet box of this film. My feelings are mixed. So are my results.

First off this film is coated on a 4 mil backing which is normally used for medium format films. Typical support for large format films is 7 mil. (35mm is 5 mil) As a result it is flimsy and difficult to handle so I was reluctant to put it into my Jobo 2521 tubes.

I tank developed until I got down to the last six sheets when I bit the bullet and slid them into the 2509 reels. It was not easy and I had to reinsert some of the sheets several times. However, surprisingly, when the process was completed and I opened up the tube, the sheets were still in position.

I have tank-developed (Duran) this film in PMK with very good results. The film was exposed in bright sunlight. I also made some photos just before sunset with a very low sun angle. These were developed in the Jobo with 1:1 D-76. I found these negatives to be more constrasty than I prefer. I agree that the tonality is good and the grain is low with the Rollei.

[I also get a creamy tonality, nice contrast, and low grain with SFX when I develop it in 1:1 D-76. I like the SFX results as well and I keep one back with SFX for my Bronica. I like to use the SFX with the IR filter or without. Sometimes I will use a red filter.]

For my IR sheet film I will stay with the Efke IR because I prefer the 7 mil backing. However, its IR sensitivity range is so short and so low that I have difficulty with low sun angles. Normally with an R-72 filter I use an EI of 1.5. For times where the sun angle is low (wintertime as well) I find it necessary to decrease the EI another EV or two.

[al olson]

Can anyone help me identify the paternity of this film. I need to update my Infrared Guide and I would like to verify some of the information that I researched on the internet. Please help me correct any misinformation.

Agfa had a very nice IR film known as Agfapan APX 200S (I believe the S stood for 'special'). This was an ISO 200 film but pushable to 800 without a noticeable increase in grain. It was never, as far as I know, ever coated for LF. There was also an APX 100S infrared film, but I never used it. Both of these films were MF and coated on 4 mil stock. (I believe these films were also available in 35mm and may have been coated on 5 mil.)

Along about the time that Agfa was ready to fold, a group/company called PhotoIMPEX registered the ADOX trademark (Agfa had neglected to reregister it). A short time later when Agfa abandoned their consumer photo operations, PhotoIMPEX bought the test coating equipment. They also hired several of Agfa's production people. Their thinking was that there was still a niche market and this test equipment would be sufficient to meet the demand. Agfa's production coating equipment was shipped somewhere into Asia.

Meanwhile, Hans O. Mahn, started MACO Photo Products. MACO marketed the MACO 820c and later the MACO 820c Aura. As far as I know, MACO never coated their films, but were simply rebranding the EfKe film. However, as Rollei was getting deeper into trouble, MACO purchased rights from the Rollei assets to the Rollei trademark to use on film. MACO markets a line of films using the Rollei trademark, including the Rollei 400 IR.

What I am trying to establish is a connection to the APX 200S formula, if there is one. One of the things that makes me think there is a link is because it is coated on 4 mil support. While this is an unusual deviation from the 7 mil normally used for LF, it could be that they are cutting it to 4x5 from MF stock as a convenience since the 4 mil process is familiar from APX production. It would be an easy matter to push the ISO to 400 since this film was very pushable to 800.

The other link I am trying to confirm is that this film is being coated by PhotoIMPEX and branded as Rollei. There is the possibility that it is coated by Efke, but Efke uses 7 mil for their LF films so I think this would be unlikely. (Another company? What products?)

I realize that the sources that I have researched are likely to have inaccuracies. Please assist me in making the corrections. Also if you have additional information on the companies it would be appreciated.

Thank you,

[al olson]

Over one hundred people have viewed this thread since my prior post, but no one has offered to provide additional information. :( Surely someone in this forum has additional information about the relationships between Agfa, PhotoIMPEX, and perhaps MACO?

Anyway, I will post scans from several sheets of Rollei. I have only used one box and will not likely purchase another. The difficulty is with the 4 mil stock. The sheets are awkward to handle, 4 mil works much better as a medium format film.

