Playing with near IR

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Yes, of course there was an R72 screwed onto the front. How else can
you get IR? The photo was then converted to grayscale to get the pink
out.


All they did with my conversion is remove the IR blocking filter.
It is possible they put in an E72, without telling me.

that's what i asked originally.

you need to find out the answer to that question.

Why? The camera is doing exactly what I anticipated it would do.

yet you don't know whether they put a filter in it or not.

how is it you can claim it's doing what you want it to do without
knowing what the modification was?

you can't, other than chance.

When I do my post, I do not always convert to monochrome. I sometimes
switch the red & blue chanels, so I get a blue sky. Though my post
depends on the image, and the look I want.

that is a separate issue.

Nope it is the issue, because I wanted the ability to use faux color.

nope. it's is a separate issue.

what you do in post is entirely separate than what filter you use (and
if there's one installed, you're using a filter) and depends on *which*
filter you use.

it's clear you don't know what you're doing.

On 8/31/2014 5:03 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Yes, of course there was an R72 screwed onto the front. How else can
you get IR? The photo was then converted to grayscale to get the pink
out.


All they did with my conversion is remove the IR blocking filter.
It is possible they put in an E72, without telling me.

that's what i asked originally.

you need to find out the answer to that question.

Why? The camera is doing exactly what I anticipated it would do.

yet you don't know whether they put a filter in it or not.

how is it you can claim it's doing what you want it to do without
knowing what the modification was?

you can't, other than chance.

When I do my post, I do not always convert to monochrome. I sometimes
switch the red & blue chanels, so I get a blue sky. Though my post
depends on the image, and the look I want.

that is a separate issue.

Nope it is the issue, because I wanted the ability to use faux color.

nope. it's is a separate issue.

what you do in post is entirely separate than what filter you use (and
if there's one installed, you're using a filter) and depends on *which*
filter you use.

it's clear you don't know what you're doing.


Obviously. That's why my images have been doing well in competitions.
And have been requested to sell several images. (I turned down the
request, for personal reasons.)
It's also clear that you have no concept of what photography is, and
would rather argue. On those occassions when you are correct, you
present your point like a jackass. (Or is it a Jenny ass.)

EOD with you.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Yes, of course there was an R72 screwed onto the front. How else can
you get IR? The photo was then converted to grayscale to get the pink
out.


All they did with my conversion is remove the IR blocking filter.
It is possible they put in an E72, without telling me.

that's what i asked originally.

you need to find out the answer to that question.

Why? The camera is doing exactly what I anticipated it would do.

yet you don't know whether they put a filter in it or not.

how is it you can claim it's doing what you want it to do without
knowing what the modification was?

you can't, other than chance.

When I do my post, I do not always convert to monochrome. I sometimes
switch the red & blue chanels, so I get a blue sky. Though my post
depends on the image, and the look I want.

that is a separate issue.

Nope it is the issue, because I wanted the ability to use faux color.

nope. it's is a separate issue.

what you do in post is entirely separate than what filter you use (and
if there's one installed, you're using a filter) and depends on *which*
filter you use.

it's clear you don't know what you're doing.

Obviously.

that's why i said it.

That's why my images have been doing well in competitions.
And have been requested to sell several images. (I turned down the
request, for personal reasons.)

didn't you just *start* doing infrared photography?
didn't you just get the camera modified?

so how is it you've already entered multiple competitions and 'doing
well'?

or are you lying again?

It's also clear that you have no concept of what photography is, and
would rather argue. On those occassions when you are correct, you
present your point like a jackass. (Or is it a Jenny ass.)

what's clear is that you're an asshole.

i explained how infrared works and what's needed (mainly for the
benefit of others, not you), as did other people (with the same info
too), yet you think you know everything. you don't.

EOD with you.

if only you'd keep that promise.

On 2014-08-31 20:35:04 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 2:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-31 16:08:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 6:12 AM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

only on a *non* modified camera will exposures will be long
because the r72 cuts visible light and the remaining infrared
light is cut by the infrared cut filter in the camera. that's why
people modify the camera, so that exposures are *not* long.

