a tale of two films

I guess I've been on something of an infrared kick. This all began because I was bound and determined to shoot a roll of IR in the Holga before the semester began. That said, there's something highly (and I mean highly) addictive about infrared--about what it reveals, what it allows one to see. I didn't want to use up another roll of 120, so I loaded the Canon AE1 Program with a roll of Ilford SFX 200, setting my camera's iso at 25. I was eager to see what difference, if any, it would make to shoot infrared indoors. This worked out fairly well as the first day of shooting was an overcast, rainy-ish day--not the best day for shooting outdoors. I was also eager to see what impact (if any) infrared film would have on skin.


















I was really pretty pleased with the flower shots and the soft, almost retro look I was able to achieve here.















































I think I shot about half of the roll indoors. The next day was a much better weather day, so I took things outdoors. My primary goal with the outdoor shots was to compare the Ilford SFX 200 (which, according to one poster on flickr is not a "true IR film, but a film with extended red sensitivity [meaning that] the IR effect will be less than 'real' infrared films") with Rollei 400 IR. What appears left and below is a sampling of the outdoor shots I took with the SFX 200.



















































Here, by way of a visual comparison then, is a sampling of the images shot on Rollei 400 IR film, beginning with the image left, titled "Ruin," which is one of my favorite images from this shoot. It may be important to note that the day got increasingly nice (i.e., clear and sunny) as it went on. In this way, there were far more opportunities to shoot in direct sunlight later in the day (after I had loaded the camera with the Rollei film) than when I first headed out with the SFX still in the camera. This being the case, I can't offer as accurate a comparison as I'd like to have offered. Perhaps the fact that I was shooting indoors combined with the fact that many of the outdoor shots I took with the SFX were not taken in direct sunlight makes SFX seem, indeed, less infrared-y than the Rollei 400 film. I'd also note that I kept the camera set at an iso of 25 while working with the Rollei 400 film. Both rolls were developed with Diafine. For both rolls, I used my Visico 720 IR filter.

pyr-rific?

I finally purchased and tried some PMK Pyro. Not sure where or when I first read about pyro developers, but I had promised myself (along with buying and mixing up a new batch of Diafine) that once I moved, I would purchase some pyro as well. Not sure why I decided on the PMK--it was between that or the WD2D+. Based on what I had read about the nastiness of this stuff (toxic-city), I had hoped to get the liquid version and avoid inhaling more of the stuff than I had to. And, of course, rubber gloves were a must. I've not done a whole lot of research on pyro--just enough to know: 1. that the stuff is pretty toxic; 2. that the solution stains the negatives--kinda like a caffenol dev, and 3. that there is debate over whether or not the pyro look is all that different from the look/s that can be had using other b/w developers.

I ordered the liquid pmk pyro from freestyle photo. For 32.49 I got enough of the A and B solutions for 50 liters. Importantly, with this one shot developer, you mix it when you need it and only as much as you need. Though the directions say that you should mix at least 500 ml of solution. Like Rodinal (or more specifically, like doing stand developing with Rodinal), you don't use much of the solutions at a time. It's 1 part A, 2 parts B for every 100 parts water. Unless, as I understand it, you are developing infrared film--in that case, it's 2:4:100. Still, it's easy to see that the solutions will last a good long time.

To be fair, it's a fairly time consuming and high-maintenance process. Especially when compared with Rodinal stands (low maintenance to the max) or color developing with Tetenal C41 (a fairly speedy dev process). Never mind that you're wearing (or should be wearing) gloves and a face mask and glasses or googles during the dev process. I couldn't find an exact dev time for the expired efke kb 400 film I was developing, so I went with 15 minutes, averaging out the times given for Ilford HP5+ and Agfa APX 400. The tricky part is that you have to do vigorous inversion agitation every 15 seconds (yikes) for the whole development time. Took some getting used to. . .though that said, I never invert. Too messy/leaky. My tank came with an agitator wand, so I use that instead. After the film has had its water stop bath and fixer, you put it back into the spent developer for another 2 minutes, agitating every 30 seconds. After that it's a 20-30 minute wash. It is, as I understand it, during the wash that the stain increases. So in addition to being a toxic process (at least to start. . .as I understand it, the chemicals weaken throughout the process, hence the reason why you mix only as much as you need when when you need it), it's not a process that is given to conserving water.

The jury (well, my jury, anyway) is still out on the results I've gotten from pmk pyro. I love the look of these images, the richness of the blacks, the grays, etc. but I'm not sure that I notice a huge, huge, difference here. Or maybe I just like the images themselves, the subject matter, etc. By the by, all the images featured here were taken with the Canon AE1 Program. Of late, it's really been my go-to camera--especially for all the "interiors" shots I've been doing lately.

I would really like to try infrared with pmk pyro. From what little I've read and seen, it's said to decrease a bit of the infrared effect but deepens shadows. Or something like that. In the end, I'm glad that I tried this, and will likely try it again. It definitely won't be my go-to process in that way Diafine or Rodinal stands are, but I think I like the results. Maybe even a lot.

under consideration: sabre "620"

I feel like I waited forever to test this camera. I don't recall exactly when or why I bought it. Likely, I saw that someone else on Flickr had it and found it for a good price. I do remember this is one I bought online. Having only recently learned to successfully respool 120 film onto 620 spools, buying a 620 camera had been, for me, something of a gamble. This was especially the case if the camera was not the sort that could be used for ttv [through the viewfinder] photos. Case in point--the ansco rediflex. When I bought this I knew it wouldn't accept 120 film. Turns out it wouldn't accept 35mm either. But I liked the way it looked and knew that others were doing really great ttv work with it. . .though ttv has never been something I've done at all well. Long story short, I am really glad I bought the rediflex since, having learned to respool the film, it has turned out to be one of my favorite, go-to 120 film cameras.

It doesn't look as though I'll be saying the same thing about the sabre "620." A bit of background: According to Camerapedia, the sabre "620" "was manufactured from c1956-72 by Shaw-Harrison and was available in several colors."

Anyhoot. There are very few cameras about which after doing the test roll I will say, "all right. that's good. that's enough. no more." But this was one of them. If I had a place to put retired cameras (i.e., cameras that I'll likely never use again but don't want to sell or give away), I would have put it there last week. The camera is cute, that's for sure. And I was pleased to see that the shutter fired properly and whatnot. Problem is, there's nothing the camera does that another cheap, plastic box-cam can't do and (imho) do much better.

For this test roll, I used 400 speed artista edu ultra (perhaps too high of a film speed for the camera) and developed the roll in solution B of Kodak HC-110. Despite having that puppy taped, the light leaks were fairly pronounced with this camera. That is especially apparent in the last image below--an image of the Thomas Viaduct in Patapsco Valley State Park. The camera clearly does a better job producing sharpness (or at least areas of sharpness) at closer distances--say 4-5 feet. Again, my feeling is that the camera produces images that are, to my mind, like "eeaah." whatever. And I was really hoping for something special, interesting or unique. At the very least, I was hoping for results that were closer to those I'd get with the Diana or maybe Holga. Especially after seeing this image on Flickr. I was really hoping for results like that. Ah well. I guess they can't all make my top 5 picks!