Topic: Infrared Photography

[phanophish]

All of the posts with cool time lapse photography and Franks great shots of macro long exposure Christmas lights reminded me of some playing with Infrared that I did a while back.  I've been meaning to do much more but have not had time and Infrared works much better in the summer because of the surrealistic effects on foliage.  Anyway it's a fun form of photography and really pretty easy to do.  The filter costs around $50-$75 depending on size.  You can also have a camera converted to infrared and then no longer need the filter and can use much more normal exposure times.

This is a small (now collapsed) old church near my parents home at Lake of the Ozarks.  I shot it with my D70 and 18-70 Kit lens, using a Hoya 89B infrared filter.  The camera is totally stock, i precompose the frame and focus, use a fairly small (around f11) aperture to help make up for the infrared focus shift, then install the filter, and bracket till I get a good exposure.  I think shutter speeds were around 8-12 seconds at ISO 200.  Then open the image in Photoshop and do the conversion to B&W.



Another of a local park, you can see the long exposure here better in the ripples on the water and the leaves in the foreground.  Similar exposure and processing.

[BJ]

IR ROCKS!  I love the dark skies and super light "popping" foliage!  I do NOT like that you need to go with such long exposures.  It is usually very windy here, which makes long exposures very difficult.  Curious, why choose to go with a lens filter instead of doing IR in post, via PS2/3 or a fred's or any other plugins available?  I have been debating getting a filter for my 15-70mm lens, but can't bring myself to pay for it, when I THINK i can do just as good (have a lot more control) in post, since ALL of the original data is there.  Thoughts? 

btw...these are great shots.  I like the second a little better, due to the dynamic range involved.   I do see some slight wind noise near frame on the leaves, but overall everything was VERY steady for the exposure!!  well done.

[phanophish]

IR ROCKS!  I love the dark skies and super light "popping" foliage!  I do NOT like that you need to go with such long exposures.  It is usually very windy here, which makes long exposures very difficult.  Curious, why choose to go with a lens filter instead of doing IR in post, via PS2/3 or a fred's or any other plugins available?  I have been debating getting a filter for my 15-70mm lens, but can't bring myself to pay for it, when I THINK i can do just as good (have a lot more control) in post, since ALL of the original data is there.  Thoughts? 

btw...these are great shots.  I like the second a little better, due to the dynamic range involved.   I do see some slight wind noise near frame on the leaves, but overall everything was VERY steady for the exposure!!  well done.

I left out the tripod mention because I figured with the 8+ second exposure it was obvious, but I did use one on both images.  I've never seen a "IR" software conversion that is as convincing as one actually done in camera with the filter or a converted body, they get close, but are not the same.  I'll try and post some samples of the raw out of camera images that i get tonight, they all have a red monochromatic hue to them that really pops up contrast when you get the the B&W conversion in PS.  If you go with a converted body you get normal exposure times.  I've been toying with having my d70 converted for use at weddings.  Portraits with a converted IR body are really cool. 

A couple of good examples here....  These are not my photos but are good examples of what is possible with IR.

http://www.digitalweddingforum.com/james_walters

[stirinthesauce]

very cool images!  I also reallly enjoy reading your bio in the link you provided.  Thanks! 

[BJ]

very cool images!  I also reallly enjoy reading your bio in the link you provided.  Thanks! 

whoa!  thats you phan?  I thought you were in CO?(too many people on here to keep up with)  d'oh!  very sweet!  that one of the bride walking in the big trees is simply amazing!

[stirinthesauce]

 that one of the bride walking in the big trees is simply amazing!

THAT pic did it for me.  I could only dream of capturing that.  I instantly fell in love with it.

[phanophish]

very cool images!  I also reallly enjoy reading your bio in the link you provided.  Thanks! 

Nope that is not me.  Sorry for the confusion.  It was just a quick example of Infrared portrait photography that I found with Google so I could link it in the post.  sorry for the confusion, going back to edit my old post before I get any more accolades I don't deserve.  It is however the type of image that makes me want to do more Infrared portrait work.  Really nice stuff.

I'm in Kansas by the way.  Not Colorado.  GO KU!

[BJ]

very cool images!  I also reallly enjoy reading your bio in the link you provided.  Thanks! 

Nope that is not me.  Sorry for the confusion.  It was just a quick example of Infrared portrait photography that I found with Google so I could link it in the post.  sorry for the confusion, going back to edit my old post befor I get any more accolades I don't deserve.  It is however the type of image that makes me want to do more Infrared portrait work.  Really nice stuff.

I'm in Kansas by the way.  Not Colorado.  GO KU!

kansas ehh?  was it you i sat beside at Lawrence at MSMW a lil over a year ago?  I was running MK4's -> Nbox and sat beside my brother.  I was sitting beside a photog and his g/f or wife.

