Re: Maco IR

["Jaap Los" <imagefotografie@xxxxxx>]

HI,
My experience with MACO 820C for 35 mm is as follows:
Excellent wood effect on a sunny day with B+W092 filter (equiv. #89B) meter
set at ISO 50, metering without filter, before shooting put filter on the
lens. Developed in XTOL 1+1   20C during 12 minutes. See samples on my
website in gallery nr. 4
Same results on a partly cloudy day and meter set at ISO 25.

I tried once a #87 filter and found that the ISO setting should be around 12
or 6. I'm however not surprised at all. A #87C filter cuts all visible light
and the maximum IR-sensitivity ends at 820 NM, so there is a very small band
of IR light passing through and active!

So my advice for MACO is: stick to B+W092 or #89B or Helioplan 695 or 715
filtering. This accounts for 35 mm. For 4 x 5 inches there should be no
difference. Use XTOL in a dilution 1+1 and not lower. Also use at least 200
cc XTOL for every development i.e for 35 mm in a Paterson tank I use 200 cc
XTOL and 200 cc of water, together 400 cc of liquid although 300 cc will do
as a standard. Use your developer only once!  I maintain my opinion about
XTOL: it is really excellent and easy to use! Finally MACO promisses to
become a fine film.

Greetings,
Jaap Los
The Netherlands

See also my infrared photography homepage at:
http://home.wxs.nl/~losjb/hometest.html
with lots of infrared photographs, some of them lith-printed.

See alo my website
http://home.wxs.nl/~losjb/JBLhomepage.html
for those who are interested in company matters
----- Original Message -----
From: <GnsXEDGE@xxxxxxx>
To: <infrared@xxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 3:56 PM
Subject: Maco IR


> I've now finished my 4th test of Maco IR 4X5 and have concluded it is
> worthless. My first test was using a Wratten 87 filter at ISO 6. Using the
> times given by my meter (f 11 4") and developed in D76 for 12 minutes I
> received negatives that were at least 4 stops underexposed. My next test
was
> ISO 6 opened one more stop (f11 8") this gave me the same results. Next I
> tried something different I used a Wratten 87 filter for the time give by
my
> meter set at ISO 6 (f 11 10 ") then I removed the filter and exposed the
film
> for half the time my meter recommended without the filter at ISO 160 (f11
45)
> This gave me a slightly underexposed negative, but no IR effect. My last 2
> test were using the Wratten 87 filter and my meter set at ISO 3 plus 3-5
> stops overexposure. The last test were as follows: Meter: f16 8"-15" at
ISO 3
> no filter was used, actually exposed at f16 20", I received a nicely
exposed
> negative. f16 30" with 87 filter at least 4 stops underexposed f16 45" 87
> filter at least 4 stops underexposed.
> So my results are worthless, has anyone received anything at all from this
> film?
> *
> ****
> *******
> ******************************************************
> *  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
> *         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
> *       to                                           *
> *         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
> *----------------------------------------------------*
> *   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
> *  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
> ******************************************************
>

*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************