A warning about infrared film

[tribal-warrior]

Just recently, I got back my very first B&W infrared film from the local lab. I have shot colour IR slide film in the past. I did learn a painful lesson from this B&W infrared film (Rollei 400 to be precise.) Never use hyperfocal focusing. I did that for most of the film and all those particular images have varying degrees of softness. I also used the IR focus mark on the lenses and generally shot at around f19 and f22 but still had major focus issues. The only images that turned out sharp were ones where I specifically focused on the main subject (and also used the IR focus mark.) I used an IR720 filter in conjunction with this film.

This does not make any sense to me but is a lesson learned. I hope others don't repeat the same mistake. I'll certainly never use hyperfocal focusing with infrared film again.

 

[darr]

I shot IR film 20+ years ago, and it was always a bit soft but I felt it was part of the effects of the wavelength, the HIE film, the smaller camera format, 135 and the focusing technique used. I did use the lens IR mark for focusing because I could not see through the filter and feared moving the lens out-of-focus if I focused first then install the filter.

Then I shot a Sigma SD-1 with it's IR filter removed and an IR 72 filter on the lens and the images were sharp. Today and for the past few years, I shoot an IR converted Fuji X-E2 and like it. The film I continue to shoot is 4x5 and 120, not 135 or IR.

I think IR digital photography is not only easier to shoot via live view or mirrorless focusing, but better results from my experience.

Infrared Photography Part 1: Sigma SD1M | photoscapes

photoscapes.com

Infrared Photography Part 2: Sigma SD1M | photoscapes

photoscapes.com

Infrared Photography Part 3: Fujifilm X-E2 | photoscapes

This article talks about why I chose the camera and lenses I use for IR photography, along with images I have made.

photoscapes.com

 

[tribal-warrior]

Darr, I think I know about this softness that you're referring to - looking at some samples online with B&W IR film. Out of curiosity, did you ever use hyperfocal focusing back then?

I'm happy with the sharpness of one of the images where I focused specifically on the subject. No softness there. And that's with 35mm film (I was using a Canon FD 50mm f1.8 lens at the time.)

Other images (like those where I made use of hyperfocal focusing) are quite soft and blurry. And some of them being very slight soft. Yea it looks like focus issues to me despite using very small apertures.

For me, I'm attracted to experimenting with IR for the cost of a few films rather than purchasing an additional digital camera and having it converted.

I think IR film images can look great in their own way. Ive seen some really nice B&W IR medium format film images online.

 

[tribal-warrior]

I admit I had a fair bit of bad luck with this film. My exposures were mostly off as well (despite bracketing.) A lot of the negs are quite dark so looks like overexposure. With the IR720 filter and Rollei 400 film, it's recommended to use asa 6, 12 and 25 (depending on which source you read) with an external meter. For metering, I used a Canon EOS 30 35mm SLR. I nearly always metered from green grass and would often reduce exposure by half a stop from the recommended reading. And I adhered to those recommended asa settings with my bracketing. Most of the film was exposed with a Canon FTb which has a mechanical shutter. If I recall, I spent about a week or two exercising that shutter before loading the film. And the duration of the slow shutter speeds sound about right to my ears more or less.

The next time I shoot Rollei 400 film with the IR filter, it looks like I'll have to use asa settings that are higher than 25 (despite recommendations.)

 

[MartinN]

I suppose you use Rollei Infrared. But you can also experiment with Rollei Retro 80S that is supposed to have extended red range, but is not classified as Infrared film.I think it is great to get overexposed films, then at least you know you can give less exposure. Usually scanning can be done successfully on overexposed negatives, but darkroom prints have other requirements. Grain can be more visible, though. With severe underexposure there is not much to recover when scanning.

 

[MartinN]

I shot 120 Retro 80S with Hoya R72 with quite successful results, some a bit underexposed though, if I remember.

 

[tribal-warrior]

Thanks for the recommendation on Rollei Retro 80S. The name sounds familiar but I didn't know a lot about it.

A lot of the negs look pretty poor. Hardly any have deep blacks. And many of the resulting prints look rather murky and low quality. Plus there are focus issues as well so for the vast majority of frames, I would see no point in further printing or scanning. I'll have to shoot the same scenes again on infrared film and compose them in the same way. Yes, next time, I will give less exposure. Though I think I'll take a break from IR shooting for the time being. I put so much time and work into that last film. At least I ended up with one IR image that I'm more or less happy with. There were also two frames where I didn't use the IR filter and the film behaved like a regular B&W film. For that pair, I did long exposures of lightning at night.

 

[MartinN]

Infrared 120, Hoya R72

Fuji GX680, no focus adjust, but stopped down.

 

[MartinN]

BTW A heck of a job to find these frames in my library, should be more organized.

 

[tribal-warrior]

Very nice work. Those leaves really glow. Out of curiosity, what asa would you set on an external light meter?

 

[MartinN]

No film rebate imprints like with Mamiya 645 AF, so I don’t exactly remember but probably went with 9 stops, and was blazing summer sunlight.

 

[darr]

Darr, I think I know about this softness that you're referring to - looking at some samples online with B&W IR film. Out of curiosity, did you ever use hyperfocal focusing back then?

I solely relied on the IR index of the lens. I do not think hyperfocal distance focusing would work because the lens markings are set up for a different wavelength than IR.
Also, my images always came out a stop or two over-exposed with Kodak HIE IR film.

 

[MartinN]

Have to admit, my film may have been expired Rollei Infrared and not Retro 80S.
The grain, however is not huge.

 

[MartinN]

Yep, I found the negatives, no specific film imprint of make , so It was supposedly real infrared stored at +4 C, but I have Rollei Retro 80S that should pick up heat radiation quite slow.

 

[tribal-warrior]

I solely relied on the IR index of the lens. I do not think hyperfocal distance focusing would work because the lens markings are set up for a different wavelength than IR.

That's right - the vast majority of the lens markings are not set up for IR. That's why I used hyperfocal focusing in combination with the IR index of the lens like I mentioned in my opening post. Initially, I set the hyperfocal distance and then rotated the lens further so that the IR index was lined up. Though as I discovered, that results in out of focus images - even when shooting at f22 with a 24mm lens.

If my memory is correct, when I shot colour IR slide film years ago, I did not use hyperfocal focusing at all. I focused specifically on the subject and then lined up the IR index on the lens and used small apertures. And the results were good in terms of focus and exposure.

Just recently, I came across someone who uses hyperfocal focusing with digital IR and he says he gets good results with that. Regardless, it's not something I would do again with my IR photography.