| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2011 09:18:58 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by alexlky:
Thanks for the correction, my dear friend. Dave, do think it's good idea if members could list down suitable lenses for R72 filter?
My playing with IR filter tells bigger aperture produce less bright center spot but for smaller aperture long shutter (above 3 mins), the center bright spot details almost gone. |
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
Thought I would add a few things to consider here...
I have taken a few IR shots with my Canon 450D XSi. It has a very strong IR filter on the sensor and thus requires an exposure of around 15-30 secs depending on ISO used and available light. I use a Hoya R72 IR filter on my 18-55 kit lens.
This brings me to an important point - the lens. Some lenses are better than others for a long exposure for IR. The 18-55 I use is not good but the 55-250 I have is f***ing terrible! Some lenses cause "hot spots" where the IR is reflected off the sensor then around the lens and makes a brighter spot in the middle of the shot.
Check out this page, it might help you. //dpanswers.com/content/irphoto_lenses.php.
There is plenty IR info out there on the web and also tips on how to edit. Enjoyit - it certainly is a different type of look when you get it right. |
how about the link from this earlier post, seems quite comprehensive |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 09:54:43 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
Originally posted by alexlky:
Thanks for the correction, my dear friend. Dave, do think it's good idea if members could list down suitable lenses for R72 filter?
My playing with IR filter tells bigger aperture produce less bright center spot but for smaller aperture long shutter (above 3 mins), the center bright spot details almost gone. |
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
Thought I would add a few things to consider here...
I have taken a few IR shots with my Canon 450D XSi. It has a very strong IR filter on the sensor and thus requires an exposure of around 15-30 secs depending on ISO used and available light. I use a Hoya R72 IR filter on my 18-55 kit lens.
This brings me to an important point - the lens. Some lenses are better than others for a long exposure for IR. The 18-55 I use is not good but the 55-250 I have is f***ing terrible! Some lenses cause "hot spots" where the IR is reflected off the sensor then around the lens and makes a brighter spot in the middle of the shot.
Check out this page, it might help you. //dpanswers.com/content/irphoto_lenses.php.
There is plenty IR info out there on the web and also tips on how to edit. Enjoyit - it certainly is a different type of look when you get it right. |
how about the link from this earlier post, seems quite comprehensive |
great link, thanks. It's quite comprehensive. Take note Poor IR performance category could means lens may produce hot spot. |
|
|
|
05/26/2011 05:31:13 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by alexlky:
R72 filter work best with P&S. |
I have an old Canon Powershot A710IS. Can I use it with infrared? If yes - how? |
|
|
|
05/26/2011 11:49:26 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by alexlky:
R72 filter work best with P&S. |
I have an old Canon Powershot A710IS. Can I use it with infrared? If yes - how? |
Hi Margeret. It's a good idea to start IR photography with P&S. Any those ebay 10 dollars cheap 52mm IR720 filter should be able to perform. But don't expect the quality of DSLR. Just get one and hold it by hand in front of your A710s lens. Love to hear from you how the capability of A710s perform with IR filter. Don't forget to share!
I don't have capability to explain it in technical term. Due to P&S camera system differ form DSLR, the shutter speed will be very much faster on P&S with IR filter compare to DSLR.
IR exif from Lumix P&S. ISO 80 and archive shutter speed of only 1/1s. It's much faster than DSLR which take longer shutter time and cause much motion blur. Here:
After editing: Alx90 7969
|
|
|
|
05/27/2011 12:36:30 AM · #55 |
| I tried AS710 and I can see the image easily but the quality is too poor. I have tried with 550D and the quality is much better. I did custom WB on a green plant and it looked as expected on the LCD. BUT as soon as I started import into LR3 I get red tint back (it looks OK in the camera). The Temperature is at 2000 so I can't go any lower and messing around with Tint does not solve the problem. Is it possible that the custom WB on 550D has lower Temperature?? Is there any way to edit it? I tried swapping Red and Blue as per Judi's tutorial in CS5 but the tint is still there (I can change its color but cannot get rid of it unless I desat Red). Since I am a complete newbie in this I might be doing something silly. Help?! |
|
|
|
05/27/2011 12:47:18 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
I tried AS710 and I can see the image easily but the quality is too poor. I have tried with 550D and the quality is much better. I did custom WB on a green plant and it looked as expected on the LCD. BUT as soon as I started import into LR3 I get red tint back (it looks OK in the camera). The Temperature is at 2000 so I can't go any lower and messing around with Tint does not solve the problem. Is it possible that the custom WB on 550D has lower Temperature?? Is there any way to edit it? I tried swapping Red and Blue as per Judi's tutorial in CS5 but the tint is still there (I can change its color but cannot get rid of it unless I desat Red). Since I am a complete newbie in this I might be doing something silly. Help?! |
It sounds like LR is converting everything to default settings when you import. I shoot RAW and transfer via Memory Card Reader straight into folders in Windows. I do NOT transfer via an editing programme. I then save a copy just in case a programme changes settings or whatever.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2011 01:13:21 AM · #57 |
| i'm too lazy to read through this whole thread right now... but what tech. is infrared photography? |
|
|
|
05/27/2011 09:17:57 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by ScooterMcNutty:
i'm too lazy to read through this whole thread right now... but what tech. is infrared photography? |
JFGI |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 08:23:34 AM · #59 |
Hi all, im new to the IR scene, i took some of my first shots today,
i use an unmodified Canon EOS 550D with both the 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses, along with a MASSA 58mm IR720 Filter.