All three images were made with a Linhof Technika IV, Schneider 150mm f/5.6 lens, and a Hoya R-72 infrared filter.

The first image was made in 2009 at Chaco Canyon. It was tank-developed in PMK. There is uneven development in the region of the sky, but this is my best example of a scan of a tanned negative. The lower portion of the negative seems normal. It appears that in scanning the PMK-developed negatives, I can only record a little over half the brightness range. Have other people had a similar experience?

http://www.photo-artiste.com/images/lfformat/chaco0906neg04.jpg

The following two images of the Chemung Mine were made in November, 2010. They were exposed at EI=6 and developed in D-76 1:1 for 14 minutes. These images were made near the end of the day when the sun angle was very low. As a result they have more contrast than normal. It has been my experience with the Efke IR and the Rollei IR that they do not produce the desired results with a red filter.

http://www.photo-artiste.com/images/lfformat/chemung1011neg4.jpg

http://www.photo-artiste.com/images/lfformat/chemung1011neg1.jpg

[tgtaylor]

Al,

I had a similar experience loading the film in Jobo 2509N Reels and even rubbed the emulsion off a couple of the negatives. So I switched to a dip-n-dunk method using 3Kodak hard rubber tanks and five film holders that picked-up for a good price in the forums for sale section. MUCH BETTER!

Also, I erred when I wrote that I developed in D-76 at 1:1. Having no prior experience processing this film, I played it safe and used the manufacturers recommendation of D-76 stock for 6 minutes at 68F. The film was originally exposed at an EI of 6. I suspect that the strong contrast of the negatives you posted is the result of over development at 14 minutes.

I am unable to shed any light on the films origins.

Thomas

[al olson]

Thomas,

Outside of the awkwardness of loading the Rollei into the 1509 reels, the development on the Jobo goes surprising well. At least with the agitation, none of the negatives have popped out of their slots, which was my concern.

I agree that 14 minute development in D-76 1:1 is a cause of the higher contrast. I think in the two examples above that it is a contributing factor along with the extremely bright low angle light. One of the problems in the Chemung Mine situation is the very strong shadows which don't offer sufficient IR for good exposure.

My development times of 10 or 11 minutes result, however, in a very thin negative for Rollei. For my other Rollei sheets exposed in more favorable lighting, the 14 minute time seems satisfactory for D-76, Jobo processing.

My attempt in using PMK for the Chaco Canyon photos resulted in all 6 photos loaded in the Grafmatic being defective. I am not certain of the cause, whether it was inadequate agitation with the PMK or if there were light leaks.

The Chaco Canyon negatives were the first sheets from the box. I was nervous about trying the Jobo so I decided to develop them in a Doran tank. In that case, because it would be a one-shot use of 1.5 l. of developer, I decided to try it with PMK which only requires 30 ml. of A and 15 ml. of B for the 1.5 liters.

Mr. Hutchings recommends immediate vigorous agitation. My approach was to presoak the film in water and then insert each film in the tank separately, jiggling it vigorously for 20 seconds before inserting the next one. Then, when all six films were in the tank I rocked it for the 12 minutes recommended for Kodak IR. After development, I removed each film separately and continued to tray process them for stop, fix, and clearing agent. The films were agitated constantly during development, but the uneven and inconsistent patterns suggest that there could be insufficient agitation during insertion into the tank.

The other possible culprit could be a light leak. I have never had a problem with light leaks with any of my Grafmatics before or since. I learned early on to ensure that the Grafmatic is properly seated and I then lock it down with the Graflok before pulling the slide. Loading and unloading the film was done in total darkness. It is possible there could be a light leak that I would be unaware of if the dark slide slipped out while dismounting it from the camera to use the GG.

I intend in the future to use the tank method with PMK again, whether with IR film or normal film such as Delta 100 which I like. I hesitate now because I don't understand the cause of the unevenness in the negative.

