Rollei Retro 80s or 200s -- Is There a Comprehensive Comparison of Filters?
I'd like to try Rollei Retro 80s because I'm interested in its extended red sensitivity. I'm aware of Ilford SFX and other options but I've read that Retro 80s has much finer grain than the other offerings and its sensitivity extends a bit further into IR than SFX (750nm vs. 720nm). I don't want an extremely pronounced IR effect... just a noticible lightening of foliage and some darkening of sky and water. At the most I might want healthy green foliage rendered to an average of Zone VII in the final print. With a yellow or green filter or no filter at all I'd like to see a "nearly" normal panchromatic look.
I'd like to see examples shot with Wratten 25, 29, 70, 89B, 88A and B+W 092 filters... or their equivalents.
Wratten Filter Spectral Cutoff
#25 = 600nm
#29 = 620nm
#70 = 680nm
#89B = 720nm
#88A = 750nm
B+W Filter Spectral Cutoff
#092 = 650nm
So, does anyone have a link to such an extensive filter test with Rollei 80s? Actually, 200s would work too... or any other film with similar spectral sensitivity.
I use both films with a 720nm filter which works fine. If you have the appropriate light you get an obvious IR effect. But not in that extend like with real IR film which have a sensitivity beyond 800 nm.
The wood effect is there, you will have black water and black skies. An example: http://www.photoportale.de/index.php...bild&idx=33644
I shot this on Retro 80S with a 25A filter, I think rated around ISO 12. You do get some wood of the "Wood effect," but next time I'm gonna try using my new Hoya R72 which should definitely make it more pronounced.
Shooting this film unfiltered seems similar to shooting a normal film with a 25A filter. Skin tones are very light and smooth. Anyone planning on using this film for portraits should be aware of this; for male portraits especially it might be good to use a light blue filter. I need to experiment more.
Also, it's very easy to blow the highlights with this film. I rated the unfiltered film at 50 in D76 1+1, but I would have been better off rating it at box speed.
The Wood effect looks fairly pronounced to me even with a #25A filter. I didn't know that Rollei Retro 80s has very narrow exposure latitude but I researched it and sure enough, it does.
Have you tried the Rollei Superpan 200? It also has extended red sensitivity and in my tests it's about a stop faster with the 720nm filter than the 80s, plus the IR effect is more pronounced. Don't get me wrong, the 80s is a nice looking film and worth exploring. I just look for anything fast as I'm shooting pinhole at the moment. 30-60 minute exposures are not uncommon, but tough to do on your lunch break.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'll be shooting from f/11-f/22 most of the time. Speed will often be a concern but not always. Thirty-sixty minute exposures will be extremely uncommon for me.
If you plan on doing 30-60min exposures with any of these Rollei films, please report on the reciprocity characteristics. It would be interesting to know if any of these films are usable for astrophotography, as they're quite sensitive to the h-alpha emission line characteristic of many nebulae. But I've also heard that most IR films have terrible reciprocity failure.
^^^ Will do but I doubt I'll ever take any exposures approaching anywhere near an hour. I'm not completely ruling it out though.
My bad. I forgot to mention that those times were with a pinhole camera at f128, and not in direct sunlight. When your tests show 2-4 minutes in bright sunlight, times quickly get long. As far reciprocity is concerned, at these exposure times reciprocity factors itself in automatically if your exposure tests are in the "minutes" time frame.
I haven't found the reciprocity curve to be any worse than anything else.
I've been combing the internet myself lately for information about this film, although more with the goal of figuring out how to get as MUCH of a Wood effect from it as possible (I have long been hoping to turn one of the Rollei films into a workable replacement for Efke IR820c). But the comments above are consistent with what I have read for more normal usage - that if you don't want too pronounced an IR effect then you probably don't want a filter any redder than a 25A or so. Actually, I wonder if it would be best left unfiltered for the look you want? Some say that unfiltered it is like having a built-in yellow filter in terms of sky darkening. As for lightening foliage though, it seems to me that it must be something of a balancing act. On the one hand, the near IR sensitivity should help to lighten foliage, but the film is already less sensitive at the blue-green end of the spectrum to begin with. So I am wondering if adding a reddish filter might tend to cut out more of that relatively insensitive portion of the visible spectrum, and counter the lightening effect of the infrared? Anyway, my main concern with the film has been how to tame the high contrast reported for it. So many of the reports and images I have seen indicate that it is difficult to extract shadow details from this film, and because of that I am all twisted in knots thinking about different developers, possibly pull-processing, etc.
Just today I started a film test of my own, comparing Efke IR820c, Retro 80s, and Retro 400s for IR Wood effect, using an R72 filter. Exposures were done this afternoon in "sunny 16" conditions, but I am still vacillating on what development will prove most valuable for my first test (see above about contrast and shadow detail). Hopefully I will get that figured out and soon have some images of my own to show.
I like siguii's question about reciprocity too. Efke IR820 starts rolling off at about 1 second exposure time, but so far I haven't heard anyone identify a limit with the Rollei films. My hope is to dedicate a roll to measuring that myself, but I won't get to it until after I get it dialed in for IR use.
Last edited by Denverdad; 09-01-2014 at 04:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.