A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Playing with near IR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 29th 14, 02:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default Playing with near IR

On 8/28/2014 10:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Have you tried any filters such as yellow/orange/red which will reduce the
visible light by a particular amount allowing exposue to 'centre' mor eon
IR than visible ?


No. Use of filters is ok for some effects, but right now I am happy with
the conversion, and its effects. I may try that later.


what filter did they put in the camera, if any?

none. The IR blocking filter was removed. (I think)

--
PeterN
  #12  
Old August 29th 14, 02:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default Playing with near IR

On 8/29/2014 8:35 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 29 August 2014 01:56:49 UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
On 8/28/2014 8:45 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 28 August 2014 04:18:32 UTC+1, PeterN wrote:


A sunny day can give high contrast images, so I decided to try some IR.








I am very much in the learning process, but I present these conversions


for comment:




https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/belvedere1.jpg




https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/rowing%20in%20the%20park.jpg








Have you tried any filters such as yellow/orange/red which will reduce the visible light by a particular amount allowing exposue to 'centre' mor eon IR than visible ?






No. Use of filters is ok for some effects, but right now I am happy with
the conversion, and its effects. I may try that later.


The vague point I was making is that for IR photography in the true sense you should be using IR (as much as possible) to 'make' the images rather than use 'electronic effects to make the image"
It's where I start to draw the line between photogrphy and being an artist of graphics designer. Ypou can create sopem pretty stunning effects usering poser or byrce3D or even lightwave with texture bump maps.

When I first did IR I was all for using the filters so the majority of teh light was IR rather than visable. I thought I used a wratterm 88a filter but on searching....
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Kodak-Wrat...-/310091053489
was quite shocked as I wouldn't have paid more than a fiver for any filter other than a polersizing one at the time.


Note this is not true IR. It is near IR. Also filters such as the R72
would reaure long exposures and sue of a tripod.


--
PeterN
  #13  
Old August 29th 14, 05:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Playing with near IR

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Have you tried any filters such as yellow/orange/red which will reduce the
visible light by a particular amount allowing exposue to 'centre' mor eon
IR than visible ?

No. Use of filters is ok for some effects, but right now I am happy with
the conversion, and its effects. I may try that later.


what filter did they put in the camera, if any?

none. The IR blocking filter was removed. (I think)


and you didn't use a blocking filter on the lens??
  #14  
Old August 29th 14, 06:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default Playing with near IR

On 8/29/2014 12:51 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Have you tried any filters such as yellow/orange/red which will reduce the
visible light by a particular amount allowing exposue to 'centre' mor eon
IR than visible ?

No. Use of filters is ok for some effects, but right now I am happy with
the conversion, and its effects. I may try that later.

what filter did they put in the camera, if any?

none. The IR blocking filter was removed. (I think)


and you didn't use a blocking filter on the lens??


Nope. AFAIK they left in the AA filter.
The camera is an old Coolpix. They told me they were just removing the
IR filter. I thnk they must have adjusted the focus.
A local guy did it. They charged me $70, which is a lot less than the
Internet guys charge. I have red that some use a filter in addition to
the conversion, but then you are talking about long exposure. Try the
RAW IR I left on the sight. It gives the results I like.





--
PeterN
  #15  
Old August 29th 14, 06:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Playing with near IR

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Have you tried any filters such as yellow/orange/red which will reduce
the visible light by a particular amount allowing exposue to 'centre' mor
eon IR than visible ?

No. Use of filters is ok for some effects, but right now I am happy with
the conversion, and its effects. I may try that later.

what filter did they put in the camera, if any?

none. The IR blocking filter was removed. (I think)


and you didn't use a blocking filter on the lens??


Nope. AFAIK they left in the AA filter.
The camera is an old Coolpix. They told me they were just removing the
IR filter. I thnk they must have adjusted the focus.
A local guy did it. They charged me $70, which is a lot less than the
Internet guys charge. I have red that some use a filter in addition to
the conversion, but then you are talking about long exposure.


that's not how it works.

removing the infrared cut filter turns it into a full spectrum camera,
which covers visible light *and* infrared. you now need an infrared
pass filter on the lens to cut visible light if you want infrared. what
you're getting now is a normal response that has infrared added to it.

you will only get long exposures if you leave the infrared cut filter
in place *and* use a visible light cut filter on the lens, which is
basically removing everything. a little infrared leaks through, thus
the long exposures.

however, you had it modified so there is no long exposure.

what cutoff to use depends on what effect you want. if it's in the
visible light range, you get quasi-normal photos with surrealistic
colours. if it's in the infrared range, you get pure infrared, which
can be b/w if it's high enough.

the advantage of a full spectrum camera is that you can decide later
what cutoff to use. the drawback is that you have a filter on the lens.


a p&s is ideal for infrared because of live view. with an slr, putting
an infrared pass filter on the lens (cutting visible light) means you
can't see anything through the lens unless you activate live view.

