Kodak HIE - The Best Infrared Film?

I have been working on a photo project revolving around the Kudzu vine -- just one of the invasive plant scourges in the South, and certainly the most infamous.  I wanted to do something a little different, and realized that I still had ONE roll of Kodak’s HIE - High Speed Infrared Film which had an expiration date of 11/2007.  It came from my deceased friend Marc Akemann’s stash of film, and I’d been keeping it in the fridge since 2019.  Hmm, what better use than shooting some Kudzu with it?  

Since 2000, I have shot a few rolls of HIE, and I always felt that for a special project, shooting b&w infrared is something to behold.  Unfortunately, Kodak HIE has been out of production for well over a decade.  What I really like about it is that you don’t need to use a nearly opaque R72 filter to get the “Wood effect” - which is that ghostly glow to leaves that make the IR world so much fun.  All you need with HIE is a red 25A filter.  On top of that, you don’t even have to use a meter - under full sun, set your exposure to 1/60 sec at f/16.   It’s that easy.  You want full sun for the best results, anyway.   My roll of HIE had always been refrigerated, and as an ISO 400 film, that is a good thing.  That’s one of the reasons I like HIE - it’s very simple to use, and you can shoot it without a tripod.  

In comparison, you must use an opaque IR filter with the Rollei IR films, as well as the FPP 200 ISO IR film.  That definitely requires a tripod, because you have to set up your shot without the R72 filter, then attach it and make your exposure, if you are using an SLR.  If I am using the FPP IR film, then it is about 8 stops of filtration, so that makes it basically an ISO 0 .75, or about 1/2 to 1 second exposures at f/16.  Tripod city, for sure. As far as I know, no other IR film comes close to HIE for its versatility, ease of use, and excellent results.  I wish Kodak would make  it once more.

I find it best to use a fully manual camera with any IR film, because the meter is going to be pretty much useless.  I use my Nikon F with a plain prism finder.  It also has a very good sealing back, and no features that would introduce fogging of the IR film.  Load your IR film indoors, if possible.  In the case of HIE, there is no anti-halation layer, and there is light-piping if you are not careful.  Light-piping is where the film base acts something like a piece of fiber-optic, carrying the light into the unexposed sections of film. Something to be avoided, for sure. 

I loaded my Nikon F at home, and used a 25A red filter on a 35mm f/2.8 non-Ai Nikkor lens.  I set my exposures to 1/60 at f/16, as well as 1/30 at f/16, or 1/60 at f/11.  I shot in full sun, and when I developed the film I used Rodinal at 1:25 for 9 minutes at 20°C.

Results

It had been enough years since I have used this film that I was actually worried that I might not get good results, but damn, that film came through, and I was not disappointed with a single shot.  I scanned the negatives on my Epson V700, and here are some of the results below.

My friend Bill Pivetta took the Nikon F from me and shot a couple of shots of me with it, and talk about a striking image...

That was taken outside of the Highland Brewery in Asheville, and I shot these there, too.

On my quest for Kudzu, I found a nice patch of it along Riverside Rd. between Asheville and Woodfin.  

The French Broad River with the tree-covered hills made for some contrasty images.

Lastly, all vines look interesting in IR, as these grapes and background vegetation appear with a dark sky.

Yes, you can use digital to get an IR image, and I have done it. However, I love the way films render subjects under IR, and especially Kodak HIE.  I love how easy it is to get the Wood effect with HIE, and the ease of developing the film.  

One of my sources of information on Infrared photography has been the book, “The Art of Infrared Photography” by Joseph Paduano.  ISBN #0-936262-03-6.  His simplified chart of exposing Kodak HIE is as follows:

Approximate outdoor exposures with a No. 25 red filter

• Direct Sunlight - 1/60 sec  at f/16
• Hazy, barely discernable shadows- 1/30 at f/16
• Light cloud cover - 1/30 at f/11
• Moderate rain - 1/15 at f/8

If you set your aperture to f/16 and are using a wide-angle lens, you really don’t need to use the IR mark on your lens barrel for the IR focus point.   While recently-expired HIE is hard to find, I see some of it on eBay - but it’s usually from the late 1980s, and at crazy prices.  I’d stay away from those sales - it’s likely to be fogged from age, and probably not refrigerated.  

If you want to give black and white infrared film a try, here are a few alternatives that will work pretty well, but probably not as easily as Kodak HIE.