Prove it.

Look at the EXIF. 1/100 sec:
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/cltr/P1010015w.jpg


Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Oh! Hell!
Go back to the source:
http://www.lifepixel.com
http://www.infraredphoto.eu/gentleintro1/
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub3.html



So if I read your links correctly, my modification must have included
placement of an R72 filter in front of the sensor.

It beats me! It's your E8800 I have no idea what you ordered. It looks
like you didn't read my links at, all let alone correctly.

Which company did the IR conversion?
....and
Which options did they offer for your camera?

Did you actually look at any of the various options offered in the
links I posted, or was it too much trouble to dig?

Since the only camera I have considered having converted is my D70 &
LifePixels don't seem to have the E8800 in their conversion list, here
is what they offer.
Note: they will add various filters depending on the option you have
chosen. Their "Deep BW IR" adds an 830nm filter. Their "Standard Color
IR Filter" adds an R72, a Wratten 89b, or 720nm filter.
Their "Full Spectrum Clear Filter" leaves the option of filter
selection up to you, for that option they add the following caveat:
"The disadvantage is also the fact that you have to use filters in
front of the lens and since IR filters are opaque black the viewfinder
will be blocked making it harder to compose, meter and focus.
This conversion is mainly used in special applications photography like
forensics, astronomy, medical, etc."

http://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-filters-choices

Here are the 5 options Precision Camera offer for your E8800:
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub2.html

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014083117013158445-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Their "Full Spectrum Clear Filter" leaves the option of filter
selection up to you, for that option they add the following caveat:
"The disadvantage is also the fact that you have to use filters in
front of the lens and since IR filters are opaque black the viewfinder
will be blocked making it harder to compose, meter and focus.
This conversion is mainly used in special applications photography like
forensics, astronomy, medical, etc."

that's only true for an slr when looking through the lens.

for a p&s or an slr with live view, you see what the sensor sees and it
doesn't matter if the filter is visibly opaque or not.

On 2014-09-01 00:05:56 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014083117013158445-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Their "Full Spectrum Clear Filter" leaves the option of filter
selection up to you, for that option they add the following caveat:
"The disadvantage is also the fact that you have to use filters in
front of the lens and since IR filters are opaque black the viewfinder
will be blocked making it harder to compose, meter and focus.
This conversion is mainly used in special applications photography like
forensics, astronomy, medical, etc."

that's only true for an slr when looking through the lens.

for a p&s or an slr with live view, you see what the sensor sees and it
doesn't matter if the filter is visibly opaque or not.

So? All it means is the average hobbyist shooter experimenting with IR
and a DSLR without live View has been warned.

In the information I provided there is also this. pretty much what you
have said;
"Besides having great features at a low cost, there is one more reason
why DI cameras are great candidates for Infrared Conversions - True
Live View. True Live View has been a feature of DI cameras for a long
time and that makes it possible to offer an Infrared Conversion service
that is virtually hassle free. Their design utilizes the imaging sensor
as the focus sensor and because the camera is so sensitive to Infrared
and the focus is based on the contrast levels in the scene, true
auto-focusing in Infrared is quickly accomplished regardless of focal
length used. This is a major advantage over the DSLR cameras without
True Live View because there is no need to shift the Autofocus sensor
assembly.
When converting a DI camera for use in the Infrared spectrum, a proper
focus calibration must be done using the manufacturer authorized
adjustment tools - failure to do so will result in unpredictable
Autofocus.
Before having your camera converted to infrared, ensure that the
company providing the service is a factory trained service center
authorized by the camera manufacturer. Precision Camera is the World's
Largest Camera Repair Facility with authorizations from virtually
all-major manufacturers; you can trust your camera to Precision Camera.?
All the information is there in the links I provided, All Peter has to
do is go beyond just opening the link. He needs to dig a bit, and all
will be revealed. It would help if he could recall exactly what he
ordered.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/31/2014 7:05 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Yes, of course there was an R72 screwed onto the front. How else can
you get IR? The photo was then converted to grayscale to get the pink
out.


