Ilford SFX 200 without filter?

<p>From what I can gather online, SFX 200 is only a semi-infrared film, ie a panchromatic film with an extended red sensitivity. I know most people use the stuff with a deep red filter for that infrared look, but how would it look without a filter for portraits? My thinking was that I could use this film for portraits to smooth out skin blemishes without using normal b&w with a colored filter. Is this a reasonable assumption to make?</p>

<p>You can certainly shoot it like any normal film. But that would be silly as it costs more and you are not using anything that makes it special.</p>

<p>As far as filters are concerned, Orange is the one for blemishes. The darker the orange the whiter the skin will be. This will work on any pan film.</p>

<p>I shot a test roll of some SFX recently for portraits with strobe... shot half a roll without filters and half with a red filter.</p>

<p>The shots without a filter looked pretty normal, contrast as usual, captured what I'd consider to be typical skin rendition. The red filter shots were pretty ethereal, very smooth and white skin. An orange filter might be a nice halfway point.</p>

<p>Here's a side by side... pardon my son's uncooperative expression. :) There's also a 3 stop aperture difference too as well as a repositioning of the light which contributes to the differences. </p><div></div>

<p>Excellent test Sheldon. Can you tell us specifically which "red" filter you used for the portraits? They all have different spectral transmission rates. Even a #25 Wratten varies a bit from brand to brand. In my experience SFX 200 is basically HP-5+ with an IR sensitive dye layer. Your tests seem to confirm that. </p>

<p>Thanks. I used a Nikon R60 red filter. Film was developed in Xtol 1:1. Camera was a Mamiya RZ67 with 180mm f/4.5 lens. </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses guys.</p>

<p>Wow Sheldon, the photo on the right is killer! Not just the tones, but his expression.</p>

<p>IR portraits are awesome. That is on my "to try" list.</p>