Is the age of infrared film photography over?

[christian_muro]

<p>Sure, we can gamble for a fair priced & usable Kodak HIE / Konica 750 roll on eBay..<br>

EFKE IR820 / Aura is now just as expensive due to its recent discontinued status.<br>

I suppose our only options in today's market is Ilford SFX 200 and Rollei 400s / Infrared / Retro 400s</p>

<p><strong>1. Does anyone achieve impressive results with today's options?</strong><br>

<strong>2. Are there any other options available that I am missing?</strong><br>

<strong>3. Is anyone currently selling true infrared film at <em>fair value</em>? (expired or not).</strong></p>

<p>I don't mean to sound nihilistic, but I just checked my friendly neighborhood Freestyle Photo..<br>

As of today:<br>

- Ilford SFX 200: (120 size) $8.99<br>

- Ilford SFX 200: (35mm Roll) $9.49 - (Low Stock)<br>

- Rollei Infrared 400s: (120 size) $11.49<br>

- Rollei Infrared 400s: (Twin Pack - 35mm) $13.99<br>

- Rollei Infrared 400s: (4x5 / 25 Sheets) $52.99 (Low Stock)<br>

** So I suspect they will follow the footsteps of their predecessors in the near future.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>There's no other use for the IR sensitizing dyes, they're exotic, and possibly hard to synthesize. Kodak's dye in HIE might have been proprietary as well. They're also unstable, don't last long. Without the US Department of Defense footing the bill with huge annual orders, nobody's paying the fixed costs. IR film for the public was always riding on their coattails. </p>

[jean_yves_mead]

I guess that things are less painful this side of the Pond - over here, Rollei Infrared 400S costs the same or less than equivalent visible-

light-only black and white films.

 

Even with shipping from Germany to the UK I just bought 10 rolls of the above film in 120 format for about $4 a roll.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>As John noted, without large orders from government, military and law enforcement to effectively subsidize the cost of producing infrared film, the actual production costs must be passed along to hobbyist photographers.</p>

<p>And, frankly, I don't see any point to shooting IR film unless we're also doing optical enlargements in the darkroom. IR film is very grainy and consumer grade film scanners exaggerate the grain and producing ugly aliasing artifacts that don't resemble real film grain in optical enlargements.</p>

<p>When I look back at most of the film based IR photos posted online a decade or so ago here on photo.net and elsewhere, most of the JPEGs are badly inferior to many of the digital IR photos. While the Wood Effect in b&w film and digital IR are very comparable, many of the film based IR scans suffer from ugly grain aliasing and mediocre digital post processing. One advantage to photo.net is that it's been around for a long time and there are some older IR samples available for comparison - you can use the site's <a href="/gallery/tag-search/search?query_string=infrared"><strong>tag search</strong></a> and set the "oldest to newest" option to jump to the older film era IR and compare with the newer digital IR. In some of the older IR photos the photographers described some of the challenges in getting scans to reveal the potential of the negatives and optical enlargements.</p>

<p>Unless I had a high end consumer/enthusiast grade film scanner (Nikon Coolscan or better) or could afford drum scans, I wouldn't bother with IR film unless I was doing my own optical enlargements. I have quite a bit of SFX 200 for that purpose, but setting up to make optical enlargements in my small apartment is a major production just to keep the dust under control. Years ago most of my traditional b&w photos here on photo.net were flatbed scans from prints, not from negatives. Unfortunately my old pro level Umax SCSI flatbed scanner died and I couldn't find an affordable replacement with comparable quality.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Your higher-quality film scanner dies (mine did a few months ago)<br>

Your local camera store goes out of business (mine just did)</p>

<p>These are among the signs of change.</p>

<p>Does, does this mean my rolls of E-4 Process False-color Infrared slide film that are "develop before JUL 1972" are probably not going to be usable? </p>

<p>;)</p><div></div>

[peteraitch]

<p>Just sold my last three SFX200 rolls on the well-known auction site. I find it hard enough to do "digital IR" (although I do use an unmodified D700, which is far from ideal) without reverting to the uncertainties of film. For 35mm, I now only use straight panchromatic B&W stock (either chromogenic or halide-based).</p>

