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!



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?



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.

[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