Note to AOL users: You will not be able to read this page using AOL. Please contact members services about u Apogee Photo Magazine sing Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer. In 

Apogee Photo takes a First Look
at Ilford SFX 200 film

by Michael Fulks

This begins the first in a series of explorations into this new film. Here are results of the first tests.

Several months ago, Ilford introduced its 200SFX film. We thought it was time APOGEE PHOTOGRAPHY MAGAZINE tried it out. Much of the pre-release hoopla by the media touted this product to be Ilford's entry into the infrared film market. Ilford's own representatives down-played that idea because, as we shall see, 200SFX is not an "true" infrared film, but rather a "extended red" special effects film.

In testing this film, I decided to compare and contrast it to Konica 750nm IR film, one of my favorites. Like Ilford's film, Konica has also been described as a "extended red" film, because its sensitivity does not extend far into the infrared. Unlike Kodak's infrared film whose sensitivity extends to 900nm and beyond, Konica peaks at 750nm extending to about 800nm, while Ilford's sensitivity ends at 740nm (See fig. 6&7). 700nm is considered the limit of visible light.

Of course, being limited to this lower wavelength has its benefits, as both Ilford and Konica films are easy to handle and can be loaded in subdued light--unlike Kodak's film, which must be loaded and unloaded to and from the camera in complete darkness. Further, Kodak IR is sensitive to the salts in the skin, something I did not observe in the other two films. In addition, both "extended red" films boast a fairly fine grain and excellent tonal qualities--as opposed to Kodak's extremely grainy film.
On the downside, Kodak's Infrared film produces the characteristic IR effects which photographers who specialize in this area have come to expect. These IR effects are, of course, white foliage; glowing, almost other-worldly skin tones; and stark black skies with white, white clouds. Experienced users have justifiably claimed that Konica does not produce such striking results, although with careful exposure and filtration, results can be obtained which will surprise even the most ardent Kodak fan. As we shall see, however, Ilford film produces results different from what we have come to expect from either Konica or Kodak.
A trip to Florida this January gave me an opportunity to compare the Konica and Ilford films, providing unfrozen waters and green foliage, subjects unknown here in Colorado at this time of year. The location was Seminole Park in the Tampa/St Pete area of the Gulf coast. The park offered almost all of the elements we needed. On the chosen day, the sky was blue with wispy clouds, essential for a good sky-cloud combination. Also, large areas of open water were surrounded by both coniferous and deciduous trees. The ground, up to the water's edge, was covered by lush green grasses. These elements were chosen deliberately. Green grass and deciduous trees should record white on infrared film. Coniferous trees are a slight problem with Konica as they tend to turn out very "contrasty," ranging from bright white at the end of the needles to near-black in the interiors. Finally, the water was an important element to include, because infrared film can render large areas of still water almost black.
In doing the actual shooting, I bracketed plus/minus one stop of the suggested exposure index of each film. (Konica has an EI of 25, while Ilford has an EI of 200. In this case, we use "EI" instead of "ISO" as these films are not rated in the conventional manner.) I shot a sequence with no filter, with a red 25 filter and a 89 Wratten filter with each film. The Wratten filter transmits light at about 750nm. This is the filter I use with Konica film for the most noticeable IR effect. Although Ilford does not extend to 750nm, I wanted to see for myself what would happen. Its literature said that results can be obtained with this filter, albeit with extremely long exposure times.
Konica Infrared comes in both 120 and 135 formats. The 35mm version is available in 24 exposure only. Ilford SFX200 comes only in 35mm in 36 exposure rolls. I shot the excess of the Ilford film in general area shots of subjects which I could previsualize as if I were using an infrared film.
I developed the Konica as I usually do in Rodinal 1:25, 6 minutes at 20 degrees C. The Ilford was developed according the instructions on the box using D-76. When the film had dried, I contacted each using an exposure that rendered the film base black.
Differences in the films were immediately apparent. First, the images shot with the Wratten filter on Ilford were almost non-existent. Some image did record, so it might be possible to determine a speed at which an acceptable image would result. The Konica sequence recorded well.
Second, upon examining the bracketed sequence, I noticed another dissimilarity. Both Konica and Kodak films are very sensitive to exposure. Plus or minus 1/2 stop will result in printable negatives with very different looks. As I have mentioned in previous articles, as exposure increases, there is a tendency for the higher values of the scene to compress, increasing the appearance of contrast and, thereby, the "IR effect." Overexposure tends to create images which are almost all blacks and whites with no middle tones. This tendency was very apparent in the Konica bracketed sequences. Stepping through these sequences, I could see the contrast of the sky-clouds combination increase and see the deciduous trees emerge from the darker coniferous background. With the Ilford film, however, the image appeared to become denser without a shift in tones. This was the same behavior I have observed in ordinary B/W film. It should be noted that this lower apparent contrast is considered by Ilford as an improvement over other extended red and infrared films.

