Re: Ilford SFX 200

[Russell J Rosener <rrosener@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Bobbie Doyle wrote:

> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 18:03:22 +0100
> From: Bobbie Doyle <doyleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: infrared-photography@xxxxx
> To: rrosener@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Ilford SFX 200
> 
> Grain pops up again. If our photo store ever gets the Ilford in I will try
> it also. Especially if it's grainier than Konica. When I went in and
> asked for Ilford's new IR film, the man almost slapped my hand and said,
> "It's not an IR film!" Picky, Picky, Picky. He knew what I meant. So, it
> only peaks at 740 nm., it's not your basic panchomatic film from what I
> understand. But, I will try it for the grain.
> 
> Bobbi

For some reason Ilford is very adament NOT to call SFX an infrared film.
As you say it is not exactly run of the mill stuff either. According to
manufacturer'e data, the Ilford is only 10 nanometers short of the Konica.
That can't be a terrible difference. I wonder if it's because Ilford's
marketing dept. thinks IR film has a narrow slice of the photography
market, and they are trying to mainstream the film for better sales.

Seems perplexing. Is it not true that Kodak Technical Pan film is nearly
as sensitive to IR as Konica? Somebody who knows sensitometry could give
us the info?

Russ Rosener


------------------------------

Topic No. 4