<p>Scanning, JDM? I'm terrified that my Minolta DIMAGE will "give-out" soon. It's already become rather temperamental in its old age. I still have lots of slides/negatives to digitize - and finally have <em>some</em> time to do it! That's without the odd roll of B&W still slowly making its way through my trusty old Canon A-1. (Don't really use my F80 body anymore, as it shares the same lenses as the D700, so there isn't really much point. Anyone in the UK want one for the cost of postage?)</p>

<p>So, from my point of view, the answer is - YES.</p>

[jimpete]

<p>Still have 10 rolls of EFKE IR 820 in the freezer and really cherish it. May only shoot two or three rolls of that a year at peak IR season and after that don't know. Been meaning to try the Rollei 400. Hope that is still around. The experience of shooting IR film with a Hoya R72 filter is very rewarding so willing to pay more than seems reasonable.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've already scanned nearly every scrap of slide film I can find in my cupboards, and the few exceptions will have to do with the less-capable, but faster, flatbed film scanner.<br /> What I would like to find is a scanner that will do uncut rolls of C/N and B&W, but haven't seen quite the thing yet.<br /> My old scanner (nice, but waay slow, the Canoscan 4000) did handle color IR reasonably well.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Pardon the digression here... some of it is relevant to film IR techniques...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I find it hard enough to do "digital IR" (although I do use an unmodified D700, which is far from ideal) ..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter, since you're already a Nikonista there are a couple of alternatives: a D70 converted to IR; a stock, unmodified D2H or D2Hs. The D70 was popular for conversions and you might find a good used one already converted by someone who tired of the novelty. A stock, unmodified D2H might be more cost effective, although it's limited to 4 meagerpickles.<br /> <br /> I discovered this year my old D2H will do infrared without any modifications. The D2H was notoriously sensitive to near IR, usually an undesirable characteristic that produced ghastly skin colors under artificial light. Turns out all it needs for infrared is the appropriate filter(s). I haven't tried a true IR filter yet but discovered, after some experimenting, that a combination of filters I already had will handle true IR in the D2H:</p>

<ul>

<li>An ordinary #25 red filter (mine is a Tiffen #25A, 55mm filter thread that happens to fit one of my lenses).</li>

<li>A combination of two Cokin filters:<br />A neutral circular polarizer;<br />A Pola Red-Green polarizer (one of those novelty filters popularized by Moose Peterson during the 1990s).</li>

<li>Occasionally I'll add a Cokin 2-stop ND filter when I want a longer shutter time.</li>

<li>A second circular polarizer, in place of the oddball Pola Red-Green, might work. Stacked circular polarizers can be adjusted to cut nearly all visible light. However I do know that substituting my Pola Purple-Yellow Cokin did not work - only the Pola Red-Green worked.</li>

</ul>

<p>This combination might also work with IR film. I plan to try it soon with my Ilford SFX 200 film in my F3HP. And I plan to add a Cokin #25 flat resin filter, mostly for convenience, since my Tiffen fits only one of my lenses without a step-up/down ring.</p>

<p>Regarding using that filter combo on the D2H...<br /> The D2H has a bright, crisp viewfinder comparable to my Nikon F3HP. Even with the combination of filters it's possible to compose and focus through the filters in daylight and bright artificial light (sometimes I'll use an ordinary gooseneck desk lamp with incandescent bulb for IR studies indoors). This probably wouldn't be as easy with the D70, which lacked the bright, crisp finders of Nikon's pro series SLRs.</p>

<p>The trick is to "open" the circular polarizer to the brightest setting. The Cokin Pola Red-Green filter doesn't need to be turned at all - in this combination for IR the position isn't critical. The viewfinder will be dark red but still bright enough for composing and focusing. Then twist the circular polarizer until the viewfinder is as dark as possible. This cuts almost all except IR.</p>

<p>Best of all, the D2H will meter accurately through this nearly impenetrable mess of filters. Seems unlikely but it will handle aperture priority autoexposure accurately within 1/3 EV, give or take, depending on scene contrast.</p>

<p>Set white balance as close as possible to 2000K to render JPEGs reasonably close to the desired false color, or for b&w conversion. I think the D2H stops at 2500K, which is close enough for evaluating results in camera. I do final editing in Lightroom.</p>