SFX 200 with a variable IR filter (2016)

All of the films listed below will give you best results with an R72 filter. That being said, I highly recommend using a camera that isn't an SLR, so that you can compose through the viewfinder.  You aren't going to be using a TTL meter anyway, so a fully manual camera is preferred.  For 35mm, a rangefinder camera or zone-focus such a Rollei 35 will do, so long as you are able to have B exposure, or at least 1 second shutter speed.  For 120, I highly recommend a TLR, or if you have a rangefinder medium format, that'll work too.  Some folks have even used Holgas with an R72 filter.  You'll be able to find R72 filters in most sizes, but you can also get adapter rings to fit whatever you need.  

Ilford SFX 200 is a near-IR film that with a dark red filter, will give somewhat of a Wood Effect.  Some people use an R72 filter for better results.  Again, you’ll need to use the filter factor with any dark red or R72 filter to see what your exposure will be on a sunny day.   SFX 200 is available in 120 and 35mm

Film Photography Project BW IR.  This 200 ISO film requires a R72 filter in full sunlight for the best effect.  You can also use a deep-red filter for less dramatic effect. 35mm only. 

Rollei Infrared 400 - needs a R72 IR filter for the full effect.  It’s available in 120 and 35mm, and also in 4x5 sheets.

Rollei Retro 80s - I have seen examples with an R72 filter, and I am impressed.  With an R72 filter, try 1/2 to 1 sec at f/16 on a full sun day. Available in 120 and 35mm.

Rollei Retro 400s - I have it on good authority that this film will also produce the Wood Effect with a deep red or R72 filter.  It’s available in 120 and 35mm.  

JCH Street Pan 400 - An R72 filter makes this a very interesting IR film to try out. 35mm only.

CatLABS X 320 Pro - From the CatLABS site - "Unique IR capabilities with extended sensitivity in the 750nm range: use an R72 type IR filter and use ISO 3-5 on your light meter for best results. IR photography can "see through" rain/mist and provide a unique rendering of plant life and leaves. "  The film is available in 35mm and 120.

Thanks to those of you have reached out to me regarding this post, and I have updated the information because of your suggestions.  

Producing Home and Farm News

8.5 x 11, 64 pages + covers.

My latest issue of Monochrome Mania, No. 13, is titled Home and Farm News.  Since I started Monochrome Mania, I have been producing three issues a year, until 2024.  I started working on the idea for the issue a few years ago, and kept photographing, and could not come up with a narrative I was happy with until this spring.  Home and Farm News is about my mother-in-law’s farmhouse and the farm, and stories from her about growing up and raising a family.   At first I envisioned a sort of impersonal story where the farm and farmhouse was the “universal” story about sold farms and the farmhouse.  But my initial approach was flawed.  It needed to be relatable and personal.  So, I interviewed Charlotte (my MIL) last year, and finally found a program that would convert the audio interview (90 minutes) into text. Believe me, that was a huge time-saver, and I was able to come up with text that I could weave into a narrative.  The interesting aspect of the program was that it also generated an AI summary of the interview, which was this:

The interview covers the life stories and memories of Charlotte Murphy and her family. Key topics discussed include her father's dairy farming background in New York, her parents' courtship and marriage, her childhood experiences like having pneumonia and visiting Florida, her college years at Middlebury as an English major, her work at the local bank, her marriage to Jim, the family's involvement in dairy farming, the tragic barn fire that impacted their business, her children's careers in nursing and horticulture, her fondness for baseball stemming from listening to Brooklyn Dodgers games with her father, and reflections on life lessons like financial prudence and maintaining good health.

I was actually quite impressed with that!  But worry not, no AI was used in MY writing, nor the images.  The impetus for the Home and Farm News was this, as explained in an excerpt from this issue:

“Over my many years of photography, I regret not making photos of the Murphy farmhouse back in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  At that time, being a young man, I didn’t really have the conceptual framework to do documentary photography, let alone photographing to record what might someday be lost.  It wasn’t until 2000 that I started taking photography seriously as a means of expression, exploration, and self-discovery. By that time, any trips back to New York State were infrequent, and hence, more meaningful in terms of documentary work. It wasn’t until 2020 when COVID disrupted our normal ways that an awareness took hold that I SHOULD put something together to at least memorialize the farmhouse.  It’s easiest to do absolutely nothing, but then to regret that nothing was done.  So, while the effort to bring all the photos together is one aspect, so too, is the task to create some sort of narrative. I do believe that while a good photograph does not necessarily need to have any explanation, photographs do not exist in a vacuum, and removing the context from a photograph may reduce or obfuscate its intended purpose. So, creating a narrative for this work is essential in making the images speak with more clarity, even when the image itself may not be sharp or defined.”

 Of course, aside from the text, there have to be many photographs, and choosing the ones to include from the hundreds of images was certainly a task. However, it was made easier by the decision to have the images follow the text, and even when there was no caption for the image, it was obvious in what sequence it belonged.  

