PDA

View Full Version : IR on the CHEAP


Don Hoey
07-05-09, 20:48
Following the interest in IR by Andy and Peter I posted a mock job from a standard colour pic in the gallery with the idea of posting how I did it.

While trying to work that out and I am not the greatest in pp the mind wandered.
Ever one for trying to do things on the cheap I was now on a mission. ;) :D
Not having an IR filter I hunted for something fairly opaque. I tried stacked polarisers but that did not appear to be very sucessful. ....... mmmmm. A trip into the loft and a bit of a rummage later I found a slide film frame 6 x 6cm that was unexposed but developed and large enough to cover a 52mm filter thread . It appeared dark enough to restrict normal light other than on a really long exposure so I thought I would give it a go.
I taped it with electrical tape to an adaptor ring for my bellows lens hood so the join is light tight. No point getting too fancy if it did not work and if it was a partial sucess I might need to add another layer.

As is the way of things I really needed bright light to maximise the IR effect so of course that is when the clouds came in. :(
Attached is the test image taken in a short spell of sunshine. Although the foreground crop is rapeseed ( yellow flower) the stems, hedgerow and middle ground trees record quite well. Also the sky is recorded similarly to what I have had with genuine IR I have taken on film in similar conditions.
Exif is a dead duck as I used the D100 and a manual focus 24mm lens so it does not compute.
This was taken at ISO200 at f8 exposure 1/2sec. Focus was set to infinity on the IR mark. Taken in RAW and converted to B&W in NX2 with some curves adjustment.


Don

PS. I expect Harry (Wolfie) to be rolling around with laughter when he sees this thread.

wolfie
07-05-09, 21:51
"PS. I expect Harry (Wolfie) to be rolling around with laughter when he sees this thread."

:D:D:D:) Actually Don, it's the best contrived IR photo I've ever seen. And as I mentioned on the other IR thread I've tried most of the alternative methods

Harry

andy153
08-05-09, 17:23
Very good Don - I would never have thought it wasn't IR

miketoll
08-05-09, 20:35
Very convincing, I would never have known.

Don Hoey
09-05-09, 20:18
A quick update.

Modification time today. I added a second layer of non exposed but processed transparency film. Now it is totally opaque.
10/10 cloud so I also spent a bit of time making a bracket to hold the camera clear of the head as I am relying on using my Bronica bellows hood as the film is taped to the adaptor ring. I willl take a pic of that tomorrow.

Finally this evening we had a touch of brightness so nipped into Swaffham to take a couple of test images that are attached. The church clock is correct to give an idea of the time. Things are looking better than with the single layer of film.
Just a quick job on the pp front. Foliage is looking good but the sky shows nothing as it was totally overcast.

Forecast is looking brighter for tomorrow so hopefully better conditions for more testing.

Camera is the D100 with a 24 mm manual focus lens.
Exposure at ISO 400, 1sec at f8.

Don

andy153
10-05-09, 18:21
Nicely done Don, I notice the long exposure times and the ISO creeping up, as far as I know, one of the main advantages of a body conversion is that normal speed and high speed become possible?

Don Hoey
10-05-09, 19:45
Nicely done Don, I notice the long exposure times and the ISO creeping up, as far as I know, one of the main advantages of a body conversion is that normal speed and high speed become possible?

We need Harry to answer that one Andy. My set up is free so I expect to pay a penalty on the convenience front. But the same would apply to anyone going the IR filter route.

As promised attached is a pic showing the arrangement for supporting the unexposed but developed transparency film ( 2 layers ). It is taped position with black insulating tape onto a Cokin adaptor ring. As I have a bellows hood I am using that, but as I did with the close-up job I made for Ros, the hood could be the end of a black plastic plant pot. That keeps the cost down to around £5 if you can scrounge the film. Just to prove you do not need anything fancy on the lens front, the one I am using here is an old manual focus Sigma 24mm f2.8. You could probably get something like that for around £30 I guess.

Is it recording InfraRed ??
Attatched is a test I did in the garden yesterday. The non IR emitting objects recorded black so I am quite happy that the film filter is operating in the IR range. A note about exposures with this. Light loss is around 10 stops from standard, so a tripod is essential. Exposures in sunlight will be no better than ISO 400, 1/2 sec at f11.

Lastly I attatch an image taken today. Not the best compositionally, but as the statue is inside the stud at Sandringham and there were a number of parked cars around, its a case of beggers can't be choosers for position.

I guess the next thing to discuss is processing.
I am using NX2 apart from final resize and sharpen. Just could not get my head around CS for channel mixing to remove the colour cast. It seems way more complicated than NX2.

Don

andy153
11-05-09, 10:03
Thanks for that Don, I like the shot of Sandringham, and I note the very sturdy tripods.

postcardcv
11-05-09, 10:29
We need Harry to answer that one Andy. My set up is free so I expect to pay a penalty on the convenience front. But the same would apply to anyone going the IR filter route.

As promised attached is a pic showing the arrangement for supporting the unexposed but developed transparency film ( 2 layers ). It is taped position with black insulating tape onto a Cokin adaptor ring. As I have a bellows hood I am using that, but as I did with the close-up job I made for Ros, the hood could be the end of a black plastic plant pot. That keeps the cost down to around £5 if you can scrounge the film. Just to prove you do not need anything fancy on the lens front, the one I am using here is an old manual focus Sigma 24mm f2.

