IR820 Infrared Film: Any Chance for an Adox-Supported Reboot?

[Scott J.]

Given the long history that existed between Adox and Fotokemika/Efke, I was wondering if there have been discussions inside Adox about potentially reviving IR820 film (or something similar). My understanding is that IR820 was manufactured by Fotokemika and sold under the Efke brand (and hence, was not an Adox product), but I'm curious if there is any possibility for Adox to revive this film in the way that they did so with CHS II 100 (which I understand was based on an earlier Efke emulsion).

When Fotokemika stopped manufacturing film in 2012, the reasons were primarily economical. The financial outlook for film production seems to have improved in the last few years. So, perhaps there's hope? I'd love to see that emulsion (or something similar) available in sheet sizes again, and Adox seems by far the best placed to tackle such an undertaking.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'd be behind any company who brought back a decent IR film. Especially one with similar characteristics to HIE.

 

[markjwyatt]

IR is really becoming a "hot" topic around here.


Thermal Selfie Wth Cool Retina Reflex IV by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[pentaxuser]

Mark, it looks as if you have just come from one of those night rallies that were held South of the Mason-Dixon

pentaxuser

 

[Scott J.]

I'd be behind any company who brought back a decent IR film. Especially one with similar characteristics to HIE.

Agreed. Adox deserves a lot of credit for bringing new black and white products to the market right now. They seem genuinely interested in trying new things, whereas other companies appear to have simply assumed there's nothing left to improve upon.

Regarding a decent infrared film: Rollei IR400 is surprisingly good -- better grain and tonality than one would normally expect from an infrared film. I've shot quite a bit of it in 4x5 and have been happy with the results, but its Wood effect is still pretty tame in comparison to IR820 and Kodak HIE. It also isn't available in 8x10 like IR820 was.

 

[markjwyatt]

Mark, it looks as if you have just come from one of those night rallies that were held South of the Mason-Dixon

pentaxuser

Nope. I'm just a hot dude.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Agreed. Adox deserves a lot of credit for bringing new black and white products to the market right now. They seem genuinely interested in trying new things, whereas other companies appear to have simply assumed there's nothing left to improve upon.

Regarding a decent infrared film: Rollei IR400 is surprisingly good -- better grain and tonality than one would normally expect from an infrared film. I've shot quite a bit of it in 4x5 and have been happy with the results, but its Wood effect is still pretty tame in comparison to IR820 and Kodak HIE. It also isn't available in 8x10 like IR820 was.

I've shot Rollei IR in 4x5 for about 12 years. I've got several boxes in the freezer. It's no where near HIE. The closest I could get to it was with Efke IR. I've still got a 50 sheet box of 8x10 that I've slowly been working my way through, during summer months. This summer I also plan on removing Rollie IR's AH layer, to see what that looks like.

 

[m00dawg]

I've shot Rollei IR in 4x5 for about 12 years. I've got several boxes in the freezer. It's no where near HIE. The closest I could get to it was with Efke IR. I've still got a 50 sheet box of 8x10 that I've slowly been working my way through, during summer months. This summer I also plan on removing Rollie IR's AH layer, to see what that looks like.

How do you avoid pinholes and crinkles and such with Rollei IR? I too get lovely results from it. Though as noted in the other thread, am very much looking forward to HR50 if we see it in 4x5. Lovely non-IR results, albeit quite different from Rollei IR (which itself looks good when shot normally) but while I haven't tried it in IR, having hopefully standard thickness sheets would be really nice.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How do you avoid pinholes and crinkles and such with Rollei IR? I too get lovely results from it. Though as noted in the other thread, am very much looking forward to HR50 if we see it in 4x5. Lovely non-IR results, albeit quite different from Rollei IR (which itself looks good when shot normally) but while I haven't tried it in IR, having hopefully standard thickness sheets would be really nice.

I have avoided the pin hole and crinkles with Rollei IR film, but not having them. I prefer to avoid such things.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

How do you avoid pinholes and crinkles and such with Rollei IR? I too get lovely results from it. Though as noted in the other thread, am very much looking forward to HR50 if we see it in 4x5. Lovely non-IR results, albeit quite different from Rollei IR (which itself looks good when shot normally) but while I haven't tried it in IR, having hopefully standard thickness sheets would be really nice.

