Exposure time/use of RG780 heliopan filter for rollei ir 400 iso

Untitled

A
Untitled

  • 0
  • 0
  • 18
Jerome Leaves

H
Jerome Leaves

  • 1
  • 0
  • 45
Jerome

H
Jerome

  • 1
  • 0
  • 42
Sedona Tree

H
Sedona Tree

  • 1
  • 0
  • 45
Sedona

H
Sedona

  • 0
  • 0
  • 42

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,426
Messages
2,758,830
Members
99,494
Latest member
hyking1983
Recent bookmarks
2

ottosoren

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
8
Format
Medium Format
Dear experts,

One question: I have the infra-red RG780 heliopan filter (which cuts below 780 nm)... What is the exposure time I should use?

For example with the rollei ir 400 iso film at f/16, 1/500s (bright sun day) with a 5 stop factor for a filter RG715 this leads to:
f/16, 1/15s (equivalent with iso=12)

==> for RG780 filter is enough to add 6 stops extra and keep f/16? Thus, exposure of 4 sec or even more? (5 + 6 = 11 stops in total)

or even more ( ~ 4min exposure = 17 stops in total from iso 400)?

Even if the manual of rollei ir 400 film does not recommend the use of RG780, I have seen photos pointing that it could be used with very high exposure times www.flickr.com/photos/portal23/11078545285/ ...

Can someone give me a starting point for tests?

I have also the RG715 and the original infrarot filter of rolleiflex (~ 700 nm) BUT my big desire is the use of the RG780 to magnify the infra-red effect.

Thanks in advance

(My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/)
 

iulian

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
74
Format
Medium Format
Dear experts,

One question: I have the infra-red RG780 heliopan filter (which cuts below 780 nm)... What is the exposure time I should use?

For example with the rollei ir 400 iso film at f/16, 1/500s (bright sun day) with a 5 stop factor for a filter RG715 this leads to:
f/16, 1/15s (equivalent with iso=12)

==> for RG780 filter is enough to add 6 stops extra and keep f/16? Thus, exposure of 4 sec or even more? (5 + 6 = 11 stops in total)

or even more ( ~ 4min exposure = 17 stops in total from iso 400)?

Even if the manual of rollei ir 400 film does not recommend the use of RG780, I have seen photos pointing that it could be used with very high exposure times www.flickr.com/photos/portal23/11078545285/ ...

Can someone give me a starting point for tests?

I have also the RG715 and the original infrarot filter of rolleiflex (~ 700 nm) BUT my big desire is the use of the RG780 to magnify the infra-red effect.

Thanks in advance

(My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/)

I think you are missing a few points here.
1. That film is pretty much a 200 ISO in daylight according to various internet sources including this forum
2. The film has zero sensitivity after 820nm but it drops pretty rapidly until then
3. There are no reciprocity figures for it but I think your time (calculated) would put you below ISO 1. And with reciprocity in mind you could end up with exposures in minutes, not seconds or fractions of a second.

I have experience with the Retro 80s and I had to shoot that at ISO4 with an (approx) 720 nm filter.
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,139
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
When dealing with any IR film you should always look at the spectral response curve and compare this with the cut off wavelength for the filter. This will indicate what filter to use. In addition the amount of IR light varies throughout the day and is not connected with the amount of visual light so bracket, bracket, bracket. The usual light meters (in camera or stand alone) cannot measure the amount of IR light.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Simonh82

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
251
Location
London, Unit
Format
Multi Format
If you have a 715nm filter just use that. Or at least test enough to convince yourself that you need to use the 780nm filter.

I've achieved a great IR effect using an R72 filter. Typical exposure times are 1/8 to 1/4 second at f16.

Using the 780nm filter will take you into some pretty unfamiliar territory. It also won't increase the IR effect it will only cut out the tiny amount of visible light that might pass through a 715nm/720nm filter.
 