[phanophish]

very cool images!  I also reallly enjoy reading your bio in the link you provided.  Thanks! 

Nope that is not me.  Sorry for the confusion.  It was just a quick example of Infrared portrait photography that I found with Google so I could link it in the post.  sorry for the confusion, going back to edit my old post befor I get any more accolades I don't deserve.  It is however the type of image that makes me want to do more Infrared portrait work.  Really nice stuff.

I'm in Kansas by the way.  Not Colorado.  GO KU!

kansas ehh?  was it you i sat beside at Lawrence at MSMW a lil over a year ago?  I was running MK4's -> Nbox and sat beside my brother.  I was sitting beside a photog and his g/f or wife.

I think it was.  I was running my MBHOs with my R4.  Up in the balcony at Liberty hall.  It was Amy's (Wife) first time for MMW.  She was less than impressed, it's a bit too far out there for her tastes.

[stirinthesauce]

ahhhh, thanks for the clarification.  I'll give you props anyways for some of the excellent pics you have posted.

[Frank in JC]

Curious, why choose to go with a lens filter instead of doing IR in post, via PS2/3 or a fred's or any other plugins available? 

They're two different things.  The camera's sensor doesn't know the difference between visible and near-infrared light, but an IR filter prevents nearly all visible light from striking the sensor in the first place.  That allows the camera to record only the IR portion of the spectrum.  If you allow visible light to also strike the sensor, you'll be taking a traditional visible-light photograph.  No kind of processing can "post filter" out the visible light, but it can be faked to a certain degree.

Problem is that modern digital camera are equipped with infrared-blocking filters ("hot mirrors") so as not to fog visible-light photos.

Right before seeing this thread, I found the site below.  They specialize in IR conversions to digital cameras.  I'm seriously considering getting a D40x or a used D70 and having it converted.  Apparently, the sensors are so sensitive to IR when their hot-mirrors are removed that you can shoot hand-held.  Is that cool or what?  Also, they can mount the IR filter directly to the sensor so you don't have to buy expensive filters for your large-diameter pro lenses.

http://www.lifepixel.com/index.html

Beautiful images, by the way!

[phanophish]

Curious, why choose to go with a lens filter instead of doing IR in post, via PS2/3 or a fred's or any other plugins available? 

They're two different things.  The camera's sensor doesn't know the difference between visible and near-infrared light, but an IR filter prevents nearly all visible light from striking the sensor in the first place.  That allows the camera to record only the IR portion of the spectrum.  If you allow visible light to also strike the sensor, you'll be taking a traditional visible-light photograph.  No kind of processing can "post filter" out the visible light, but it can be faked to a certain degree.

Problem is that modern digital camera are equipped with infrared-blocking filters ("hot mirrors") so as not to fog visible-light photos.

Right before seeing this thread, I found the site below.  They specialize in IR conversions to digital cameras.  I'm seriously considering getting a D40x or a used D70 and having it converted.  Apparently, the sensors are so sensitive to IR when their hot-mirrors are removed that you can shoot hand-held.  Is that cool or what?  Also, they can mount the IR filter directly to the sensor so you don't have to buy expensive filters for your large-diameter pro lenses.

http://www.lifepixel.com/index.html

Beautiful images, by the way!

I've been toying with having them convert one as well.  They also make an adjustment to the AF system so that it compensates for the slight focus difference in how IR light refracts.  I have read lots of posts from people who have had great luck with Lifepixel.  I did the filter for starters just as a lower cost way to play around.  The converted cameras also allow you to compose in the viewfinder without having to remove the filter.  Just for those not familiar though if you have a camera converted it is no longer able to take traditional photographs, unless you had them again convert it back to "normal".

[sunjan]

Curious, why choose to go with a lens filter instead of doing IR in post, via PS2/3 or a fred's or any other plugins available?  I have been debating getting a filter for my 15-70mm lens, but can't bring myself to pay for it, when I THINK i can do just as good (have a lot more control) in post, since ALL of the original data is there.  Thoughts? 

Hi Razorback and all,

Your theory is valid for film only.
If you shoot IR with a digital camera, the hot mirror over the sensor filters away most of the IR range, so the IR data is actually not captured.
Hence, Photoshop has precious little information to boost in the IR range.

To pick up IR on digital, you need to mod your camera body, just like Frank said. The other way to go is lense filters that blocks all visible light + very long exposure times.

BTW, there are a few other companies in the US and Australia doing the conversion too. Haven't found any in Europe though. Useful links here:
http://www.diglloyd.com/bike/free/Infrared/infrared.html
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266454

/Jan