I have found that i dont get hotspots that some are experiencing, weird that...but anyway heres how i did it
I manually set the Camera up fully manual with Manual focusing no IS
set the WB to custom and point it at something green
set up your picture scene that your looking to capture
Set ISO to 100
reasonable sunlight also a must
somewhere between f4-f8 f4.5-5.6 is good for me
15-30sec exposure time
put the IR Filter on
and snap away.
i played about with the settings, increasing the ISO and decreasing the time of the exposure
or
decreasing the Aperture and exposure times, but generally he above are a good starting place,
you can then adjust the red and blue channel numbers in photoshop around to suit your taste
but i like them as is, personal preference i guess. i hope that helps anyone just starting out using a canon DSLR.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2011 08:32:47 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Hi all, im new to the IR scene, i took some of my first shots today,
i use an unmodified Canon EOS 550D with both the 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses, along with a MASSA 58mm IR720 Filter.
I have found that i dont get hotspots that some are experiencing, weird that...but anyway heres how i did it
I manually set the Camera up fully manual with Manual focusing no IS
set the WB to custom and point it at something green
set up your picture scene that your looking to capture
Set ISO to 100
reasonable sunlight also a must
somewhere between f4-f8 f4.5-5.6 is good for me
15-30sec exposure time
put the IR Filter on
and snap away.
i played about with the settings, increasing the ISO and decreasing the time of the exposure
or
decreasing the Aperture and exposure times, but generally he above are a good starting place,
you can then adjust the red and blue channel numbers in photoshop around to suit your taste
but i like them as is, personal preference i guess. i hope that helps anyone just starting out using a canon DSLR. |
I have the same camera and the main problem is that with such long exposures anything green is blurred. It is just too windy here most of the time. I tried P&S Canon S95 but although the exposure times are much shorter it does suffer from the circle in the middle. So I haven't got far with this.
BTW if you use the LCD you will see a bit of the image on a bright day. You can then use AF and AV. |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 11:12:50 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by ScooterMcNutty:
i'm too lazy to read through this whole thread right now... but what tech. is infrared photography? |
Electro-magnetic radiation in the infra-red spectrum is interpreted by humans as heat. The sensor is made/allowed to be sensitive to radiation in the infra-red wavelengths, and the image subjects are defined by their temperature (hotter = brighter) rather than their degree of reflectivity of light in the "visible" range of wavelengths.
Message edited by author 2011-07-17 11:13:35. |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 05:38:25 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Even with the adapted camera you still need the filters. But the exposure times get shorter.
R. |
Robert, could you please explain that a bit further?
When I looked around for a conversion kit, I kept coming across a website called Life Pixels.
On their conversion kit page they state: "After the conversion you will not need any filters in front of the lens and the camera will be just as sensitive to infrared as it was to visible light. This means you can hand hold and compose as normal."
I'd love to get my old 20D converted, but wouldn't bother if I still need a filter, anyway. |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 05:41:23 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Even with the adapted camera you still need the filters. But the exposure times get shorter.
R. |
Robert, could you please explain that a bit further?
When I looked around for a conversion kit, I kept coming across a website called Life Pixels.
On their conversion kit page they state: "After the conversion you will not need any filters in front of the lens and the camera will be just as sensitive to infrared as it was to visible light. This means you can hand hold and compose as normal."
I'd love to get my old 20D converted, but wouldn't bother if I still need a filter, anyway. |
Hmmm...that's strange...I have the converted camera and I don't use any filters!
|
|
|
|
07/17/2011 05:43:35 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Even with the adapted camera you still need the filters. But the exposure times get shorter.
R. |
Robert, could you please explain that a bit further?
When I looked around for a conversion kit, I kept coming across a website called Life Pixels.
On their conversion kit page they state: "After the conversion you will not need any filters in front of the lens and the camera will be just as sensitive to infrared as it was to visible light. This means you can hand hold and compose as normal."