Alex Muir

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
407
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Format
Medium Format
I looked at the example in the link and I think the IR effect in that image could be achieved with the 720 filter. The author of that image mentions the 780 filter in the image description, but unless I'm mistaken, he later says that he uses a 'no name' filter from the Internet. I have used the Rollei film, and find that 6 ASA with the 720 filter gives good results with obvious IR effect of white foliage and dark sky. What seems to matter is the quality of light on the scene. Strong sunlight gives a more pronounced effect. Images made with the sun behind you give the darkest sky. I have used the Rollei Infrarot, the Hoya R72 and the Cokin 007 filters, and all give good IR effects with the filter. I'm not sure that you will achieve anything dramatically different with a 780 filter, but have to say that I have not personally tried that one.
Alex.
 
OP
OP

ottosoren

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
8
Format
Medium Format
Thanks a lot for your suggestions...

http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/gfx/maco/rollei_IR_sensitivity.gif
Please have a look at the sensitivity of rollei ir 400.
The Heliopan RG780 is equivalent to a Wratten 87 filter and is visibly opaque. It passes through light in the 780nm range.
Thus, it has a bandpass with a maximum intensity or 50% of transmission -half-bandwidth- at 780 nm
and its Min. cut I at 730 nm (http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/photo-ir-uv.htm). I have often used the infrarot 700nm filter of rolleiflex with rollei ir 400 and SFX200 films with success. Now with the RG715 and especially with the RG780 I hope to magnify the ir effect...

My logic is the following:

In a bright sunny day keeping f/16 and shooting at iso~6-12 (5-6 stops below) I can use the 700 or the 715nm filter.

Concerning now the RG780, does it sound reasonable to start adding 7 stops (that leads to exposures of ~ 10 seconds = 13 stops from iso 400)
and increasing up to 2-4 minutes for a test roll?

Did anybody of you use a infrared filter > 720nm?

Thanks in advance

Some of my infrared photos taken with the same infrarot 700nm filter:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/15217852762/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/14828587972/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/15223312325/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/14359323452/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/9719480820/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/9719482786/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/9688121974/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/9688122744/

Where the ir effect is not too strong...

Any feedback is warmly welcome!
 

Attachments

  • rollei-ir.JPG
    rollei-ir.JPG
    54.7 KB · Views: 410
  • HeliopanRG780.JPG
    HeliopanRG780.JPG
    44.9 KB · Views: 367

Alex Muir

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
407
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Format
Medium Format
The 720nm (Hoya R72) works well with this film. I use it at 6 ASA, taking readings with a separate meter. The images you have shown do have IR effects. The white foliage tends to be more pronounced with certain types of vegetation. Evergreen plants and trees don't tend to turn as white as, for example, deciduous trees or fresh green grass. Your skies have certainly darkened. You won't get the halo effect typical of the Kodak HIE film or the Efke Aura because the Rollei film has an anti-halation backing layer. A bit of over-exposure can give a stronger apparent effect, but the highlights can burn out and become difficult to print well.
Alex.
 

DWThomas

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
4,600
Location
SE Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
Even with a 760 filter I found the Rollei film needed a lot -- 6 stops -- additional exposure over the R72. At 780 you will surely be working on the precipitous edge of the spectral sensitivity curve. I agree with the others who recommend the 720 filter.

My two pennies ...
 
OP
OP

ottosoren

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
8
Format
Medium Format
Even with a 760 filter I found the Rollei film needed a lot -- 6 stops -- additional exposure over the R72. At 780 you will surely be working on the precipitous edge of the spectral sensitivity curve. I agree with the others who recommend the 720 filter.

My two pennies ...

Thank you DWThomas, so if 6 stops additionally to what 720nm filter needs, work for a 760nm filter,
I think its safe to add 2 stops and start from there...
In total, 6 + 6 + 2 = 14 stops from iso 400.

With the rollei ir 400 iso film at f/16, 1/500s (sunny day):

f/16, 1/8s (equivalent with iso=6) ~ +6 stops for RG715

f/16, 8s (equivalent with iso=6) ~ +6 stops for RG760

Thus, I plan to start from 30 sec to 60, 2 min, 4 min shots and let you know my results...