I've never had pinholes... I'm not sure what crinkles are, though. Is that something that could happen to the emulsion due to handling the extremely thin film base? That takes a bit getting used to. At least they stopped using the paper between the sheets of film.... I actually loaded a piece of the paper in a holder once! And.. I've accidentally loaded two sheets into one holder. It took me a while to get used to handling that film in sheets.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

How do you avoid pinholes and crinkles and such with Rollei IR? I too get lovely results from it. Though as noted in the other thread, am very much looking forward to HR50 if we see it in 4x5. Lovely non-IR results, albeit quite different from Rollei IR (which itself looks good when shot normally) but while I haven't tried it in IR, having hopefully standard thickness sheets would be really nice.

Not sure this would apply to Rollei IR: with Kodak HIE I would get pinholes if I used any Stop Bath; I now use plain water (2 water baths for one minute total) and no more pinholes.

 

[m00dawg]

Not sure this would apply to Rollei IR: with Kodak HIE I would get pinholes if I used any Stop Bath; I now use plain water (2 water baths for one minute total) and no more pinholes.

Ah good to know! I actually also use a water stop already. I thought it might be the developer since the last few I've had to develop in HC-110 and Microphen. But nope I had a sheet from last year I souped in Xtol and have a few. They're not super distracting in the print but they're there. Maybe it's because I'm using a rotary process I wonder?

Andrew, by crinkcles, I mean it can be easy if you're not careful to crease the sheet. In particular when loading PrintFiles I have to be quite careful. I've done it a few times, though thankfully it doesn't seem to have affected the results. It's probably causing some distortion but not that I've noticed. I'm with you on double loading. I've almost done that a few times, but was able to catch it (it's given me a bit of OCD in checking and re-checking my film holders though )

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not sure this would apply to Rollei IR: with Kodak HIE I would get pinholes if I used any Stop Bath; I now use plain water (2 water baths for one minute total) and no more pinholes.

I used stop bath with HIE and I never had pin holes, but you are spared from the pinholes since HIE has been discontinued for years.

 

[mshchem]

I recall Photo Engineer commenting that a key chemical that is required was no longer available in commercial quantities. Not sure if I'm recalling correctly.

 

[AgX]

Films or plates with spectral sensititivity beyond 850nm were made by several manufacturers decades ago.

 

[Scott J.]

How do you avoid pinholes and crinkles and such with Rollei IR? I too get lovely results from it. Though as noted in the other thread, am very much looking forward to HR50 if we see it in 4x5. Lovely non-IR results, albeit quite different from Rollei IR (which itself looks good when shot normally) but while I haven't tried it in IR, having hopefully standard thickness sheets would be really nice.

I've never gotten pinholes or crinkles with Rollei IR400 (I too use a water-only stop bath) but it is still somewhat finicky due to having a very thin film base. Loading the sheets into film holders can be difficult if you get sweaty hands in the changing bag, so it's best to do so in a cool, dry place. With regard to development, I initially tried developing 4x5 sheets of IR400 in my HP Combi Plan (a great 4x5 tank) but the flimsiness of the film made it prone to getting pushed off the rails during agitation. I had similar problems doing rotary development in a Jobo 2500 tank with the 4x5 reel (sans paddles). When I switched to using a Stearman Press SP-445, those problems went away. The design of that tank and its holders is good for keeping film locked in place. The SP-445 is similarly good for other films with thin bases, like Adox CMS II 20.

I've since gotten a set of paddles for the Jobo 2509n reel and suspect that's probably the key to keeping the film from flopping out during rotation, but haven't yet tested it.

 

[Team ADOX]

Given the long history that existed between Adox and Fotokemika/Efke, I was wondering if there have been discussions inside Adox about potentially reviving IR820 film (or something similar).

Discussion / evaluation yes, with the result that it would not be possible in the foreseeable future (mid term). Because of too much technological and economical hurdles, and a still too small market. Such a film would be a "niche in the niche of a niche" product.
We are a young and quite small company, operating in a high-tech industry and an extremely competitive market, and we have to make very wise decisions concerning the use and implementation of our limited resources.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

THE BEST THINGS IN LIFE ARE ANALOG.

 

[Scott J.]

Discussion / evaluation yes, with the result that it would not be possible in the foreseeable future (mid term). Because of too much technological and economical hurdles, and a still too small market. Such a film would be a "niche in the niche of a niche" product.

Understood. If nothing else, it's satisfying to know that it's something you've at least discussed internally. In the meantime, we'll keep supporting Adox. I'm excited to try XT-3 when it becomes available in the USA.

 

[Helge]

Discussion / evaluation yes, with the result that it would not be possible in the foreseeable future (mid term). Because of too much technological and economical hurdles, and a still too small market. Such a film would be a "niche in the niche of a niche" product.
We are a young and quite small company, operating in a high-tech industry and an extremely competitive market, and we have to make very wise decisions concerning the use and implementation of our limited resources.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

THE BEST THINGS IN LIFE ARE ANALOG.

