Infrared....false colour or b&w.

[Roger]

 

[Hoser]

Something's not right. If the second pic is supposed to be IR then why aren't the trees white?

It just doesn't look like an IR pic to me. It looks like a regular B&W.

 

[Roger]

Something's not right. If the second pic is supposed to be IR then why aren't the trees white?

It just doesn't look like an IR pic to me. It looks like a regular B&W.

that's because the trees are evergreens.

 

[ernie]

i prefer the b&w

 

[Dwig]

that's because the trees are evergreens.

Even evergreens reproduce very light to white in true IR photographs. Hoser is quite right, these are obviously not infrared photos by any legitimate stretch of the term. They are just manipulated images.

As to Roger's original question: I find the B&W preferable, but the lack of tonal separation between the trees and the stone wall keeps it from being as qood as it could be. A real IR image might have handled this better, but might have replaced one lack of separation with another where the trees and mountains merge. The color version is disturbing with the exagerated sky and reflection (fine in and of themselves) and the total lack of similar exageration in the green trees. It leaves the image disturbingly out of balance.

 

[Jeff Canes]

the the B&W looks more like near IR films from Ilford SFX or Rollei IR without a filter, the color IMO just looks like HDR but a good one

 

[teneighty23]

B+W by a mile, nothing matches the dark cloudy skies with a red filter. mmm i love it

 

[Miami Photographer]

I love the B&W

 

[Fox Paw]

Having been on a black-and-white jag lately, I agree with the majority. Nice shot.

 

[Roger]

i prefer the b&w

thanks ernie.

Even evergreens reproduce very light to white in true IR photographs. Hoser is quite right, these are obviously not infrared photos by any legitimate stretch of the term. They are just manipulated images.

As to Roger's original question: I find the B&W preferable, but the lack of tonal separation between the trees and the stone wall keeps it from being as qood as it could be. A real IR image might have handled this better, but might have replaced one lack of separation with another where the trees and mountains merge. The color version is disturbing with the exagerated sky and reflection (fine in and of themselves) and the total lack of similar exageration in the green trees. It leaves the image disturbingly out of balance.

okay, firstly they are genuine IR photos taken with my converted 300D....the colour is called false because I have used a channel swap to achieve the result....the b&w is a straight conversion from a digital RAW IR file.....as for the rest of your comments, well thanks for expressing them.

the the B&W looks more like near IR films from Ilford SFX or Rollei IR without a filter, the color IMO just looks like HDR but a good one

thanks for your comments.

B+W by a mile, nothing matches the dark cloudy skies with a red filter. mmm i love it

thank you.

I love the B&W

thanks.

Having been on a black-and-white jag lately, I agree with the majority. Nice shot.

thanks a lot.

 

[Double H]

I must say, something is not right about both images. Greens will turn white in IR, in color-ir they will turn red. Here are two examples:

Color IR

B&W IR

The sky definitely looks IR - rich, deep. But the greens are a dead giveaway.

 

[tijean]

I am with the confused side of the room. It is definately an excellent photo. I prefer the black and white version, personally.

But evergreens generally appear to be white in infrared photographs, as seen in this example: http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlargement.aspx?CID=isg&mediauid={38AFAE6E-C2BF-4B85-8854-98538E0E63D6}

I have seen it, I have done it. I've used both film and an r72 filter on an unconverted Pentax *istDS (which should be much less sensitive to infrared than a camera with the IR filter removed) and evergreens always appear white.

What was the temperature outside when you took the photo? Maybe if it was very cold... I don't know.

I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to figure out what I am failing to understand in regards to your process.

 

[Roger]

I must say, something is not right about both images. Greens will turn white in IR, in color-ir they will turn red. Here are two examples:

The sky definitely looks IR - rich, deep. But the greens are a dead giveaway.

with digital IR the image can be manipulated to produce false colurs. The channel swap I use produces predominantly blue skies and water, by moving the Hue/Sat slider the tones can be altered to make the blue more realisitic and the foliage can go green or sometimes a yellow/gold. A lot of this depends upon the type of filter that the camera has been modded with. There are many examples on my website.

I am with the confused side of the room. It is definately an excellent photo. I prefer the black and white version, personally.

But evergreens generally appear to be white in infrared photographs, as seen in this example: http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlargement.aspx?CID=isg&mediauid={38AFAE6E-C2BF-4B85-8854-98538E0E63D6}

I have seen it, I have done it. I've used both film and an r72 filter on an unconverted Pentax *istDS (which should be much less sensitive to infrared than a camera with the IR filter removed) and evergreens always appear white.

What was the temperature outside when you took the photo? Maybe if it was very cold... I don't know.

I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to figure out what I am failing to understand in regards to your process.

thanks for your comments.....the temp on the day was cold, but I have other images taken on warm days where different types of pines did not go white, this seems to be the case with some types of trees. I have images with mixed foliage and I will be posting another thread as an example.