IR HDR?

[Bynx]

I agree with you that the pic looks better without that patch. But Im not sure what you are trying to achieve. This might be a fantastic image from the method you are trying. But for an image Id like to look at, not so much. I kinda like your lake scene. Looks like late autumn that had no wind to blow the leaves off the trees. Another shot while still on the tripod without the IR filter might have been good. Then you'd have a summer, fall comparison look

 

[zombiemann]

I unfortunately don't have a visible light duplicate of the first lake scene I posted, but I do have another lake scene that came out nicely. I'm thinking maybe the first image (the old school house) might just be a poor choice of exposures.

1. Visible light HDR

2. IR without the R/B Channel swap (3 exposures)

3. IR with red and blue channel swapped for "false color"


P.S. yea I know the branches at the top need to be removed/cropped out. Right now I'm just trying to get an idea of if this is a viable methodology.

 

[Bynx]

Now that might make a nice tryptic. Leave the branches there. It gives a bit more 3D look and establishes where you are.

 

[zombiemann]

So riddle me this Bynx, in your opinion, lack of interest in IR not withstanding... Do you think this is a process I should continue to peruse and refine or am I spitting into the wind?

 

[zombiemann]

Also is this kind of what you meant by "tryptic"? It's a very quick and dirty attempt, just seeing if I understand you correctly

 

[Bynx]

That tryptic is good. I was thinking of the 3 pics side by side.
Like I said Im not that familiar with IR photography other than the little bit Ive shot on film. Ive seen some spectacular shots done B&W which gave a beautiful wintery look to a nice green summer scene. I dont know what look you are after. Is there someone's work you have seen and are trying to go for? It seems a convoluted way to end up with an HDR image. I tried your version of the tryptic.


Please note: The member's profile indicates that his/her images are Not Okay to Edit.
Tks

 

[zombiemann]

No, not trying to emulate anyone else's work. Quite the opposite really. I'm not trying to make a name for myself or anything, but I like to try things that are unusual. Anybody with a tripod and a little bit of time can do a passable HDR (note: if they put forth the effort, I know HDR isn't cruise control for cool). I like to dabble in HDR and like I said in the original post, I've been bracketing my IR shots to cover my bases as far as exposure is concerned. So I just kinda thought "what the heck, this might be neat" and what you see in this thread is the result

 

[mjhoward]

Whether it looks like how an IR "ought to look" is completely irrelevant.

IMO it is completely relevant since I was suggesting that it wasn't even an IR image but rather a visible light photo with a red filter applied. My suspicions seem at least mostly correct since the OP admitted the IR cut-off filter had not been removed from in front of the sensor, meaning most IR light is being filtered out. The other giveaway is that the SOOC should look at least nearly black and white since IR is not in the visible spectrum. Again, I think establishing wether or not this was actually just a strangely filtered HDR photo rather than IR as the title suggests would actually be completely relevant, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[unpopular]

Wait. So not even an Bandpass or Highpass filter was used? You can sort of get IR without removing the filter on the sensor, but you need to filter the visible spectrum first and provide a long exposure.

 

[zombiemann]

I used a 720nm visible light filter when taking the source photos.. The three shots I stacked for the initial image (the one room school house) have an agregate total of 55 second exposure. Many DSLR cameras can still "see" IR even with the built in factory filter over the sensor. You can test this yourself by pointing a TV remote at the lens of your camera and watching live view as you press a button on the remote. If you see a light flashing on the end of the remote, guess what.... your camera is picking up the IR light that is invisible to the naked eye.


So please, before you call me a liar (which is exactly what you did in essence), have half a clue as to what you are talking about

 

[zombiemann]

Just to take it one step further... Here is the filer I use:

 

[mjhoward]

So please, before you call me a liar (which is exactly what you did in essence), have half a clue as to what you are talking about

I swear this forum is littered with all kinds of reading comprehension problems. I'm also fairly certain that I've got more of a clue as to what I'm talking about than you do. I never called you a liar or even suggested that you were lying. I did, however, suggest that the photo may not actually have any IR component to it, which you may not have realized. I understand that your camera, which most if not all do, picks up the IR light from your remote. That is one small range of NIR light out of a much broader spectrum. It could be that nothing in that particular scene is reflecting the spectrum that your camera is sensitive to (meaning no IR) and all you are left with is the long exposure of visible light up to 720-750nm. Sure your $8 filter might be advertised for cutting of everything shorter than 720nm but it is a VERY cheap filter and there will be some fall-off. Like I said, your SOOC photo would indicate that vegetation reflects NO IR light while the sky reflects a relatively large amount of IR, which is the opposite of reality, hence my suggestion. Now the second photo in your post #12, on the other hand, looks MUCH better and actually exhibits IR behavior.