All they did with my conversion is remove the IR blocking filter.
It is possible they put in an E72, without telling me.

that's what i asked originally.

you need to find out the answer to that question.

Why? The camera is doing exactly what I anticipated it would do.

yet you don't know whether they put a filter in it or not.

how is it you can claim it's doing what you want it to do without
knowing what the modification was?

you can't, other than chance.

When I do my post, I do not always convert to monochrome. I sometimes
switch the red & blue chanels, so I get a blue sky. Though my post
depends on the image, and the look I want.

that is a separate issue.

Nope it is the issue, because I wanted the ability to use faux color.

nope. it's is a separate issue.

what you do in post is entirely separate than what filter you use (and
if there's one installed, you're using a filter) and depends on *which*
filter you use.

it's clear you don't know what you're doing.

Obviously.

that's why i said it.

That's why my images have been doing well in competitions.
And have been requested to sell several images. (I turned down the
request, for personal reasons.)

didn't you just *start* doing infrared photography?
didn't you just get the camera modified?

No.

so how is it you've already entered multiple competitions and 'doing
well'?

False premis


or are you lying again?

It's also clear that you have no concept of what photography is, and
would rather argue. On those occassions when you are correct, you
present your point like a jackass. (Or is it a Jenny ass.)

what's clear is that you're an asshole.

You have a fine command of the English language.

i explained how infrared works and what's needed (mainly for the
benefit of others, not you), as did other people (with the same info
too), yet you think you know everything. you don't.

EOD with you.

if only you'd keep that promise.


Sure so you can continue to lie and ant like the jackass you are.
The above is NOT a discussion. It is a factual conclusion.

--
PeterN

On 8/31/2014 8:01 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-31 20:35:04 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 2:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-31 16:08:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 6:12 AM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

only on a *non* modified camera will exposures will be long
because the r72 cuts visible light and the remaining infrared
light is cut by the infrared cut filter in the camera. that's why
people modify the camera, so that exposures are *not* long.

Prove it.

Look at the EXIF. 1/100 sec:
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/cltr/P1010015w.jpg


Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Oh! Hell!
Go back to the source:
http://www.lifepixel.com
http://www.infraredphoto.eu/gentleintro1/
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub3.html



So if I read your links correctly, my modification must have included
placement of an R72 filter in front of the sensor.

It beats me! It's your E8800 I have no idea what you ordered. It looks
like you didn't read my links at, all let alone correctly.

Which company did the IR conversion?
...and
Which options did they offer for your camera?

Did you actually look at any of the various options offered in the links
I posted, or was it too much trouble to dig?

Since the only camera I have considered having converted is my D70 &
LifePixels don't seem to have the E8800 in their conversion list, here
is what they offer.
Note: they will add various filters depending on the option you have
chosen. Their "Deep BW IR" adds an 830nm filter. Their "Standard Color
IR Filter" adds an R72, a Wratten 89b, or 720nm filter.
Their "Full Spectrum Clear Filter" leaves the option of filter selection
up to you, for that option they add the following caveat:
"The disadvantage is also the fact that you have to use filters in front
of the lens and since IR filters are opaque black the viewfinder will be
blocked making it harder to compose, meter and focus.
This conversion is mainly used in special applications photography like
forensics, astronomy, medical, etc."

http://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-filters-choices

Here are the 5 options Precision Camera offer for your E8800:
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub2.html


I had it done by a local repair guy. The conversion does not require a
filter in front of the lens. The conversion was done a few years ago, on
a camera that I did not use any more. Total cost of the conversion was
about $70. I did it just to experiment with. You can twist my
fingernails, and I can't give you more information.


--
PeterN

On 2014-09-01 16:07:26 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 8:01 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-31 20:35:04 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 2:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-31 16:08:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 6:12 AM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

only on a *non* modified camera will exposures will be long
because the r72 cuts visible light and the remaining infrared
light is cut by the infrared cut filter in the camera. that's why
people modify the camera, so that exposures are *not* long.