<p>Again, this same combination of filters might work with IR film too, so I plan to try it with SFX 200 soon. I'm also curious to see whether the F3HP can handle autoexposure through the filter combo. The D2H and F3HP will both meter accurately with a fully shifted PC-Nikkor like the 28/3.5 shift lens, so I'm hopeful. Several years ago I was surprised to discover the F3HP will handle autoexposure very well for long exposure nighttime photography, well beyond the official 8 second maximum. With various b&w films under moonlight or even darker nighttime conditions, I was able to get accurate auto-exposures up to an hour with the F3HP. However, unlike the Olympus OM-4 (and possibly Pentax LX) the F3 will not adjust exposures to accommodate changing light conditions. This can be tricky for moonlit scenes with passing cloud cover. The F3 meters only initially, then goes brain dead after the mirror flips and shutter opens. The OM-4 and Pentax LX reportedly will adjust exposures on the fly to accommodate changing light with long exposures.</p>

<p>Anyway, if this combination of Cokin filters works for IR film on film cameras, it may provide a more cost effective way to do IR. Cokin filter brackets are readily adaptable to a wide range of filter threads with inexpensive adapters - I have several ranging from 48mm to 62mm. With an expensive dedicated IR filter in the familiar circular threaded ring, it would be more cost effective to buy the largest diameter you'd conceivably use, and buy step-down rings for other lenses.</p>

<p>This technique might also take some of the guesswork out of metering and exposure with expensive IR film.</p>

<p>Here are some of my recent IR experiments with the Nikon D2H dSLR and multi-filter combo, which I'm hopeful will work with Ilford SFX 200 as well:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17808592-md.jpg" alt="IRchid" width="452" height="680" border="0" /><br />Icebox orchid IR under single incandescent desk lamp.</p>

<hr />

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17827297-md.jpg" alt="Queen Noir" width="680" height="525" border="0" /><br />Same orchid by window light.</p>

<hr />

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17829934-md.jpg" alt="Orchid strawberry IR color" width="680" height="450" border="0" /><br />False color IR, window light on strawberry and wilted orchid blossom.</p>

<hr />

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17823939-md.jpg" alt="Blue 'shroom, I saw you standing alone" width="544" height="680" border="0" /><br />False color IR, outdoors late afternoon, large brown boletus mushroom rendered blue, while foliage is familiar white or near-white.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I enjoy looking at IR photography although I've never done any myself. Lex has some really nice samples. Here's a link to a bunch more, some very well done I think.</p>

<p>

[chris_waller]

<p>My IR film stash. All kept in the fridge. The Konica is 22 years old, the HIE a mere 7-8 years old.</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>Kodak HIE was unbeatable for its graininess and whimsical tonality, easily printed in the darkroom. I regret more the disappearance of Sakura and Konica IR films as they allowed a subtle blending of visible and IR radiation using moderate filtration like deep orange or red filters rather than the specific IR filters that give the more contrasty tonality. From what i understand current European IR films come close to giving the same effect. I easily attain an extreme IR tonality with my M8 but it is no match for the beauty of the Konica negatives. Not many use IR film subtlely but the reward for doing so is there. Especially when one uses darkroom printing and some silvery toned b&w papers.</p>

<p>No, infrared photography is not over, no more than the pleasure of moderate IR sensitive film exposure and darkroom techniques.</p>

[simon_hall1]

Don't forget about Rollei Retro

80s. It is a couple of stops

slower than the IR400 but it is

exceptionally fine grained.

Someone published some film test

data on APUG recently that put it

up there with T-Max 100 and finer

grained than Pan F.

 

It builds contrast quickly so

requires careful development but

I really like the tack sharp look

and I think high contrast works

well with IR photography. It's a

very different film to HEI.

