Please Post Your Digital Infrared Photos Here!

[Markw]

Well, I think Im going to get back into IR photography. I have landed on some money and I think I can get a filter. I do, however, have to pick from the different...hmm..strengths(?) of fitlers. That being said, Id love it if you could post your IR photos here and tell what camera and filter they were taken with.

Thanks alot
Mark

 

[KmH]

Doing digital IR with a filter, means you won't be able to see anything in the viewfinder while the IR filter is on the lens.

Many digital IR affectionados have the image sensor in a camera modified for IR only work.

Check out: LifePixel Digital Infrared Photography IR Conversion, Modification & Scratched Sensor Repair

 

[Markw]

I have seen that page. That's actually what got me interested in IR photography in the first place. The thing is, I only have one body. That means I would have to buy another body, then pay the $400+ for something that I may not even be all that into in the end (the conversion). I know I wont be able to see in the viewfinder, but that's a very simple thing to fix..do all focusing beforehand. I'm sure you knew that, though. Id still love to see some photos.

Mark

 

[Brutus]

Uh...how exactly does IR photography work? I was under the impression IR light can't penetrate glass.

 

[Markw]

If you point a television remote at your camera and hold down a button, set your camera to shutter priority and have it on for at least 10s. You will see a red/purplish light coming from where the signal comes out. This is IR light. Most of Nikon's cameras don't block most IR light. This is an easy way to check. IR filters, lets say a 720nm IR filter, blocks out all light rays below the given wavelength. Visible light stops at about 700nm, so a 720nm IR filter would block out all light rays that are visible to you, while keeping in IR light. This will effectively give you a photo of only the infrared light seen by the camera.

Mark

 

[Garbz]

I use an R72 filter with a D200. The D200 is arguably one of the single worst cameras for IR since it has a very aggressive IR blocking filter on the sensor. I can't remember off hand but there was a website which listed a bunch of cameras and then rated their resulting shutter speeds before and after IR filter being applied and the D200 scored the worst.

That's reflected in the 10+ second shutter speeds I've used in broad daylight. Compared to the 1/60th using Ilford SPX200 IR film.

here's one: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/2301198605_f3d72526c7_b.jpg
here's another: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2180/2433580880_9c97964125_b.jpg some of the effect comes through quite nicely however I got into darkroom stuff so I now shoot IR film mostly.
digital IR doesn't compare remotely to the effect you get on film: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2143/2479741514_700607b218.jpg with the same Hoya R72 filter, unless you start modifying your camera.

I have often considered getting a body modified, but I would still put the filter on the front of the lens (i.e. just pull off the glass, don't put an IR high pass filter inplace). As KmH mentioned the downside you can't see through the viewfinder, however the upside is that metering and autofocus work quite well. You actually get a performance DROP in autofocus if you modify the sensor and install an IR high pass filter since different lenses bend IR light at different angles (CA characteristics), thus what your sensor sees and what the AF mechanism see are slightly different.

Uh...how exactly does IR photography work? I was under the impression IR light can't penetrate glass.

That's UV light. And there's no can or can't. There's just attenuation relative to wavelength. UV gets heavily attenuated, but ultimately some still makes it to the sensor. IR passes through a lot of things. Such as when you take photos of people wearing sunglasses and it looks like they have fake lenses, because the dark sunglasses are completely transparent to IR.

IR does not pass very well through the IR blocking filter that sits on the camera sensor, and the reason it sits there is because IR also penetrates quite well into an photoelectric cell and without it your pictures would come up with all sorts of funny reddish colours.

 

[ann]

some of the older cameras are better for IR as the block isn't as great.

with my d100 and a wratten 89 (? dont remember off hand which one) the times are around 8-10 seconds, with the files before converting a very heavy shade of magenta

i have a converted camera from maxmax that allows hand holding as well as seeing what is in front of the lens without a triopod. It also has an interchangeable filter that can be used for non-ir photos.

 

[Markw]

I prefer the first two examples. They look amazing to me. They are 10+s exposures? The ducks and people look amazingly still for 10+s. Great photos. I am in love.

Mark

 

[Markw]

Is there anywhere that sells these cameras already IR-converted, so you dont have to convert your own?

Mark

 

[ann]

ebay

you might also want to check out this website irphotocom - Home?

if your interested in color IR be sure you do some research on previous work as different camera sensor give different resultsand you can find a camera and not be happy with the results so best to check. . Black and white is not as critical

 

[Garbz]

I prefer the first two examples. They look amazing to me. They are 10+s exposures? The ducks and people look amazingly still for 10+s. Great photos. I am in love.

:lmao: The ducks are statues :lmao:

Also the second picture is clearly at a lookout. The people leaning on the fences were there for 10+ seconds (exp may have been 5 sec or so). Look in the foreground a bit and you see the blurry mess of people walking.

The problem with these examples is that the sky effect simply isn't there. These photos both have had a lot of playing around with contrast. Compared to this one here: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3383184239_251acbdd42.jpg which is straight off the camera on a very very dusty day. On a clear day that sky would have been jet black. That's the kind of effect you can appreciate from a converted camera.

 

[Markw]

Haha, I should have figured that I suppose. Im thinking that I will go with a 720nm. If I like it enough, I may get a second body modified to fullo IR. Maybe one with video, I think that would be quite fun. Unless anyone can either link me to or show me great photos with something higher than 720nm, that will be the filter I will be getting.

Thanks everyone who has commented so far
Mark

 

[Garbz]

Going higher than 720 without modifying the body will push you into the 30second-1minute + exposures.

 

[SwiCago]

DIY conversion on a D70 with an IR(R72) hot mirror filter replacement. The conversion took me about 15min to complete.

 

[Markw]

All Im seeing is red Xs...

Mark