Infrared Filter Q

[tron]

Hey:

Im debating buying an IR filter to mess around with. I love IR photography and feel like I will use this filter a lot. I was wondering what you guys recommended as a good cheap-ish (under $100usd preferred) filter. I need a filter 67mm or larger.

So far I found a B+W 093 IR filter for $74 shipped. Good choice?

 

[Josh66]

Yes. Buy it.

I have the 093 and 092.

(092 lets some visible light in - 093 blocks all but IR.)

B+W is top quality. You can't go wrong with them.

EDIT

Good price too, BTW. The 67mm is $120 at B&H right now.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Can you post a picture shot with each? i'm curious on how different they look?

 

[Garbz]

Ok is this for a digital camera? If so take care getting a filter that blocks all light into the IR range as you'll end up with exposure times that are unmanageable.

I use a Hoya R72 which is equivalent to a Wratten 89B (720nm cut-off) If you hold it up on a really bright day right to your eyes you can just make out some very deep red details. This is the same filter as the B+W 092 and I highly recommend it.

There are also other typical ones:
87 (770nm)
87C (830nm) (This is the B+W 093)
88A (740nm)

Now the problem with the 87C line of filters is you're dropping EVEN more possible light away from the sensor. Camera sensors have an IR blocking filter on them. On a typical sunny day on my D200 I can take a picture with the 720nm cutoff filter at 15 seconds, f/4, ISO200, and still get an incredibly dark picture. A 830nm cut-off filter is likely to let in several stops less light again.

It makes a far more contrasty infrared effect, but it's a trade-off you have to consider. Not all filters are perfect and you're battling filters against each other. On some unmodified cameras it may make little to no difference what filter you put on as light leaks through imperfect filters.

Now if we're talking film, or using these on a modified camera there'll be a world of difference between the two filters.

 

[Josh66]

Can you post a picture shot with each? i'm curious on how different they look?

I don't have any on this computer... I have some IR stuff online, but I think it's all with the 093 filter. I honestly don't use the 092 much... From what I can remember though, it looked basically the same - just redder. The 093 filter gives me almost B&W with just a WB correction. B&W with a rusty tint, basically.

I guess it depends a lot on the camera, but with a 350D my exposure times were usually around 10 seconds. That camera is dead now, and the only working digital camera I have now is an E-300. I haven't tried shooting IR with that yet, but maybe I should give it a shot today.

Damnit - I think all of my IR pictures are on Photobucket, not Flickr, and I haven't used that in so long that I can't remember my user name or password...

Trying to dig through my posts and find some... I know I've posted them to a few forums...

 

[tron]

^thanks for looking dude. im interested to see what the exposure times will be like on my d40. worst comes to worst ill just convert the d40 for IR and just get a d7000 (planned on upgrading this winter anyways).

but i cant wait to get this filter. i read some more reviews and everyone loves it. i plan on shooting IR landscapes really so long exposure times wont be a huge problem but it would be nice if they didnt go into the 1+ minute range regularly.

 

[maris]

I get my IR filters out of Ebay. They originate in China and work just fine. A 77mm diameter IR720 cost me $23 shipping included!

 

[tron]

got it in yesterday!

heres a real quick photo i took through my window. im thinking i should be able to do some cool stuff with this filter.

1/1.6 iso200 f/3.5

 

[Markw]

Im glad its working out to your liking. My D300s w/720nm filter set produces terrible photos. I cant believe it sometimes. I'm just going to have to drop the $400 sometime and get a converted D70s/80 or similar. That should be great fun.

Mark

 

[Josh66]

Terrible in what way?

You are compensating for the focus shift, right?

Most lenses have a mark for IR focus correction, some (usually the cheaper ones) don't.

 

[Markw]

Terrible as in it takes at least 20s for an exposure (at F/7.1!)..even in full sun unless it's pointed at the sun itself. After this, the photo is always fully red. Not the sepia-type color you see all over the net before post. After post, there is so much grain all over the photo, once noise reduction is applied, there is no detail on any foliage or grass, let alone any other object. It's a miserable experience every time I try to pull out the IR filter for me.

Mark

 

[Josh66]

With IR, I've found that it's usually best to shoot wide open.

From the reading I've done, DOF doesn't work the same with IR as it does with visible light. My own experiences, while not outright confirming that, don't deny it.

 

[Josh66]

The redness is a WB issue.

My shots always came out red - after a quick WB correction, they were more or less B&W.

 

[Markw]

After a WB adjustment, mine turn out to be a sepia color. Your filter blocks all light under 830nm..which is basically all the colors so yours would turn out black and white. Mine only blocks out under 720nm, which includes some blue. I set the custom white balance with a green leaf, but I must be doing something wrong or something..

Mark

 

[Josh66]

What filter are you using?

It sounds to me like it is entirely a 'filter problem'.

Perhaps a different filter would yield better results? ...Or am I missing something?