Try the
RAW IR I left on the sight. It gives the results I like.


you may like it, but it's not really infrared.
  #16  
Old August 29th 14, 11:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
M-M[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Playing with near IR

In article , nospam
wrote:

removing the infrared cut filter turns it into a full spectrum camera,
which covers visible light *and* infrared. you now need an infrared
pass filter on the lens to cut visible light if you want infrared.


Correct.

The old Olympus C2020 never had an IR filter and works well for IR
photography if an R72 is used with it.

Here is a page I made using this technique:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
  #17  
Old August 30th 14, 12:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Playing with near IR

In article , M-M
wrote:

removing the infrared cut filter turns it into a full spectrum camera,
which covers visible light *and* infrared. you now need an infrared
pass filter on the lens to cut visible light if you want infrared.


Correct.

The old Olympus C2020 never had an IR filter and works well for IR
photography if an R72 is used with it.


for some definition of 'well'. that camera is awful and uses the
completely obsolete smartmedia.

anyway, several old digicams didn't have an infrared cut filter or had
a very weak one. they generally got stronger with every revision.
  #18  
Old August 30th 14, 02:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default Playing with near IR

On 8/29/2014 1:53 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Have you tried any filters such as yellow/orange/red which will reduce
the visible light by a particular amount allowing exposue to 'centre' mor
eon IR than visible ?

No. Use of filters is ok for some effects, but right now I am happy with
the conversion, and its effects. I may try that later.

what filter did they put in the camera, if any?

none. The IR blocking filter was removed. (I think)

and you didn't use a blocking filter on the lens??


Nope. AFAIK they left in the AA filter.
The camera is an old Coolpix. They told me they were just removing the
IR filter. I thnk they must have adjusted the focus.
A local guy did it. They charged me $70, which is a lot less than the
Internet guys charge. I have red that some use a filter in addition to
the conversion, but then you are talking about long exposure.


that's not how it works.


You could be right. All I know is that I went to the repair guy and told
him what I wanted. He gave me what I wanted.


removing the infrared cut filter turns it into a full spectrum camera,
which covers visible light *and* infrared. you now need an infrared
pass filter on the lens to cut visible light if you want infrared. what
you're getting now is a normal response that has infrared added to it.

Interesting, but immaterial to me.
I'm simply trying to get a certain look. If I had to get a filter made
from nail polish, it wouldn't matter.
This was one of the first I did.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/clark%20gardens.jpg



you will only get long exposures if you leave the infrared cut filter
in place *and* use a visible light cut filter on the lens, which is
basically removing everything. a little infrared leaks through, thus
the long exposures.


I've read that.
however, you had it modified so there is no long exposure.

what cutoff to use depends on what effect you want.


yup!

if it's in the
visible light range, you get quasi-normal photos with surrealistic
colours. if it's in the infrared range, you get pure infrared, which
can be b/w if it's high enough.

the advantage of a full spectrum camera is that you can decide later
what cutoff to use. the drawback is that you have a filter on the lens.


a p&s is ideal for infrared because of live view. with an slr, putting
an infrared pass filter on the lens (cutting visible light) means you
can't see anything through the lens unless you activate live view.


Yup.
Also the focus needs to be adjusted to use autofocus.



Try the
RAW IR I left on the sight. It gives the results I like.


you may like it, but it's not really infrared.

I don't care if the look is called fitymigick.
I know it's not pure infrared. That's why I labeled the thread: "near IR."
To me the important part is that it gives the look I wanted, plus the
ability to add faux color. For other effects I can put a lens filter on
that camera, or on one of my others.



--
PeterN
  #19  
Old August 30th 14, 02:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default Playing with near IR

On 8/29/2014 6:11 PM, M-M wrote:


Here is a page I made using this technique:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html

\

We were at the sculpture garden several years ago. It's a fantastic
place. We got there around lunch time, and decided to eatr first. After
we ate, we learned that if you have lunch there is no charge for
admission to the gardens.

Back to the topic, my problem with the R72 filter is that one must take
long exposures, and it is suitable only for still life and landscape.
The advantage of course is that one can use the better lenses.

