Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by Almas1, Aug 6, 2010.
Which IS Better For Infrared Photos,
Using A Filter Or
Converting Ur Camera!
using a converted camera will allow hand held shooting.
One can use an IR filter with some older cameras but the times will be long and you will need a tripod.
one is not better than another, just different.
Also, if you doing color you might want to do some research about which camera sensors will give you the "looK" you desire as they aren't the same. Black and white doesn't bring that into the equation.
Depending on your camera, IR exposures (using a filter) can be quite long. On the 350D (which is supposed to be pretty good for IR), my shutter speeds are usually around 10 seconds.
It varies from camera to camera due to the differences in the filter on top of the sensor, which blocks a lot of IR.
A conversion would be really cool - but are you sure you love IR that much? Enough to have a camera that can do nothing but IR?
Here are two examples (well, maybe 3) from the 350D:
I missed the focus on that one... I fixed the focus in the next one, but screwed up the composition...
Those are all 'color'. All I did was correct the WB and mess with the curves a little.
These were shot with a filter - not a converted camera. Exif should be intact.
I am assuming you are referring to a Digital Camera.
The sensor has to be sensitive to the infrared end of the light spectrum. Most Digital Camera's have an IR filter to cut out that portion.
Some Digital Camera's filters cut less than others.
A Digital Camera with the IR filter removed will capture that end of the spectrum.
A filter will be used to cut out the rest of the light.
I think Infrared Film still is better, as it is specifically designed to capture that wavelength of light.
All digital cameras are sensitive to IR. Some are just more sensitive than others.
This is because of the IR cut-off filter, some are 'better' than others - and that's the reason for the long exposures. 'Better' filter = longer exposure.
EDIT - If you want to test whether or not your camera is sensitive to IR (it should be, a little at least) - grab your TV remote, aim it at your camera, press any button. If you have live view, you'll be able to see it right away. If you don't, you'll have to take a picture while holding the button down. You should be able to see the IR light from the remote.
I'm sure you're right. I haven't shot any IR film yet - mostly because I don't process my own film yet, and I'm not really sure where to send it...
As a general rule - do B&W labs do IR?
Ah, that's what I meant ... typo in my comment about the sensor.
Some labs are able to handle it, if they have developing machines that do not expose the film to any infrared light (many do).
I have always developed the film myself.
I have use Kodak High Speed, Ilford, and Konica infrared films, and there is nothing quiet like it. The high grain of the Kodak makes a nice additional affect.
This is my local lab - Silvano Colour Lab
They do handle Infrared film.
Color and B&W Film Processing - Silvano Imaging (We Still Process Film)
Good to know. I'll see what I can find in the States... I'm sure the shipping to Canada will be much higher, lol.
I believe Kodak has stopped making IR film, you might try freestyle to see what they are carrying.
And i would agree film certainly has a different look
—NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE—
KODAK High-Speed Infrared Film / HIE
Due to declining demand, KODAK High-Speed Infrared
Film / HIE has been discontinued, effective YE 2007.
infrared film - Google Product Search
Just did a quick check - B&H & Freestyle have mostly the same selection.
Rollei, Ilford & Efke appear to be the only IR players left.
Any preference? I've shot Efke before (not IR) and thought it was OK. No direct experience with Rollei or Ilford though.
Separate names with a comma.