Prove it.

Look at the EXIF. 1/100 sec:
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/cltr/P1010015w.jpg


Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Oh! Hell!
Go back to the source:
http://www.lifepixel.com
http://www.infraredphoto.eu/gentleintro1/
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub3.html



So if I read your links correctly, my modification must have included
placement of an R72 filter in front of the sensor.

It beats me! It's your E8800 I have no idea what you ordered. It looks
like you didn't read my links at, all let alone correctly.

Which company did the IR conversion?
...and
Which options did they offer for your camera?

Did you actually look at any of the various options offered in the links
I posted, or was it too much trouble to dig?

Since the only camera I have considered having converted is my D70 &
LifePixels don't seem to have the E8800 in their conversion list, here
is what they offer.
Note: they will add various filters depending on the option you have
chosen. Their "Deep BW IR" adds an 830nm filter. Their "Standard Color
IR Filter" adds an R72, a Wratten 89b, or 720nm filter.
Their "Full Spectrum Clear Filter" leaves the option of filter selection
up to you, for that option they add the following caveat:
"The disadvantage is also the fact that you have to use filters in front
of the lens and since IR filters are opaque black the viewfinder will be
blocked making it harder to compose, meter and focus.
This conversion is mainly used in special applications photography like
forensics, astronomy, medical, etc."

http://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-filters-choices

Here are the 5 options Precision Camera offer for your E8800:
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub2.html


I had it done by a local repair guy. The conversion does not require a
filter in front of the lens. The conversion was done a few years ago,
on a camera that I did not use any more. Total cost of the conversion
was about $70. I did it just to experiment with. You can twist my
fingernails, and I can't give you more information.

Why not call your local guy and ask him what he actually did to make
the conversion?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/1/2014 12:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-01 16:07:26 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 8:01 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-31 20:35:04 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 2:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-31 16:08:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 6:12 AM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

only on a *non* modified camera will exposures will be long
because the r72 cuts visible light and the remaining infrared
light is cut by the infrared cut filter in the camera. that's why
people modify the camera, so that exposures are *not* long.

Prove it.

Look at the EXIF. 1/100 sec:
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/cltr/P1010015w.jpg


Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an
R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Oh! Hell!
Go back to the source:
http://www.lifepixel.com
http://www.infraredphoto.eu/gentleintro1/
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub3.html




So if I read your links correctly, my modification must have included
placement of an R72 filter in front of the sensor.

It beats me! It's your E8800 I have no idea what you ordered. It looks
like you didn't read my links at, all let alone correctly.

Which company did the IR conversion?
...and
Which options did they offer for your camera?

Did you actually look at any of the various options offered in the links
I posted, or was it too much trouble to dig?

Since the only camera I have considered having converted is my D70 &
LifePixels don't seem to have the E8800 in their conversion list, here
is what they offer.
Note: they will add various filters depending on the option you have
chosen. Their "Deep BW IR" adds an 830nm filter. Their "Standard Color
IR Filter" adds an R72, a Wratten 89b, or 720nm filter.
Their "Full Spectrum Clear Filter" leaves the option of filter selection
up to you, for that option they add the following caveat:
"The disadvantage is also the fact that you have to use filters in front
of the lens and since IR filters are opaque black the viewfinder will be
blocked making it harder to compose, meter and focus.
This conversion is mainly used in special applications photography like
forensics, astronomy, medical, etc."

http://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-filters-choices

Here are the 5 options Precision Camera offer for your E8800:
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub2.html


I had it done by a local repair guy. The conversion does not require a
filter in front of the lens. The conversion was done a few years ago,
on a camera that I did not use any more. Total cost of the conversion
was about $70. I did it just to experiment with. You can twist my
fingernails, and I can't give you more information.

Why not call your local guy and ask him what he actually did to make the
conversion?

I have no use for that information. My conversion is working for me.
If I decide to convert another camera, I will ask, so I can get a
similar look to what I have now.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/ir/ir%20test%201.jpg

--
PeterN