--
PeterN
  #20  
Old August 30th 14, 03:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Playing with near IR

In article , PeterN
wrote:


what filter did they put in the camera, if any?

none. The IR blocking filter was removed. (I think)

and you didn't use a blocking filter on the lens??

Nope. AFAIK they left in the AA filter.
The camera is an old Coolpix. They told me they were just removing the
IR filter. I thnk they must have adjusted the focus.
A local guy did it. They charged me $70, which is a lot less than the
Internet guys charge. I have red that some use a filter in addition to
the conversion, but then you are talking about long exposure.


that's not how it works.


You could be right. All I know is that I went to the repair guy and told
him what I wanted. He gave me what I wanted.


that's nice but it doesn't sound like you understand what is actually
needed.

removing the infrared cut filter turns it into a full spectrum camera,
which covers visible light *and* infrared. you now need an infrared
pass filter on the lens to cut visible light if you want infrared. what
you're getting now is a normal response that has infrared added to it.

Interesting, but immaterial to me.


it's very material because it affects the results.

I'm simply trying to get a certain look. If I had to get a filter made
from nail polish, it wouldn't matter.
This was one of the first I did.


unless you know what look you would get from 'a filter made from nail
polish', how would you know if it's going to advance you toward your
goal or not?

you will only get long exposures if you leave the infrared cut filter
in place *and* use a visible light cut filter on the lens, which is
basically removing everything. a little infrared leaks through, thus
the long exposures.


I've read that.


but apparently you have not processed that information, because what
you say indicates you didn't understand a word of what you read.

however, you had it modified so there is no long exposure.

what cutoff to use depends on what effect you want.


yup!


but that's not what you say elsewhere.

if it's in the
visible light range, you get quasi-normal photos with surrealistic
colours. if it's in the infrared range, you get pure infrared, which
can be b/w if it's high enough.

the advantage of a full spectrum camera is that you can decide later
what cutoff to use. the drawback is that you have a filter on the lens.


a p&s is ideal for infrared because of live view. with an slr, putting
an infrared pass filter on the lens (cutting visible light) means you
can't see anything through the lens unless you activate live view.


Yup.
Also the focus needs to be adjusted to use autofocus.


not necessarily.

that depends on the camera and its autofocus system.

for an slr, where the focusing is a separate module, it does need to be
adjusted because there are two independent optical paths and changing
one *requires* the other to changed accordingly.

for a p&s where the focusing is done on the sensor, it does not
necessarily need to be adjusted because the focusing is done on the
sensor and the lens will focus it either way.

however, in some p&s cameras, removal of the infrared cut filter can
affect the optical path such that the lens can't obtain focus at all
distances, in which case it either needs to be adjusted or a
replacement filter (clear or specific cutoff) is installed.

Try the
RAW IR I left on the sight. It gives the results I like.


you may like it, but it's not really infrared.

I don't care if the look is called fitymigick.
I know it's not pure infrared. That's why I labeled the thread: "near IR."


you're missing the point and all digital infrared is near infrared.
that's all the sensors can do.

a camera with the infrared filter removed is a normal camera that
*also* can see infrared. what you will get is mostly normal photos with
screwy colours due to the infrared contamination. these cameras are
usually called full spectrum cameras.

to get infrared, you need to *cut* the visible light and how much to
cut depends what effect you want. a cutoff around 850nm is going to
give the most dramatic effects since it's *only* seeing infrared. a
cutoff around 590nm will give surrealistic colours since it's picking
up visible red as well as infrared. a cutoff around 720nm is a good
compromise for most situations.

you can also use a hot mirror to cut infrared and pass visible light,
which make it respond as it did before it was modified. in other words,
it's back to being a normal camera.

To me the important part is that it gives the look I wanted, plus the
ability to add faux color. For other effects I can put a lens filter on
that camera, or on one of my others.


if it gives you what you want that's fine, but based on what you wrote
about infrared photography, you don't really know how to get what you
want and are mostly going with whatever you get.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Playing with LR5 Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 58 November 25th 13 11:40 PM
Playing around with NIK otter Digital Photography 19 July 4th 13 11:36 PM
Still playing with HDR Father McKenzie[_3_] 35mm Photo Equipment 9 March 17th 08 04:56 PM
Playing with HDR Father McKenzie[_3_] 35mm Photo Equipment 12 January 27th 08 05:37 PM
Playing with polarisers Seán O'Leathlóbhair Digital Photography 15 May 31st 07 11:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.