[glen_h]

<p>Since silicon is sensitive in the IR, digital is the way to go. If they didn't put such good IR block filters on digital cameras, it would be so easy.<br>

IR pass filters, such as 720nm, from China are very reasonably priced. <br>

The government users are likely going digital, so there will be less and less film around.</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3401/3473622200_6f8029934e_z.jpg" alt="" width="633" height="640" /></p>

<p>Rollei IR-400(S). A very good infra red film available in 135-36, 120 roll film and 4x5".<br>

Here an example with the Yashica Mat 124-G with <strong>Heliopan RG715</strong> bay I IR-filter.<br>

I am using now a Heliopan 40,5mm RG715 on my C.V. Bessa III 667 or my FSU RF cameras.<br>

Expose E.I. 6-12 with this iso 200-400 film.</p>

<p> </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Here's one from my archives: taken with Kodak Ektachrome Infrared (E4) with IIRC, a #25 red filter. </p><div></div>

[User_1577653]

<blockquote><strong> Does anyone achieve impressive results with today's options?</strong></blockquote>

<p>I hope to be able to answer that soon! I am actually in the middle of testing some of the current offerings now, namely the Rollei Retro 80s and the 400s, with the intent of finding a suitable replacements for my Efke IR820c.</p>

<p>As someone already mentioned, the quality of these films really is a cut above the now discontinued Efke. They are up to several stops faster with a 720nm filter, the grain is MUCH finer and smoother (especially the 80s), and they seem to have better quality control over the emulsion than Efke did. They also happen to be very interesting and useful films in their own right, i.e., just for regular old B&W photography (without the IR filter).</p>

<p>One downside of all the current offerings (in my opinion at least) is that their spectral response doesn't extend quite as far into the infrared as the Efke did, and it remains to be seen whether I will be able to achieve as pronounced of an "infrared look" as I am looking for. Of course it is all just a matter of taste, and some actually prefer the more subtle effect these films achieve. Another thing I was aware of with these films is that they were said to be very contrasty and in fact challenging to achieve good shadow detail with. From what I have seen so far, that is pretty much true! With normal developers at least, the shadows due tend to block up very easily. (Again, some people prefer that starker look anyway!)</p>

<p>Anyway, I have a few tricks up my sleeves to hopefully tame the contrast and also produce a stronger (more Efke-like) IR look. So we shall see! :)</p>

<p>Jeff</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I was just reading today the book "Spycraft" stories about CIA spies and the equipment they use.<br>

One explains using High-Speed Infrared (2481) and an electronic flash with 87C filter over it. That allows for photography where someone might see the flash without a filter.<br>

Maybe an 87 would be too visible in a dark enough area.<br>

I presume now they use digital cameras.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Robert and Jeff, I suggest you try these films with a deep red and even a deep orange filter. The Sakura and Konica 750nm films with these filters provided a very pleasing effect with less blocking of the shadows and more subtle modified vegetation appearance. That yields much more mystery or enigma or atmosphere compared to in-your-face white vegetation and black shadows when using the IR pass only filters or near so, such as the R72 or B&W IR pass filters. The strong IR effect becomes mostly boring in most applications (At least Kodak high speed IR had the interesting halo effect as a result of its film base-emulsion composition). I believe there is much more artistic potential in the more subtle (partial) IR effect with the less drastic filters, but my experience is with Sakura and Konica films and I have yet to try the more recent (et least in N.A.) European versions. Have fun!</p>

[glen_h]

<p>This is from a Fuji S602Zoom with a 720nm (Chinese made, cost about $5) filter.<br>

From the EXIF data, it is 1/5s and f/2.8 at ISO 200. I think it is manual focus, as it might be that autofocus doesn't work. (I took the picture a few months ago, so might have forgetten.)<br>

The S602Z is interesting, as it has an electronic (small LCD) viewfinder, so you can actually see something with a 720nm filter on it. You can also use the rear LCD. Better cameras have better IR blocking filters.<br>

I don't know the actual spectral sensitivity, but you can see IR remote controls with it. GaAs is 1.424eV, or about 870nm emission.</p><div></div>

[rustys pics]

<p>I would not say it's over...but like nearly ALL film it's difficuly to locate and expensive when you do find it. Kodak HIE was the champion of IR photography and when they killed it I pretty much stopped buying Kodak film. I did stock up my deep freeze and shoot it occasionally. I did a roll this summer and it was fine. They only thing that ruined it was the dodgy advance on an old Kiev 4M cameara. That one got junked after screwing up a precious roll of HIE. Still I did salvage a few frames.... HIE was and still is Magic. I also have a Nikon D1x that I modified for IR. It's OK but digital IR is simply NOT the same as HIE or Konica. It's a bland generic image even with heavy filtration. <img src=" alt="" /></p><div></div>