You are probably right. But worth considering that should the opportunity arise, it could quickly become a rather big niche.
Something like HIE or Efkes IR did stuff even modded digital cameras can’t get near.
Don’t get me wrong.
Current IR film is excellent in a number of ways.
They are just clearly a Swiss Army knife.

 

[mshchem]

There's probably a larger market/demand for IR digital cameras. Unfortunately the film products available today, while nice to use, are not like the older true infrared films. I suspect that in the pre-digital era, commercial use, mapping etc accounted for the vast majority of IR film use. And that's not likely to come back.

 

[Helge]

There's probably a larger market/demand for IR digital cameras. Unfortunately the film products available today, while nice to use, are not like the older true infrared films. I suspect that in the pre-digital era, commercial use, mapping etc accounted for the vast majority of IR film use. And that's not likely to come back.

Efke made a rather good deep(ish) IR film on semi decrepit fifties machines. A product clearly aimed at the consumer.
If such a heroic effort it possible in recent history, it is still possible.
What puts many people off is the low sensitivity of the film in the IR range I suspect, and the need for expensive or hard to get at IR filters.
People are averse to carry a tripod and invest in equipment that has “one use”.

A high sensitivity IR film (even ISO 20 would suffice), where the peak was at or after 700 nm, so you could use a regular red/orange filters, would sell very well, I’m quite certain.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Efke made a rather good deep(ish) IR film on semi decrepit fifties machines. A product clearly aimed at the consumer.
If such a heroic effort it possible in recent history, it is still possible.
What puts many people off is the low sensitivity of the film in the IR range I suspect, and the need for expensive l or hard to get at IR filters.
People are averse to carry a tripod and invest in equipment that has “one use”.

A high sensitivity IR film (even ISO 20 would suffice), where the peak was at or after 700 nm, so you could use a regular red/orange filters, would sell very well, I’m quite certain.

That was the beauty of HIE. You could get excellent IR effects hand holding camera, with a #25 filter. I shot that stuff at EI 100, in my K1000, easily.

 

[Helge]

There's probably a larger market/demand for IR digital cameras.

The digital camera market is crashing and burning right now.

Making a substantial investment in a camera that can “only” shoot IR both from a manufacturers and customers viewpoint looks improbable.

Converted cameras are expensive and/or a risky endeavor. And you are probably not going to send a top end camera off for dedication to IR.

Phones are clunky as hell to hold a filter in front of and the resolution and speed makes SFX seem reasonable.

There is really no easy and readily available way to shoot IR handheld, apart from film (though barely as of now).

 

[Craig75]

The digital camera market is crashing and burning right now.

Making a substantial investment in a camera that can “only” shoot IR both from a manufacturers and customers viewpoint looks improbable.

Converted cameras are expensive and/or a risky endeavor. And you are probably not going to send a top end camera off for dedication to IR.

Phones a clunky as hell to hold a filter in front of and the resolution and speed makes HR-50 seem reasonable.

There is really no easy and readily available way to shoot IR handheld, apart from film (though barely as of now).

fuji (and others?) offer infrared versions of some of their cameras but they dont sell them to the public

 

[Lachlan Young]

Efke made a rather good deep(ish) IR film on semi decrepit fifties machines. A product clearly aimed at the consumer.

That was the beauty of HIE. You could get excellent IR effects hand holding camera, with a #25 filter. I shot that stuff at EI 100, in my K1000, easily.

The difference was that HIE had a significant 'green-gap' which minimised the cut-off filter needed, whereas the Efke material used a dye that extended deep into IR. Either way, both present the same two problems: the cost of buying/ synthesising the dye(s) in quantities that balance between life expectancy of the dye & the horrifying cost (middling hundreds Dollars/ Euros/ Pounds per gramme of dye); and the keeping of the film once coated - especially in regards to heat sensitivity, atmospheric radiation etc. The fact that HIE existed only on Estar bases suggests very strongly that it was really largely produced for aerial and similar photography. If it had had a bigger market for 'normal' use I suspect it would have been altered to coat on triacetate to cut down lightpiping etc.

Making a substantial investment in a camera that can “only” shoot IR both from a manufacturers and customers viewpoint looks improbable.

Any digital sensor without a Bayer array is usually pretty sensitive to UV and IR. The problem is whether it's worth the camera manufacturers putting them in regular bodies (as opposed to the camera heads offered by the machine vision companies).