By the way DWThomas do you have any shots from a 760nm filter that you could share?
Does the result differ significantly from a 720nm filter?

Thanks a lot in advance

Georgios
 

Denverdad

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
316
Location
Superior, Co
Format
Medium Format
Georgios, I have been undertaking a similar exploration with the Rollei infrared-capable films - specifically, to see if I could capture more of the Efke IR820c "look" by pushing the filter pass farther into the IR. Although I haven't tried a 780nm filter, my preliminary testing indicates that a 750nm filter (Wratten 88A) requires about 2 stops more exposure than a 720nm filter (Hoya R72). Given how precipitous the spectral response of the 400 film is, I can believe DWThomas's result of 6 more stops for a 760nm filter, and I would suspect that at 780nm exposure times are getting to the point of being just about un-doable (since reciprocity failure must be kicking in eventually and is probably pretty severe).

But I can report that I am seeing a noticeably stronger Wood effect, darker sky, darker red objects, etc. with the 750nm filter over the 720nm filter (although frankly it is still not quite the same as what the Efke film provided). My suspicion is that there is not much to be gained by cutting off past the 750-760nm region though. My thinking for that has to do with the fact that these films have relatively high sensitivity right up through the high 600's and low 700's (in nanometers), but then fall off so sharply after that - right at the point at which foliage really begins to "turn on". I compiled a chart of data for different IR filters (see below) to see how their spectral responses compared to a typical foliage response. I think this shows why the "look" of these films is a little different than the older emulsions - basically you're getting a higher percentage of the tail end of the visible spectrum relative to "the good stuff" just into the infrared, since the sensitivity is falling off so quickly at that point. My reasoning for the Wratten 88A filter was that if you could cut out just a little more of the light in that transition region you would be left with a "purer" infrared exposure (albeit at the expense of considerably longer exposure times).

One of the frustrations with all of this is that reliable data is hard to come by, and there is a great deal of uncertain information online. As an example, it appears to me that the curve for Rollei IR400 film shown on the infrared film spectral sensitivity comparison chart on the digitaltruth website is shifted by about 50nm or so from the manufacturer's datasheet. I think this may cause some confusion about how the Rollei IR400 and Efke IR820 films really compare. Don't get me wrong though, I sincerely appreciate them for going to the trouble to create such a comparison plot from the different manufacturer's published data in the first place (its not easy!). Also, for a good apples-to-apples comparison of sensitivity and spectral performance, a single cutoff value for the upper wavelength limit really isn't sufficient. We really need to compare sensitivity on an absolute scale over the tail end of the spectral range, so the vertical scale in the datasheets is important. Unfortunately, I find a lot of ambiguity in the published data sheets in that regard, mostly due to confusion about whether certain films are really the same (IR 400 vs. Retro 400s, for example), re-rating of film speeds (ISO 400 vs. 200), uncertainties about whether emulsions have actually changed over time and whether the old datasheets still apply, etc.

Well enough on that rant! But if I may make one more comment about a specific filter, I have discovered that descriptions of the Heliopan RG715 filter can be confusing. In particular, this filter is quite often labeled as being equivalent to a Wratten 88A, but I don't think that is the case! The name apparently comes from Schott glass RG 715 which has a 50% transmission point at 715nm. In fact if you look at the spectral transmission plot which usually accompanies this filter, that is exactly what is shown, whereas the Wratten 88A filter turns on about 30-35nm farther out. My conclusion has been that this really is a 715nm filter as the name implies, and that the 88A equivalency must just be some early error (or crude approximation?) that has never been corrected. Having said that, if anyone can tell me that the Helipoan RG715 actually IS the same as a Wratten 88A, I would love to know that since they are rather hard to find, and expensive when you do.

Jeff

filter plots.png IR film response curves.png
 

DWThomas

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
4,600
Location
SE Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
...

By the way DWThomas do you have any shots from a 760nm filter that you could share?
Does the result differ significantly from a 720nm filter?
Georgios


All I know is pretty well encapsulated in my PBase galleries.