For Efke film and R-72 filter I have been using an EI of 1.5, but that only seems to hold for bright, sunny, midday skies. I need to use a lower EI for the low sun angles, especially for winter photography. Based on the thinness of the negatives under these conditions, I believe I will need an increase of one or two EV for exposure. I am going to experiment some more with the Efke before trying another box of Rollei.

I would prefer that the Rollei be coated on heavier stock for easier handling and processing. I think that Rollei film and PMK development is a good combination if I could iron out the wrinkles. Mr. Hutchings has recommendations for Jobo development. I will try that now that I have determined that the Rollei sheets don't fall out of the 2509 reel during agitation.

[tgtaylor]

Al,

Here's a scan of a print I did this evening:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5409539429_b4fece963d_z.jpg

I rated the film at 400 and exposed it at ISO 6 with a 120mm Nikkor SW and Cokin-Z 007 IR filter. The negative was developed by hand inversion with D-76 stock for 6 minutes at 68F using a Jobo 2509N reel and tank and printed on Ilford MGIV RC Glossy at grade 2.5 toned in selenium. The print is a beauty - I have it propped up on the desk with the desk lamp providing the illumination. I find that these negatives print fast - I had to stop down to f22 to get a 10.3 second exposure using a Beseler 45S color head.

BTW, this is the John S Cain house in Bodie. He was a wealthy merchant during the Bodie days and the house is rumored to be haunted.

[tgtaylor]

Thomas,

Outside of the awkwardness of loading the Rollei into the 1509 reels, the development on the Jobo goes surprising well. At least with the agitation, none of the negatives have popped out of their slots, which was my concern.

The Chaco Canyon negatives were the first sheets from the box. I was nervous about trying the Jobo so I decided to develop them in a Doran tank. In that case, because it would be a one-shot use of 1.5 l. of developer, I decided to try it with PMK which only requires 30 ml. of A and 15 ml. of B for the 1.5 liters.

Mr. Hutchings recommends immediate vigorous agitation. My approach was to presoak the film in water and then insert each film in the tank separately, jiggling it vigorously for 20 seconds before inserting the next one. Then, when all six films were in the tank I rocked it for the 12 minutes recommended for Kodak IR. After development, I removed each film separately and continued to tray process them for stop, fix, and clearing agent. The films were agitated constantly during development, but the uneven and inconsistent patterns suggest that there could be insufficient agitation during insertion into the tank.

The other possible culprit could be a light leak. I have never had a problem with light leaks with any of my Grafmatics before or since. I learned early on to ensure that the Grafmatic is properly seated and I then lock it down with the Graflok before pulling the slide. Loading and unloading the film was done in total darkness. It is possible there could be a light leak that I would be unaware of if the dark slide slipped out while dismounting it from the camera to use the GG.

I intend in the future to use the tank method with PMK again, whether with IR film or normal film such as Delta 100 which I like. I hesitate now because I don't understand the cause of the unevenness in the negative.


I think the trick using the 2509N reels is to maintain a curvature on the leading edge of the film with the other hand while inserting the sheet into its slot. Otherwise it insists on going straight out the opposite side.

Reading your notes on PMK got me interested in trying it. The development chart on digitaltruth recommends a 12 minute development @ 75.2F for the dilution you used and 7.5 minutes for 2:4:100 @ 69.8F. Agitation for the latter is given as continuous for the first 30 seconds and once every 30 seconds thereafter.

In developing film I try to be consistent with each sheet. If I do a dip-n-dunk, I'll place each sheet in its holder and insert into an empty tank. When all holders are loaded (5 in my case), I'll pour the soak water in which I tempered beforehand and then lift all together to drain and place them together in the developer, etc. Your method as described above seems to indicate that the first sheet was in the developer about 2 minutes longer and cascaded from there. Last year I spoke with John Wimberly at a reception in San Francisco and he said that he develops his negatives "one at a time."

