Playing with near IR

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

not on a modified camera. that's the whole point of modifying it.

The advantage of course is that one can use the better lenses.

that has nothing to do with using a filter.

On 8/29/2014 10:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

not on a modified camera. that's the whole point of modifying it.

The advantage of course is that one can use the better lenses.

that has nothing to do with using a filter.


I am not going to respond to your troll. For aminut I thought you were
serious. Once you claim that an R72 filter doesn't increase exosure
time, your typical personalality appears.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

not on a modified camera. that's the whole point of modifying it.

The advantage of course is that one can use the better lenses.

that has nothing to do with using a filter.

I am not going to respond to your troll. For aminut I thought you were
serious. Once you claim that an R72 filter doesn't increase exosure
time, your typical personalality appears.

i am serious. what i wrote was to help with infrared photography, which
is something i've been doing for about 8 years.

as usual, you're showing just how much of an asshole you truly are,
along with lying about what you said.

using an r72 or any other infrared filter doesn't cause long exposures
*on a modified camera*, something to which you even agreed in another
post!! now you move the goalposts and contradict yourself.

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.

but you're so intent on arguing that you can't understand that and
refuse to learn anything.

On 8/30/2014 5:16 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

not on a modified camera. that's the whole point of modifying it.

The advantage of course is that one can use the better lenses.

that has nothing to do with using a filter.

I am not going to respond to your troll. For aminut I thought you were
serious. Once you claim that an R72 filter doesn't increase exosure
time, your typical personalality appears.

i am serious. what i wrote was to help with infrared photography, which
is something i've been doing for about 8 years.

as usual, you're showing just how much of an asshole you truly are,
along with lying about what you said.

using an r72 or any other infrared filter doesn't cause long exposures
*on a modified camera*, something to which you even agreed in another
post!! now you move the goalposts and contradict yourself.

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.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

not on a modified camera. that's the whole point of modifying it.

The advantage of course is that one can use the better lenses.

that has nothing to do with using a filter.

I am not going to respond to your troll. For aminut I thought you were
serious. Once you claim that an R72 filter doesn't increase exosure
time, your typical personalality appears.

i am serious. what i wrote was to help with infrared photography, which
is something i've been doing for about 8 years.

as usual, you're showing just how much of an asshole you truly are,
along with lying about what you said.

using an r72 or any other infrared filter doesn't cause long exposures
*on a modified camera*, something to which you even agreed in another
post!! now you move the goalposts and contradict yourself.

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.

what for? you're never going to admit you're wrong.

you just want to argue and be an ass.

what i said is correct.

On 8/30/2014 5:59 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

not on a modified camera. that's the whole point of modifying it.

The advantage of course is that one can use the better lenses.

that has nothing to do with using a filter.

I am not going to respond to your troll. For aminut I thought you were
serious. Once you claim that an R72 filter doesn't increase exosure
time, your typical personalality appears.

i am serious. what i wrote was to help with infrared photography, which
is something i've been doing for about 8 years.

as usual, you're showing just how much of an asshole you truly are,
along with lying about what you said.

using an r72 or any other infrared filter doesn't cause long exposures
*on a modified camera*, something to which you even agreed in another
post!! now you move the goalposts and contradict yourself.

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.

what for? you're never going to admit you're wrong.

you just want to argue and be an ass.

what i said is correct.

GFY.

I am not going to let you disrupt this thread.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

not on a modified camera. that's the whole point of modifying it.

The advantage of course is that one can use the better lenses.

that has nothing to do with using a filter.

I am not going to respond to your troll. For aminut I thought you were
serious. Once you claim that an R72 filter doesn't increase exosure
time, your typical personalality appears.

i am serious. what i wrote was to help with infrared photography, which
is something i've been doing for about 8 years.

as usual, you're showing just how much of an asshole you truly are,
along with lying about what you said.

using an r72 or any other infrared filter doesn't cause long exposures
*on a modified camera*, something to which you even agreed in another
post!! now you move the goalposts and contradict yourself.

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.

what for? you're never going to admit you're wrong.

you just want to argue and be an ass.

what i said is correct.

GFY.

like i said, you're an asshole.

it's also clear you have no idea what you're doing either.

I am not going to let you disrupt this thread.

i'm not the one disrupting anything.

you're the one who has resorted to obscenities (even if it's in acronym
form), along with being your usual argumentative asshole self.

again, what i said is correct.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

If your camera does not have an IR filter, like the Olympus C2020, or
if you have had it removed, you will not need long exposures. All my
shots were hand-held and shutter speeds were up to 1/125 sec.

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

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

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

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.


--
PeterN