Real (digital) Infrared Photos

[F.Gordon]

Sure, there are a bunch of faux infrared software things out there but I've been itching for the ability to snap real infrared photos for quite awhile. The thought of gutting my 20D to make it infrared only didn't real appeal to me and using Infrared Film is a major hassle.... so I elected to go another route.

This is just a couple from my first batch. I really wasn't trying to get a "good" snap.... I was more concerned bout' learning the proper light and such. These are right out of the camera with no tonal adjustments or noise removal... no processing... full frame.

With Mid Day Sun - Back to Sun



Late Afternoon Sun - Sun off to the side



I'm comparing my notes about each snap with the EXIF so the next time I go out I can get better. I was only doing aperture priority and trusting that the camera could meter properly. Next time out I'll use Manual.

I think I'm really going to dig this.
:smoke:

Thanks for lookin'
:hi:

[lakemonster11]

1. It looks like it worked!

So what equipment did you use? Are you using your 20D with a filter or what?

I don't really know anything about taking infrared pictures, but I'm definitely interested in trying it out.

[F.Gordon]

3. The 20D has an infrared "filter"

To keep infrared out. You can slap on a filter or two and get some funky results but you can't get results like the snaps above. For around $500 you can convert any DSLR to full time infrared.

This is with an inexpensive point and shoot that I knew would "read" infrared light. On the two above I just slapped on a R72 filter, used a tripod (we're talkin' 8-10 second exposures in the bright sunlight), and used the timer to snap it since it doesn't have any fancy remote shutter release or mirror lock....

You might try using a R72 and a ND4 (or ND6) on your Nikon. I "think" Nikon reads infrared fairly well. CC would know..... but I think she's up to her neck in remodeling dust right now.

[Deep13]

14. Why do you recommend a ND filter?

Is it so the auto exposure will give an accurate reading?

[F.Gordon]

15. Stops down the exposure..... saturates the "colors" more

This was taken with an IR Filter and a ND6 filter. I was really trying to bring out the tree but I was snappin' blind (the camera was above my head) and this guy kept bugging me.. asking me what I was doing. Or he was hitting on me... not sure which. :crazy:

I'm going to have to go resnap this one when I have time. Focus is all screwed up and the rock face is all blowed up. Requires lots and lots of fotochopping. Is there a "rule" for using ND filters? I don't think so. It's all just trial and error. Learning what certain kinds of light do to your exposure. Things like that. I'll try to do a with and without snap to show the ND difference in the next week or so.

[Deep13]

16. very cool

The rock might not have been the intended subject, but it is very interesting. Gets in the rule of thirds, too.

[F.Gordon]

17. Thank you

I may give fotochopping a try before I go and resnap it. I kinda' like the pic... just not happy with parts and pieces of it. I just suck at fotochopping.
:dunce:

[CC]

13. Nikons are great

at IF. Look for either the Hoya or Tiffin (cheaper but just as good) filters. Have a good tripod. You will need to set up you shot without the filter focus wise. Your photos will be red when you take them. Use your histogram to find the right exposure and bracket. You will have to adjust them to black and white in photoshop or a similar program. If you google digital infrared you will find a lot of sites with advice. Beware though, it is addictive and will have you looking at having a camera refitted for full time IF that can be handheld. Hmmm reminds me, I need to get that old D100 in and refitted. IF is fun, looks great and makes you think differently. One word of advice, it is fine to try in bright sunlight like most sites tell you to do but shade, fog and overcast days do great IF too. Winding road was an overcast day. It was a ho hum pic in color but much more in IF. Though not sure I would of thought of it as a second place with so many great photos in the contest.


Some links for a start
http://www.nature-photography-central.com/DigitalInfraredPhotography.html
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2116.htm
http://f64.nu/d100ir/
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D70_rev05IR.html

BTW it is all F. Gordon's fault I have an addiction to IF.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. Those are very, very cool, F.Gordon...

[F.Gordon]

4. Thank you

I really really really needed a break today. Ms. F' dropped... nay... dumped me off at one of my favorite haunts today. Did some major hoofin' today. Really paying for it now. Sore as hell. Thankfully Ms F' always has really good drugs.
:smoke:

I'm soooooo bummed that I completely missed autumn/fall this year. I did take a few "normal" snaps today but I haven't even looked at them yet.

Edit? Spell check is your friend
:dunce:

[JeffR]

5. "That which does not kill us can only result in some cool photos"

It was one of Wilde's, I think.

[ConsAreLiars]

6. I can see a little tweaking, but these are very much "your" work.

One of the things few understand about photography is that the pix are very much the creative expression of an artist, no less than a Picasso or a Renoir or a Rembrandt. (Maybe not as good, maybe better, but no less a unique and recognizable expression of an artist's eye.) You have that talent, as do many others here. I would bet that if there were some way to do it, a "Here's a pic, Name the photographer" poll would show that many here have a recognizable "vision" and message. That talent, in my view, is what marks the difference between good and great. Nice work!

[F.Gordon]

7. Yes, a tad bit of tweaking. Which I will do

I'm not sure if I'll ever have a specific "style" but I'm guessing that you would be correct. Many of us here could be identified just by our photos.

Appreciate your kind words. It seems that I'm always bouncing around trying to "do everything". Learn everything. Not sure that's the best way to go about all this but it's how I do things. What I like bout' this infrared stuff is that it forces you to look at things completely differently. You have to focus only on tone and shadows. Not unlike B&W photography... but definitely with a bit of a different twist.

Thanks

[NashVegas]

8. I Can't Make Up My Mind

Which I like better; I love the shadows of #2, but #1 looks like the moon with vegetation.

[F.Gordon]

10. Thanks.

Have a bunch more but I didn't want to load down this thread. Now that I "kinda'" have this figured out... have quite a few ideas I want to try out. :P

[Deep13]

9. Hmm. Suppose I put a filter like that on a regular 35mm w/ B&W film.

Hmmm. I've shot IR through my Pentax SP1000 before, so I know it can do it. Any reason it would not work?

[F.Gordon]

11. Not sure, but I'll give it a try myself

Have a few snaps of pan f 50 left in a camera that I'll crack out in the backyard, but I think I'll try it with about 10 stops of ND and without.

I have a couple of "infrared outings" planned for after the election.... going to use infrared film and digital.

[Deep13]

12. I believe it will work.

That's all you're doing with the digital camera you are using. I assume it has just a regular color sensor. If the only light it sees is IR, then what you posted is the result. Too cool. Always liked IR pix, but the film is such a pain. No real metering. Must be loaded and removed in total darkness. Plus, not a lot of labs can process it.

[madrchsod]

18. cool ---

i used to shoot film but the cost is to much now. looks like digit is the way to go. good thing the kids have a couple laying around...