Thomas

[al olson]

Beautiful photo, Thomas, I would like to see the print. I was there on the 1st of November. I didn't do 4x5 IR, but I exposed some Delta 100. The 4x5s did very well on that film. I have a small exhibit of 11x14 prints at a lunch counter and a customer is buying the 3 Bodie prints I have hanging there. Seldom in many years when my prints decorate someone's business have any sold. I need to go back to Bodie and make some more images.



In developing film I try to be consistent with each sheet. If I do a dip-n-dunk, I'll place each sheet in its holder and insert into an empty tank. When all holders are loaded (5 in my case), I'll pour the soak water in which I tempered beforehand and then lift all together to drain and place them together in the developer, etc. Your method as described above seems to indicate that the first sheet was in the developer about 2 minutes longer and cascaded from there. Last year I spoke with John Wimberly at a reception in San Francisco and he said that he develops his negatives "one at a time."
Thomas

I strive for consistency as well. For my tank procedure the method was to use it for the developer, start the time for the first sheet in and then at the end of 12 minutes remove the sheets starting with the first and giving around 30 seconds (to account for the 20 seconds initial agitation and 10 seconds for fumbling around) between the removal of each one. That way each sheet should be in the developer the same amount of time.

From your info, I guess that assuming the same time as for HSI, 12 minutes, was a reasonable call. I still have about 20 sheets of HSI in my freezer that I need to use. Maybe I will try them with PMK.

I am going to use a tray next for my PMK process and try it on some sacrificed Tri-X. Mr. Hutchins' book recommends vigorous agitation:

"Swishing the fingers through a tray of print developer appears to create a great amount of agitation. The surface is broken into tiny waves and the print moves about in the tray. This apparently adequate agitation is not sufficient for developing film in pyro.
. . .
[A]gitation should be vigorous enough to break up the laminar flow, completely random in order to avoid flow patterns and thorough enough to produce complete and even development."
"

He also claims that it can be used in a Jobo processor, which may be my next step. The agitation is better, but it oxidizes faster. To curb this, he recommends adding EDTA to the PMK for the Jobo. As an alternative, he recommends splitting the developer into two parts and dumping the first part at halfway and pouring fresh for the second half of the development cycle.

If I recall correctly, the life of PMK is short, maybe less than an hour. This limits the number of single sheets you can develop in a batch of developer.

By the way I previously stated incorrectly -- I used 15 ml of Part A and 30 ml of Part B per 1.5 l.

[tgtaylor]

Thanks for the reply, Al.

Congratulations on selling three prints! That's good to hear. I have enough 4x5 IR negatives of Bodie - some with a scenic PC sky - to print a small portfolio. Maybe even I can finally realize a small profit from my hobby! I sure hope so or win the lottery or something. :D

Thomas

[tgtaylor]

Here's another example:

Methodist Church. Bodie, California

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5418565311_895e3e3cc7_z.jpg

Thomas

Shown printed on Ilford MGIV Glossy RC.

[al olson]

Gorgeous photo of the church, Thomas. The IR brings out the texture in the old wood.

I made a photo of the church last November on Delta 100. I am happy with the texture on Delta 100, but there were no clouds in the sky that day to give it added interest. I did use a red filter to add more depth to the sky. Mine was from a different angle to give a more barren view. Maybe I will get my Bodie negatives scanned and put them into the ruins thread.

Have you ever used Ilford's Kentmere paper? I really like it for old ruins pictures. It has a very smooth contrast and nice rich blacks. It also happens to be almost twice as fast as the Ilford papers.

[tgtaylor]

Thanks Al. Yes, IR film really brings out the old wood and gives it a nice dark brown color in the print. Looks like i have either newton rings or water marks on the left side of this print. The negative itself is clear and unmarked.

So far I don't have experience with papers other than Ilford and Oriental but have put the Kentmere product on my shopping list. I shot several rolls of SFX and Rollei IR in Bodie using a soft focus lens on a Pentax 67II (120mm Pentax soft focus lens). I haven't printed any yet and I may have screwed-up by off-setting the focus after setting the aperture, but the negatives have a dreamy quality to them. i think I'll print a couple of them after the game this evening.

Thomas