I'd love to get my old 20D converted, but wouldn't bother if I still need a filter, anyway. |
Apparently I was wrong :-) But I had thought you'd only get true infrared if you only allowed infrared light to reach the sensor... And I had thought the filter allowed ALL wavelengths through. Apparently they DO offer such a filter (a clear one) but they also have filters that ONLY allow IR wavelengths through.
R.
R.
Message edited by author 2011-07-17 18:08:45. |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 06:18:10 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Apparently I was wrong :-) .... |
Phew, that's good. Might still go do it some day, in that case. |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 09:28:41 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Even with the adapted camera you still need the filters. But the exposure times get shorter.
R. |
Robert, could you please explain that a bit further?
When I looked around for a conversion kit, I kept coming across a website called Life Pixels.
On their conversion kit page they state: "After the conversion you will not need any filters in front of the lens and the camera will be just as sensitive to infrared as it was to visible light. This means you can hand hold and compose as normal."
I'd love to get my old 20D converted, but wouldn't bother if I still need a filter, anyway. |
Hmmm...that's strange...I have the converted camera and I don't use any filters! |
Depends on how you have it converted. If you have the hot mirror/IR-cut filter removed, and clear glass put on instead, then you will have full IR and visible light sensitivity. If you wanted IR only shots, you would need the IR filter on the front of the lens to filter out the visible. Conversely, if you only want visible, you'd need to use an IR-cut filter on the front of the lens.
If you get a conversion that puts an IR-pass filter on the sensor, then the camera would only be usable for IR, and no filters would be needed on the lens. The flip side is that the camera is only usable for IR. |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 09:34:21 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Apparently they DO offer such a filter (a clear one) but they also have filters that ONLY allow IR wavelengths through. |
If you can see through it, then it (obviously) passes visible light. That's why IR filters look black. :) |
|
|
|
11/27/2012 08:35:56 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by MNet:
Originally posted by GAP2012:
Hi all, im new to the IR scene, i took some of my first shots today,
i played about with the settings, increasing the ISO and decreasing the time of the exposure
or
decreasing the Aperture and exposure times, but generally he above are a good starting place,
you can then adjust the red and blue channel numbers in photoshop around to suit your taste
but i like them as is, personal preference i guess. i hope that helps anyone just starting out using a canon DSLR. |
I have the same camera and the main problem is that with such long exposures anything green is blurred. It is just too windy here most of the time. I tried P&S Canon S95 but although the exposure times are much shorter it does suffer from the circle in the middle. So I haven't got far with this.
BTW if you use the LCD you will see a bit of the image on a bright day. You can then use AF and AV. |
I just set it up prior to capture and well windy i get blur of course because of the shutter times but it can add to the picture... maybe im not getting the same results as you..it gets pretty sunny and hot here so maybe thats helping? ive also tried creating my own templates for converting the normal red images associated wiht Infrared photos, with some success in LR4.2, but much prefer the original jps and can adjust these much better to get tham a little more vivid colour just a little is enough... but i think its important to make sure its one of the hottest brightest days when you set the white balance, and i didnt use a white card for WB exposure before hand just as is! maybe that helps? you can see some of my infrared in my collection on DPC
:O) |
|
|
|
11/27/2012 08:39:28 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by alohadave:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Apparently they DO offer such a filter (a clear one) but they also have filters that ONLY allow IR wavelengths through. |
If you can see through it, then it (obviously) passes visible light. That's why IR filters look black. :) |
+1 |
|
|
|
03/03/2017 10:17:02 PM · #70 |
Yesss this post was from 2012, however, I have been dabbling in this for a while and I LOVE infra-red
Just seeing what the interest is and to see if we can't run a side challenge perhaps with it? I do find it challenging to edit, but with the new lightroom, it made it pretty easy.
I did not convert my camera however, I do have the filters and I really love the effects for it. Thoughts??
Message edited by author 2017-03-03 22:17:53. |
|
|
|
03/04/2017 08:31:30 AM · #71 |
I shoot a LOT of IR, so I'd love to see something along these lines. I suspect the practical interest level here (i.e. the person already has at least an IR filter that would allow them to shoot) is not nearly high enough to support an actual challenge like that, but I'd be curious to see just how many people are around that would be into it - or at least a side challenge.
I've submitted IR work here in the past and in general it's received in much the same way much of the fine art photography is - those who get it reward it, those who don't pound on it and move on.
That said, if they do it, I will come. |
|
|
|
03/04/2017 02:24:40 PM · #72 |
Yes - worth a challenge... but let's broaden it to images that look similar to IR.
You can call it the "IR-ish" challenge and run it in about 2 weeks. |
|
|
|
03/04/2017 02:43:32 PM · #73 |
I have an IR simulation on my Pentax K50; among the optional preset filters for shooting in BW there is IR. (jpg)
("ish" is most useful in this day and age of manifold appearances). |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 04:48:46 AM EDT.