This was a personal project for me, as my long-time association with the family and the farm gave me a different viewpoint from the family members that grew up there.  I wanted to be able to tell Charlotte’s story, as well as how I perceived the farm.  Another impetus was wanting to finish the issue and have it printed and available in time for Charlotte’s 98th birthday - which I did.  

My instincts were correct, as I have received many heartfelt responses from the readers who are not family members. Most importantly, Charlotte loved the result.  While I didn’t cover every aspect of her life in the 64 pages — who could?— I believe that readers come away with a better appreciation of farm life, and how a house becomes the container of many memories.  Once the family no longer lives in that house, there will be little to connect it with the past, and I wanted to impart how those memories are intertwined with the physical objects.  

apologies to Wright Morris.

I used a variety of cameras, both film and digital, to make the b&w images used in the issue.  The last photos taken were done with my friend Bill Pivetta’s Hasselblad 503CX that he loaned me in 2023.  My suggestion for anyone doing a project such as this is to use every available tool that you have, as it’s the image that is important, not the camera or film that you used, or type of imaging sensor.  You can tell a story with a 6 megapixel 20 year old digicam, or with large format cameras, and everything in between.  The important thing is to document what you see.  I loved photographing the inside of the farm house early in the morning, before anyone else was up.  The peacefulness and the incoming light was always inspirational.  Also, I often used a tripod, as some exposures were around a second or two.  I never used flash, just ambient light.  

Here are some of my favorite images from the issue, and if you are interested in buying a copy, I am selling them in my Etsy store at $16 + shipping (US only).  

The Praktica MTL3 - solid and simple

Over the last 50 years, I have certainly encountered my share of cameras from the other side of the former “Iron Curtain.”  In fact, my first SLR in 1973 was an Exa 1a, which was my only camera aside from a Kodak Instamatic for about 8 years.  While that Exa 1a had its shortcomings, I took some pretty decent photographs with it.  Alas, I’m not a fan of Exaktas, because as beautiful as they look, they are too damned fiddly and the left-handed film advance just isn’t for me, not to mention the lack of wide-aperture lenses due to the narrow lens mount opening.   But enough about Exakta.  

Another post WWII East-German manufacturer,   K.W. (Kamera-Werkstatten), became part of the V.E.B. Pentacon group in 1964.  So, Praktica is also part of the Pentacon brand, which means that there are Praktica SLRs  with the K.W. branding, as well as Contax D, Pentacon and Praktica SLRs under the VEB Pentacon umbrella.  Confusing, right?  I find it ironic that Zeiss-Ikon (West Germany) put so much energy in to making the Contaflex line of lens-shutter SLRs, while the East German Pentacon made superior focal-plane shutter SLRs with M-42 mount lenses.  It’s obvious, in the lens of hindsight, which system has had a greater impact on photography from the 1950s onward.  The sheer number of M-42 mount cameras and lenses is impressive, and while many people might not know about Prakticas, they might know about Pentax Spotmatics, which used the M-42 mount.  If you have read some of my previous posts about M-42 cameras, you know that I enjoy using them.  For one, there are a lot of M-42 SLRs out there that you can still buy for a fraction of their actual value. 

A late 1950s Pentacon F SLR

I’ve previously owned several different Prakticas - a Super TL, back in 2001.  That model was made between 1968-1975, and has a horizontal cloth focal plane shutter, and only 1/500 sec maximum shutter speed.  A Praktica LB2, which has an external selenium meter (discussed here).  In 2009, I purchased a late 1950s-made Praktica FX3, which has a waist-level finder. I wish that I’d saved that nice little 50mm Tessar lens from that one.  I also tried out a Praktina FX from the early 1950s, which had a special bayonet mount.   I currently also own a Pentacon F, made in the late 1950s, that is pretty much the same as a Contax D.  That brings me around to discussing this camera, the Praktica MTL3.  

The Praktica MTL3 was manufactured from 1978-1984, and features a match-needle stop-down metering display in the viewfinder.  Typical for many SLRs of the time, the shutter speeds are B, and 1 sec- 1/1000 sec.  The body has a standard ISO hotshoe, self-timer, and front-mounted shutter release which has the metering button nearby.  ISO settings are 12-1600.  A small triangle on the left side of the viewfinder indicates that you have not cocked the shutter.  The MTL3 also features a vertical metal-bladed shutter, which in my opinion, lasts longer than the typical horizontal rubberized cloth shutters used in so many cameras of the time - Minolta, Pentax, Canon, and a slew of other brands, except Nikon.  