In 20-20 hindsight, I'd say a few of the tests weren't as precise and rigorous as they could have been, but it gives some idea. The exposures and filter used are in the captions under the individual images.

I'd like to say "the higher the cutoff, the more pronounced the IR effects." But other factors, including the lighting at the moment, sun angles, and the subject come into play also. And of course, since our eyes don't see the IR, some normally intuitive things no longer work. Somewhere in that series is a shot taken off a bridge and the water in the foreground is like a black hole. A later attempt found even with drastic exposure increase it was still a black hole.
 
OP
OP

ottosoren

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
8
Format
Medium Format
Testing rolleiir 400 with 3 infrared filters

Dear all, I would like to thank you all for your suggestions - by the way, DaveT your photos are amazing!
I finished a film rollei ir 400 with the 3 aforementioned filters. I must admit it was a very fast test
without paying attention at the composition just a first try actually to check whether the RG780 filter works.
In my opinion, adding 8 additional stops from RG715 to RG780 is not enough.
The exposure should be ~ 10 extra stops (1/5s->4min).
I wonder whether you could have time to have a look at my album and let me know your remarks.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/sets/72157648589721710/#

Thanks a lot

Georgios
 

Alex Muir

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
407
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Format
Medium Format
Hi. Some of your images are similar to what I am getting with the Hoya R72 and Cokin 007. I like the effect of the smooth water and streaked clouds. I take it these are the 780 shots? The effect is like a combination of IR and the long exposure of a strong ND filter. That would be a good reason for using this filter, to avoid stacking two filters (IR and ND). I'm guessing your subjects include Notre Dame in Paris? It's a city I really enjoy visiting. Thanks for showing your results,
Alex.
 
OP
OP

ottosoren

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
8
Format
Medium Format
Hi Alex,

Unfortunately I was in a tremendous hurry to test if the RG780 works that I didnt find a place with more green to see better the ir effect. Yes all pictures in the set is in Notre Dame in Paris...
When I used the RG780 filter I specified it at the title of the photo + the settings I had.
The exposure was really high ~ 4min, the water was definitely blacker but I suspect that the streaked clouds might came during the long exposure since it was a bit windy and they were also moving...
In general, I am glad that the RG780 works and I will use it very soon under better and more well controlled occasions... The conclusion is that with the rollei ir 400 film I need roughly + 6 stops for RG715 (RG715 is just slightly more ir than the original infrarot filter that I also used which cuts at 700nm) and in addition to that >= 10 stops for the RG780 (that makes >=16 stops from the iso=400).
I plan to use the RG780 with efke ir film in the near future where the needed exposure should not be more than 2-3 higher than the RG715.

Your view concerning ND filters is very fruitful indeed...
I had a look at http://blog.deborahsandidge.com/2012/08/long-exposure-photography-using-neutral.html
And it seems as you pointed out, infrared look + long exposures might give creative effects such as blurring clouds during their motion! Thanks a lot for your remarks...
I will keep you updated...
Georgios
 
Last edited by a moderator:

georg16nik

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
1,102
Format
Multi Format
Dear IR fans,

At higher altitudes like above 2000 meters / 6500 feet, in dry weather and clear sky with maybe a few tiny clouds here and there, the IR burst is of completely different league! Up there, even a 650nm filter works.

At ~ sea level; its a waste of film.

Water vapor in atmosphere absorbs a significant amount of IR, so YMMV.

Rollei 80S and Superpan 200, imho, are the best performers.

Use hood on the lens.
 
OP
OP

ottosoren

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
8
Format
Medium Format
Infrared filter testing 2

https://www.flickr.com/photos/99813629@N04/sets/72157649123886425/

Dear ir experts,

in the link above you can see the results of the second test shooting:
2 filters are tested with the rollei ir400 film at Cimetière du Père-Lachaise PARIS:

-Original rollei infrarot (cuts at 700nm),
-Heliopan RG780

I was still impatient and the weather conditions not too friendly since not enough blue in the sky :-(

Your remarks are welcome

all the best

Georgios
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom