Taking IR with Rollei 400IR and UTOOV red filter

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just bought a few rolls of 35mm Rollei 400S IR film to use in my various Leica film cameras. I also use this film in 70mm format in my Combat Graflex but as a panchromatic film, where it is perfectly satisfactory.

 

Since it is about 50 years since I last did film IR photography, when doing my thesis at university, my rusty brain cells may need a bit of help. I understand from others that the Leica UTOOV red filter works just fine with the Rollei 400 IR B&W film and a full 680+nm IR filter is not really required. When I am using my M8 for IR false colour photography, I use a B+W 092, which I think is low pass of around 690nm.

 

The lenses I am most likely to be using are my 5cm/f1,5 Summarit and 8,5cm f1,5 Summarex, both of which fortunately have IR focus markings on them. My main question is what ISO to use for the 400 ISO (for daylight) film. I was thinking of maybe ISO 50 i.e. -4EV. Unfortunately I don't have my super sensitive Polaris spot meter with me in France, which could have told me by just holding the filter in front of its objective. 

 

Any advice or tips gratefully received. 

 

Wilson

[Martin B]

I recently shot IR film with my M6. I have never used the Rollei 400S IR film but instead the Ilford SFX 200 film. I used this film at ISO 200 but overexposed mostly 0.5 to 1 stops. I used 720 nm Hoya cutoff filters with 39 and 58 mm diameter size (for my Leica 35/2, 50/2, and 90/2.8 lenses and for my CV 21/1.8). All lenses I used didn't have IR markings on them - I shot most photos between f/5.6 and f/8 so the focus achieved with the rangefinder in regular light didn't shift the focus in IR too much. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wlaidlaw]

I think I have solved my question. I put the 8.5/f1.5 Summarex on my SL via a Rayqual 28/90 to M and M to T/L adapters, declared it as a 75/f1.4 Summilux. Put the camera on a tripod, set ISO to 100, WB to 5400ºK. Without any filter the exposure was 1/250th at f5.6. With the UTOOV dark red filter, the shutter speed had fallen to 1/25th. So I make that a reduction of just over 3EV. So I should set my lightmeter for the 400 ISO Rollei IR film to about ISO 50 or maybe 40. 

 

Wilson

 

PS it is quite an interesting effect with the SL, Summarex and UTOOV filter. I reset the WB to allow for the filter, like I do on the M8 with the 092 filter. 

 

W.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited July 13, 2017 by wlaidlaw

[gbealnz]

Wilson.

Good to see you've reached a conclusion. Not sure whether my rambling below will assist, but anyway................

 

Similar to Keith I dabbled recently with the Rollei Super-Pan 200, in the SWC. This seemed the most logical camera, it is a V/F so the filter doesn't affect the view, and the 12 on means a test roll doesn't last forever.

 

Filter was a 67mm 720Nm C&N from the big auction site.

I set up three subjects in our local gardens. Tripod mounted.

 

First shot was without filter, and exposed as per my incident meter.

ISO 200 gave me 1/30th @ f22.

 

Then I slipped the filter on, and did three test exposures.

ISO25, 1/4 sec @ f22.

ISO12, 1/2 sec @ f22.

ISO 6, 1 sec @ f22.

 

The "proof-sheet" from the Epson is attached, bearing mind it is an average across the board, but it should show a slight I/R effect, and I am encouraged to again try this film, partly as a general purpose but also for specific I/R shots.

 

Where I have tried digital cameras, the most successful was my old M8. Others have been an X-Vario, and a raft of Fuji-X cameras. In most I simply did a custome white balance byt mounting the filter, and shooting a white piece of paper, or green grass. Seemed to be satisfactory for my needs. Definitely easier than the old I/R film days, and HSIR Ektachrome.

 

Gary

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Martin B]

Wilson.

Good to see you've reached a conclusion. Not sure whether my rambling below will assist, but anyway................

 

Similar to Keith I dabbled recently with the Rollei Super-Pan 200, in the SWC. This seemed the most logical camera, it is a V/F so the filter doesn't affect the view, and the 12 on means a test roll doesn't last forever.

 

Filter was a 67mm 720Nm C&N from the big auction site.

I set up three subjects in our local gardens. Tripod mounted.

 

First shot was without filter, and exposed as per my incident meter.

ISO 200 gave me 1/30th @ f22.

 

Then I slipped the filter on, and did three test exposures.

ISO25, 1/4 sec @ f22.

ISO12, 1/2 sec @ f22.

ISO 6, 1 sec @ f22.

 

The "proof-sheet" from the Epson is attached, bearing mind it is an average across the board, but it should show a slight I/R effect, and I am encouraged to again try this film, partly as a general purpose but also for specific I/R shots.

 

Where I have tried digital cameras, the most successful was my old M8. Others have been an X-Vario, and a raft of Fuji-X cameras. In most I simply did a custome white balance byt mounting the filter, and shooting a white piece of paper, or green grass. Seemed to be satisfactory for my needs. Definitely easier than the old I/R film days, and HSIR Ektachrome.

 

Gary

 

Thanks for posting this - just for clarification, the first shots without filter are the one one the bottom, correct? Then the order is from bottom to top according your order given in the text? By doing the 3 test exposures as mentioned, shouldn't all be exposed at the same level with the filter attached? I mean you decreased the ISO by half each time and accordingly doubled the exposure time and leaving the f-stop constant? I am a bit confused here.....

Edited July 14, 2017 by Martin B

[EoinC]

Thanks for posting this - just for clarification, the first shots without filter are the one one the bottom, correct? Then the order is from bottom to top according your order given in the text? By doing the 3 test exposures as mentioned, shouldn't all be exposed at the same level with the filter attached? I mean you decreased the ISO by half each time and accordingly doubled the exposure time and leaving the f-stop constant? I am a bit confused here.....

I think Gary's using the ISO as the equivalent metered level, Wilson, resulting in the change of shutter speed for a standing aperture. The developing was (presumably) consistent for the whole roll of 12 exposures, which would be my next question for Gary - "What developing regime did you use?"

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think Gary's using the ISO as the equivalent metered level, Wilson, resulting in the change of shutter speed for a standing aperture. The developing was (presumably) consistent for the whole roll of 12 exposures, which would be my next question for Gary - "What developing regime did you use?"

 

Eoin, 

 

That is basically what I did on the SL to determine the -3EV of the UTOOV filter, fixed ISO and looked at the change in shutter speed. I was surprised, given how dark red the UTOOV is, that it was not more than that, unless of course, the SL's metering is over corrected for red. My Weston Master V puts it a bit higher at -3.5 EV. Given that IR film does not seem to mind a bit of over exposure, I will set my film speed to 40 ISO. Given that we are expecting temperatures in the high 30's today in France at 800M of altitude, there must be so much IR around that maybe everything will over-expose 

 

Wilson

Edited July 15, 2017 by wlaidlaw

[gbealnz]

Thanks for posting this - just for clarification, the first shots without filter are the one one the bottom, correct? Then the order is from bottom to top according your order given in the text? By doing the 3 test exposures as mentioned, shouldn't all be exposed at the same level with the filter attached? I mean you decreased the ISO by half each time and accordingly doubled the exposure time and leaving the f-stop constant? I am a bit confused here.....

Yes Martin, that's about what I did,

First/bottom shot is the unfiltered, then as they "go up" (looking at the strip), the exposure increases.

Any of the three would have printed OK, it was just more of a trial to see what the exposure could or should be.

Unfiltered the film is a decent mono film. Filtered it has decent I/R characteristics, so a good all rounder. Tripod is almost mandatory though.

Gary