So, it’s fair to say that while the MTL3 doesn’t have any unique features, it IS a well-made, robust metal-bodied SLR that has an accurate meter (even with a 1.5V alkaline cell replacing the 1.3V mercury cell), and as a fan of the +/- meter display, it’s perfect for someone learning film photography. The shutter IS loud, but I have heard louder.  Comparing it to a Pentax Spotmatic is appropriate, since they take the same lenses.  The Spotmatic is certainly more sleek and lighter,  but the Praktica MTL3 will certainly get the job done.  There are some really excellent reviews of this camera online, so I am not going to spend more writing about its features here.  Of the different Prakticas that I have used, it’s the one that I would not hesitate to take along on a trip.   It’s certainly a more refined camera than a Zenit, and it is also rather attractive.  I’m pretty sure that with a couple of different lenses - a wide-angle and a short tele, as well as a nifty-fifty, you could make it your go-to SLR.  It’s not flashy, it’s not expensive, but it does operate well, and is easy to use.

Some sample photos from my first outing with the camera.  All shot on a roll of expired Kodak Gold 400 rated at ISO 200.  Downtown Asheville, NC.  Film developed by Ball Photo, and scanned by me on my Epson V700.

Shooting Kudzu - developed from Kudzu

Kudzu, the weed that ate the South- 2023 image

One of the wonderful aspects of film photography is the ability to develop your film in the way you choose.  Maybe you are strictly a one-developer for all films kind of person, or maybe you use a variety of developers, and choose depending on the film being used.  Or, maybe, you are one of those renegades that think using a non-traditional developer such as instant coffee is the way into enlightenment.  Some photographers eschew traditional photo chemistry for different reasons, but the most common reason is the lower impact on the environment.  But another reason is just to see what works, and if it’s more environmentally friendly, all the better. That’s the charm of using film -- there is no single path, and you can choose whatever gives you the results you desire.  

I’ll admit that for many years, I stuck with traditional developers, as I wanted results that I could depend upon, and I mostly still do. That’s not a bad thing.  If you are accustomed to the results that you get from D-76, Rodinal, or XTOL, or whatever favorite developer, that’s backed by many years of use and predictable outcomes, that’s what you’ll use.  Developers made from coffee? Nah!  How about botanicals? Nah!  Who wants to trust their film to some sketchy home-brewed concoction?  Well, the avant-garde photographers and experimenters would like a word.  Don’t be tied into the clutches of Kodak, Ilford, or those chemistry peddlers!  Create your own developer from whatever the hell you want!

Orwo NP55, developed in Caffenol, 2019

Okay, the last sentence was a little much, but to create your own developer isn’t just throwing jelly at a wall to see what sticks.  You need to be able to transform that latent image into a negative, and to do that requires a few components.  I am not going to go into the complex photochemistry developers, but the main purpose of the developer is to turn the silver halides in the latent image into metallic silver, which will appear as a darker grain in the gelatin matrix of the film. When properly developed, areas that did not receive any light will be clear, and areas that received light will be in various shades of gray to black.  Typically, that action is done by by the developing agent, and traditionally, that agent is phenidone, hydroquinone, or metol.  The addition of an accelerator to provide a higher pH, such as borax, sodium carbonate, or sodium hydroxide keeps the developing environment basic to enable the developer to work without depletion before the halides are fully affected. However, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) is also a developer,  but one that is not very strong, unless combined with another developing agent.  It’s also the least toxic developing agent.  A restraining agent is also used to avoid too aggressive development which results in fog.  That’s often Potassium bromide or Potassium iodide, but not all developers need them.

Are you confused yet?  To replace a commercial developer with a home-brew of less toxicity, you need a chemical that acts somewhat like phenidone, or that of a tanning or staining developer, such as Pyrogallol or Pyrocatechin.  Here is where things get interesting. Minute amounts of catechin are found in green tea.  If tea might work, what about coffee?  Its super power is caffeic acid.  Well, that works, but what about plants with green leaves?  So, you see where this is heading.  The problem is that we don’t know up front, what different plant chemistries are in relation to film developing.  But, given the penchant for experimentation, people have found materials that work as well as typical developers, but also with their unique characteristics.  Coffee, beer, wine, urine, tea, and various herbs have been used to make developers.  On their own, they can’t develop film, because the accelerator and ascorbic acid are needed.

