KONICA Infrared Film

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

I just called PASCO film to confirm or deny the rumour that the KONICA infrared film was being discontinued. PASCO replied that the rumour was fact.

I really like this film because it is easy to handle AND because it came in the 120 size.

PASCO also stated that they sold a good deal of this film.

Does anyone know how to effectively complain to KONICA ?


-- Bruce Karnopp (karnopp@umich.edu), July 31, 2000


I note that they have also dropped their ISO 3200 film. My guess is that someone did a cost analysis and realized that professional specialty products neither contribute to the sales of their mass market products nor make money by themselves (or that the marginal return is far below that of mass-market film). This is Fuji's approach in North America (only market high-volume films). Fortunately Kodak has historically felt that being a complete line provider increased their brand value, although they seem to be retreating from this and dropping more films and sizes (like infrared in 4x5 and Tri-X long rolls in 70mm).

-- John Lehman (al7jj@yahoo.com), July 31, 2000.

Check out the IR mailing list for up to date info about IR films

I bought an old press camera and holders just to shoot HIE cut film one week before Kodak announced its demise. The camera looks good on my display shelf!

MACO in Germany is producing an 820nm film in 35, 120 and 4x5. I don't think it has reached the US yet (B&H has it listed on its web site, but is not available yet). The few pictures on the web of prints made from the new MACO film are what you would expect, more IR effect than Konica, but not the great "blown" effect of HIE. The MACO film has an anti-halation dye in the emulsion.

I'm beginning to think that I will have to live with the 35mm grain and learn to love it make smaller prints or try diffusion uinder the enlarger lens.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), August 01, 2000.

IR mailing list;

http://www.pauck.de/archive/mailinglist/infrared/mhonarc/idx_thread1.h tml#11812

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), August 01, 2000.

Ilford SFX is worth considering. I haven't gotten a chance to try it myself but the write ups and what a coworker said... Cheers

-- Scott Walton (scotlynn@shore.net), August 02, 2000.

Ah, NUTS!! Kodak is dropping HIE in 4x5, and I just bought two multi- exposure backs for my Graflex Super Graphic!

I shall shed tears in my coffee. :-(

Macophot sells their IR film in 4x5, but that stuff doesn't have the IR sensitivity of HIE. Of course, nothing in MF-LF would show the blown effects of HIE in 35mm, except for Hasselblad 35mm.

-- Brian C. Miller (brian.c.miller@gte.net), September 11, 2000.

One alternative for the Kodak problem is to get the aerial version of Kodak high speed infrared in 70mm and either shoot it in a 70mm back or cut it down to 120 size (you get sprocket holes on one side, but it works fine otherwise). I have even used it in a red window Ikonta.

-- John Lehman (al7jj@yahoo.com), September 11, 2000.

I have been buying Kodak IR in 4x5 and freezing it for future use. I'll keep buying it until the supply dries up. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), September 11, 2000.

Well, I have finished developing my test rolls of Macophot IR. I haven't printed it or even looked at it through a loupe. I did develop it in Xtol 1+3, 68F.

This film has an antihalation layer, and it works marvelously. While this film is more spectrally sensitive than Ilford, it has far less bloom when overexposed. +3 stops over exposed did not produce any bloom detectable to my eye.

Initial impressions:

The recommended exposure and development will get you in the ball park, no problem. I shot this film with four sets of filters: B+W 090 (Kodak 25), 091 (Kodak 29), 092 (Kodak 70), Tiffen orange (21?), and no filter. Each filter was shot in a series of seven brackets: N, +/-1, +/-2, and +/-3. The +1 bracket looked like a slightly better negative than the N. The +3 bracket held deep shadows, but printing the negative would require much more work.

My developing steps: prewash, developer, stop bath, fixer, hypo clear, wash, LFN wash. The antihalation layer comes out with a wonderful blue-green color, and the hypo clear and subsequent wash also remove some more blueish dye.

Overall so far, I think this is good film. It's kind of slow, but the speed is in the ball park with Ilford.

-- Brian

-- Brian C. Miller (brian.c.miller@gte.net), September 18, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