I printed the frames that appeared to be exposed best using the method I have described in previous articles. The results are figures 3, 4, and 5. Figures 3 and 4 are the Ilford samples. Figure 3 is with no filter, while figure 4 was shot with a red 25 filter. Figure 5 is the same scene recorded with Konica and a red 25 filter. The differences in these three shots is readily apparent.
Let's look at the two Ilford examples. In the one without the filter, notice how the grasses tend to be uniformly dark and uninteresting. This was what we might expect in an ordinary B/W film and why B/W photographers use a variety of color filters. That is, with the use of orange and yellow filters, a separation can be obtained which renders the green of the grasses a more "realistic" tonal representation. With the addition of the red filter, we can see we achieved a more natural-looking rendition without the "unnatural" effect of infrared. The Konica film is not what we would call realistic. The image is obviously a shot taken with an IR film or standard B/W film with an extreme red filter.

Let's now look at figures 6 and 7. I don't think I have to tell you which is which. First, notice the sky. Next, look at the row of shorter deciduous trees in front of the taller conifers. See the grass along the water's edge, and finally, look at the reflections--or lack of them--in the water. Granted, there was a Konica frame which was not as contrasty, but there was nothing that looked like the Ilford film in this example. (Both of these figures link to larger images. Click on both for a larger rendition, so you can see the details up close.)
Back in Colorado, I realized I should have shot a roll of plain B/W to see how it rendered this scene. That is the next test we shall do: comparing the Ilford film against their Delta film with and without red filters. Also, we need to have skin tones to compare. While I found the 65 degrees F. (18C) in Florida to be comfortable, I could not convince any of the natives that the weather was warm enough for them to pose for nude shots.
I think, however, we have enough data to draw some conclusions. First, there is a great potential for Ilford 200SFX film, although not as a true infrared film. Its potential is in its ability to separate tones which normally might be rendered as one, or as unnaturally dark. In fact, this is a talent in which both Konica 750nm and Ilford 200SFX excel.
The late Jack Droze, a well-known Denver photographer, used Konica extensively, with an orange filter, in his last days doing landscapes and environmental nudes rendered in a more "natural way." Most people could not tell that his film of choice was an infrared film. Using the medium format version, his prints were almost grainless with beautiful tones. But what caught the eyes of those in the know were the beautiful skin tones and separation of middle tones, especially in the foliage areas. The trees and grass were not white, but a wide variety of tones, a result which might cause other B/W photographers to stop and say, "Wait a minute! How'd he do that?"
I think Droze would have enjoyed Ilford's 200SFX film, especially if it were in a 120/220 format. (The lack of a medium format is a serious limitation.) The shots from my tests using a red filter remind me of his kind of image. I am certainly going to explore this film further, not as an infrared, but as a special effects film capable of rendering subject and scenes in pleasing, but "non-conventional" ways.
I encourage you to buy a roll and try this film for yourself. In a few months, I will tell you more about my results. I would like to see yours. Come summer, we will have an Ilford 200SFX gallery to accompany another article on the subject. Be sure to send us your best shots.