So, on our mission to create a developer, we need:

• Some extract from organic material that contains catechins,  caffeic acid, or polyphenols
• Sodium carbonate for the accelerator
• Vitamin C to work with the organic material as the developer.
• maybe a restrainer - Iodized table salt 

You have probably heard of Caffenol as a developer, and there are numerous recipes for it. Caffenol works well, but has a few drawbacks, one being the expense of instant coffee, and the foul odor it has can be a real turnoff for some.  I have used caffenol a number of times and it is certainly a reliable developer that can be used for film and paper, but it does also stain the emulsion.  If you don't already have the ingredients, you can buy some pre-mixed from the Film Photography Project store. I have blogged about Caffenol several times, and it's a good developer if you want to try it out.  There are developer recipes that use green tea, and more recently, some photographers have gravitated to experimenting with locally-sourced herbs and leaves that can act as developing agents in concert with the above materials.  

In the past year, I have seen some very good results from Beatrice Thornton, a photographer based in California.  Her experiments with commonly available leafy plants to act as the basis for developers are quite impressive. (https://www.beatricevictoria.com/writingandreviews) Her work was in the back of my mind when I started working on a project with the invasive Kudzu vine.  My premise was to take photographs of Kudzu and use the Kudzu leaves to develop the film.  I had absolutely no idea if that would actually work, but I figured that I might at least get some thin negatives, if anything.

Riverside Drive, Aug. 2023, Leica M2, SHD 100 film

On June 14, I took a little drive along the French Broad River near Asheville, and found a spot with plenty of Kudzu growing along the roadside.  I took some photos of the Kudzu, and picked enough leaves to fill a plastic grocery sack.  I then went to some other places that I knew I would find plenty of photogenic Kudzu, and a few worked out, because I was also shooting with two cameras - my Nikon FM3A with Eastman 5231 (expired) for the film to be developed in the Kudzu. My Nikon F was loaded with Kodak HIE IR film (expired 2007), so I needed the leaves to be in strong sunlight.  

After I returned home, I put some of the Kudzu leaves into a 1 quart stainless pan and nearly filled it, making sure that I ripped the leaves into smaller pieces to facilitate the process of extracting whatever botanicals I might get.  I then poured enough boiling water to fill the pot and cover the leaves, and let it sit covered for about 5 hours.  

Making the  "Kudzol" developer

I poured the strained yellowish liquid into a plastic container and ended up with 1 liter of extract.  To make the developer, I did the following:

1000 ml of Kudzu extract

6 Tablespoons of Sodium Carbonate

2 Tablespoons of Vitamin C (crushed in a pestle from tablets)

1/4 teaspoon of Iodized Salt (restrainer) 

The temperature of the liquid at this point was 24°C, and because it was getting late, I decided to go ahead and use it at that temp.  With the addition of the other ingredients, the solution was a darker color.

I put the Eastman 5231 in a 500 ml developing tank, and filled the tank with the developer. I decided on a time of 16 minutes, with 3 inversions every 30 seconds.  I really had no guide here, as I was just extrapolating from a caffenol recipe and the 24°C temperature.  I used a water stop as usual, and then 8 minutes in fixer, and the typical Ilford wash technique.

When I took the reel out of the tank, and unrolled the film, I was thrilled to see that I had negatives!  The emulsion was definitely stained by the developer, but what I could see looked quite good.  The next morning, I scanned the negatives on my Epson V700 scanner at 3200 dpi. The scans came out quite good with just some minimal tweaking afterwards.  

As you can see, these look like any other negative processed in typical chemistry, but with a yellowish tint to the emulsion.  Upon closer inspection, I think that if I had gone with 14 or 15 minutes, the negatives might be perfect, but as you can see from the following images, the results are very good.  If I were to do this at 20°C, I would estimate the time at 20 minutes.  For high-ISO films, you could add a teaspoon of iodized salt or even omit it, but I have not tested it for those films yet.  The Eastman 5231 is a silver-rich emulsion with an ISO of 80 (it’s expired film).

The beginning of the roll.  On US23 near Dillsboro, NC

The source of the Kudzu leaves

slowly enveloping

The same truck shown from 2023 just a few days ago

reach for the sky

young shoots

At the end of the roll in my yard. Hosta flowers

Final thoughts on Kudzu developer

What drove me to this was the “what if?” without worrying about failure.  While I had no preconceived idea of the result, I did know that others have used various botanical extracts to develop film.  So, I figured that I might get something.  I didn’t know what the quality of the results would be, so I am very pleased with what I got.  The experiment has taught me to trust my instincts, and to try out the unusual for a change.  It also shows that Kudzu can be used for something!  So, don’t be afraid to give this a try.  

I can't stress this enough...

WARNING - If you are unsure of what vining plant you are pulling leaves from, please take the time to know the difference between Poison Ivy and Kudzu!  That applies to any plant that you might harvest to make a concoction with.  Know your plants before you start picking anything.

I am not responsible for your mistakes.