Infrared Photography - 1st attempt
Infrared Photography - 1st attempt
Author
Discussion

Mr Noble

Original Poster:

6,538 posts

263 months

Saturday 29th April 2006
quotequote all
Ordered a cokin 007 Infrared filter and it arrived today, so I went out to the prettiest parts of Cambridge on my bicycle and had a crack.

At first, looking at the exposure on the D70 screen, I thought it needed about 20-30 seconds, so I shot most of them at that reang. However once I got home and put them into RSE I soon realised that the best ones were about 1-2 seconds! Fortunatly I shot a few off at around this speed anyway!

Its very hard to do, as you can't see anything through the filter and you have to just guess all the settings. Had not read anything about how to do it either, so it was all trial and error.

Going to put one of these in the April comp. (thats why I bought the filter)

Which one do you like best?

Any comments please.

Greg.






fergusd

1,251 posts

300 months

Saturday 29th April 2006
quotequote all
second one for me - like it ;-)

Fd

V6GTO

11,579 posts

272 months

Saturday 29th April 2006
quotequote all
Number 2 by a country mile.

Martin.

vipers

33,514 posts

258 months

Saturday 29th April 2006
quotequote all
No2, but question. I recll on my 35mm Pentax, there was an adjustment needed for IR photography, from memory I think you used to focus, then offset a little, seem to recall a little red marker on the lense, cant check coz not home at mo, does that ring any bells for you 35mm buffs, and do you need to do something similar with digi photos?

Mr Noble

Original Poster:

6,538 posts

263 months

Saturday 29th April 2006
quotequote all
Thats correct! You just reminded me of that. Not present on my digi lenses afaik. I wonder if I should have focused differently? I just set it to infinity and shot away. They seem pretty sharp at 100% but not as sharp as the same shot without the IR filter.

I think the best results come from shots taken on very sunny days with clouds in the sky.

Greg

Lambochick

1,462 posts

248 months

Saturday 29th April 2006
quotequote all
If I remember from my Physics course, you need to adjust the camera focus slightly because infra red waves are at a different frequency to visible light waves. As a result, they will be focussed at a slightly different point. Unfortunately I can't remember if they are focussed in front of or behind the film plane.

Don

28,378 posts

314 months

Saturday 29th April 2006
quotequote all
Love the results - very interesting!

So how does this infra-red photography work, then?

Presumably your filter prevents visible light from hitting the sensor but infra-red gets through. Also presumably the B&W effect is whatever the sensor makes of the infra-red radiation and (finally presumably) is similar to how film would have reacted?

Do you need to do any special post processing of the image to make it "visible" or what?

Very interesting indeed!

fergusd

1,251 posts

300 months

Saturday 29th April 2006
quotequote all
In my experience the images are not monochrome but crazy deep red tints . . . but when you turn them into mono by desaturating them they work very well . . .

Some cameras are more sensitive to IR than others, the D70 is pretty sensitive for example but the D2X is much, much less so . . . generally this means that for any specific camera you have to work out it's sensitivity and thus all your exposures . . . by trial and error . . .

It's worth a go if you have a tripod ;-)

Fd

GetCarter

31,293 posts

309 months

Saturday 29th April 2006
quotequote all
You'll see from my attempts that I am no expert. The pics you have taken are excellent, but I would just add that as the leaves come out on the trees... that's when they will look less 'B&W' and more 'spooky'.

Obviously it's heat that makes the white... and it's foaliage that shows the heat! Take the same pics in 3 months and they will be a lot more striking.

Pics below mostly 3 - 4 secs. (Your are better methinks!) Good work.

Steve
www.stevecarter.com/infraweb/infrared.htm



>> Edited by GetCarter on Saturday 29th April 14:36

Andy Mac

73,668 posts

285 months

Saturday 29th April 2006
quotequote all
Great results chaps!

Mr Noble

Original Poster:

6,538 posts

263 months

Sunday 30th April 2006
quotequote all
Steve!! Clearley your shots sh1t all over mine! But then I guess you do have the better subject available!

ts fun trying this. I paid £12 for the filter and is is interesting. Even after this first "test" run I know I can get better shots next time out.

I think it needs to be full sunshine with cloud at midday for the best results. I waited till dusk to take those shots which would have been the best time for normal shots but not for IR ones.

Will keep trying.

Greg

Don

28,378 posts

314 months

Sunday 30th April 2006
quotequote all
fergusd said:
Some cameras are more sensitive to IR than others, the D70 is pretty sensitive for example but the D2X is much, much less so . . . generally this means that for any specific camera you have to work out it's sensitivity and thus all your exposures . . . by trial and error . . .


Thanks for the explanation. So getting a picture *at all* is down to the sensor "misinterpreting" invisible (to the human eye) infra-red (very long wavelength?) radiation as very deep but visible reds (slightly less long wavelength?

fergusd

1,251 posts

300 months

Sunday 30th April 2006
quotequote all
Camera is not misinterpreting IR but it's not really designed to work with it . . . AF and metering for example may or may not work . . . I believe that minimising IR sensitivity is good for pictures of peoples skin . . . there's a whole load of info online, for example, about removing the IR filter built into the D70s sensor to make it much better for IR pictures . . .

Fd

mmertens

397 posts

312 months

Sunday 30th April 2006
quotequote all
As said, D70 is great for IR images, even without modifications. Best results on bright sunny summer days. Set your WB from a lawn, for example, use a tripod, swap the red and blue channels in post-processing and you get very nice results. A not-so-great-but-nevertheless-more-or-less-typical-result-from-last-year:


As it was stated, other Nikons (D2x, D200) have a much stronger IR filter and are not nearly as useful out-of-the-box as a D70. Having said that, the IR sensitivity can mess up under certain circumstances the color rendition of normal pictures. Oh well, you can't have it all, I guess.

Maarten

_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Sunday 30th April 2006
quotequote all
TO see if your camera is sensitive to IR, point your remote control at the lens and press a button, then fire the shutter. IF you can see a bright light coming out of the remote then you have a nice sensitive camera.

Excuse the crap pics...

D200, remote off:



D200, remote on:



Camera phone, remote on:


As you can see my phone is much more sensitive to IR than my D200!

fergusd

1,251 posts

300 months

Sunday 30th April 2006
quotequote all
The remote signal will be pulsed, so with a high shutter speed you may not happen to 'see' a pulse when the shutter is open . . .

Fd