I had a play with an IR converted D200 last week and the speeds were just as normal, not loosing the stops that you do with a filter. Clearly it gives it an edge but at ~£300 for a conversion you need to be committed to get it done. I'd be interested to have a punt at your cheaper version, any idea where I might be able to get the unexposed but developed transparency film that you mentioned?

andy153
11-05-09, 12:40
Hi Don, talking about post processing here are a few shots. The original is followed by Silver Efex Pro 3 IR film filter, then Color Efex Pro 3 IR Colour film filter, then ColorEfex Pro 3 IR Filter, and finally Tiffen Dfx IR filter. All effects are set at 50%. These are the different interpretations of Aperture / Photoshop Filters.

Don Hoey
11-05-09, 17:09
...... I'd be interested to have a punt at your cheaper version, any idea where I might be able to get the unexposed but developed transparency film that you mentioned?


Peter,

Two options I have found for getting the film in a single roll. Seems its more easily available in packs of 5.
Warehouse Express have Fuji Provia 400X 120 ISO 400 film in single rolls for £3.88 a roll, and Calumet have Fujifilm RDPIII 120 Provia 100F for £3.15 a roll.
Given your location then I suggest WHE next time you are Norwich way to save on postage. You must make sure you get it in 120 and not 35mm.

For processing I suggest you send it to Peak Imaging. Cost £3.75
Here is the link to Peak web site.
http://www.peak-imaging.com/htmls/process.htm

So film, processing, and any postage for say £10. That would give sufficient material for at least 4 sets, so if there are any other members wanting to have a go you could sell the spare strips.

I saw the price of Cokin adaptor rings today and got a serious shock :eek:. Just crazy prices, so in case you do not have one I took a look through Amateur Photographer, and found an ad for Premier Ink & Photographic who are doing a compatible with Cokin .... 'Kood P-Type' for a LOT less.
Link to Premier Ink & Photographic
http://www.premier-ink.co.uk/photographic/square-filters/p-type/-c-60_361_363.html

Not sure what filter diameter your lens has but I am only down the road from you if you have queries as to mounting it.
If you want to try mine out first before going further then I am sure we can arrange a visit. :)

Don

Don Hoey
11-05-09, 17:42
Hi Don, talking about post processing here are a few shots. The original is followed by Silver Efex Pro 3 IR film filter, then Color Efex Pro 3 IR Colour film filter, then ColorEfex Pro 3 IR Filter, and finally Tiffen Dfx IR filter. All effects are set at 50%. These are the different interpretations of Aperture / Photoshop Filters.


Andy,

Thanks for posting those but the vegitation kind of give it away as a filter job. IR works at its best in bright sunlight where vegetation particularly, emits large amounts of IR light hence its bright appearance.
Attatched is a colour version of Denver Mill and the IR looking job I did on it. It is still not right though as true IR has a bit of a glow to the vegitation, also remember for B&W on a bright day, skies can look like a deep red filter has been used. Due to playing with my 'attempt at true IR on the cheap' job I have not had time to work out how on earth I did it :confused:.

Afraid I do not have the Efex range of filters you do so I cannot simulate what you have here. I have just got to get my head round Photoshop channel mixing as that means we can all play with a similar program. You and I can do stuff in NX2 which I find easy but most others are using Photoshop in all its flavours.

Don

andy153
11-05-09, 18:38
Don, I couldn't agree more, the vegetation does give them away as "false" filter jobs, but your cheap solution is as near correct as I've seen. We have to bear in mind that there are several "IR" filters out there that creep from the end of visible into IR, some which just allow IR, like the Wratten #87 and some which block out some or all IR.

Here is a Chart of IR filters courtesy of LINK
http://www.markerink.org/WJM/HTML/irfilter.htm


Wratten Schott B+W Hoya Tiffen 0% 50% Remarks
# 25 OG590 O90 25A 25 580 nm 600 nm Really a red filter
# 29 RG630 O91 - 29 600 nm 620 nm Dark Red
# 70 RG665 - - - 640 nm 680 nm Very Dark Red
# 89B RG695 O92 R72 - 680 nm 720 nm Almost Black, but not quite. (MOST COMMON REPLACEMENT FILTER FOR AN IR CONVERTED DIGITAL CAMERA)
# 88A RG715 - - - 720 nm 780 nm Anyone ever seen one?
# 87 RG780 - - 87 740 nm 795 nm Cuts off ALL visible light
# 87C RG830 O93 - - 790 nm 850 nm Usually called “Black”
# 87B RG850 - RM90 - 880 nm 930 nm Very expensive - $250 upwards
# 87A RG1000 O94 RM100 - 880 nm 1050 nm Blocks even some infrared.

nm = nanometers = wavelength.

Don Hoey
11-05-09, 19:35
Thanks for the link Andy.
I will read up a bit when I have a chance.
Perhaps I also need to have a greater understanding of the sensitivity of digital sensors to IR and UV.

Going for a look at Harry's followed by Sassans gallery now to really look at what an IR converted camera is capable of. :)

Don

andy153
12-05-09, 11:49
Thanks Don, I've trawled through both recently and there are some excellent images. I notice you've brought back an earlier thread on IR that was started by Duncan four years ago -- I've LINKED it here

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com/showthread.php?t=63 -

it also makes very interesting reading. Thanks.

yelvertoft
12-05-09, 12:50
Ah, those were the days. Don't have the *istDS any more. That was good for IR. The K10D is pretty poor for IR, filter is too strong. Might give it a go again on a bright sunny day to see how much I can push things. I'm a bit better at processing now. Will have to use Debbi's 50-200 as it's the only lens we now have that will take the Hoya R72.

postcardcv
12-05-09, 14:44
I tried the Cokin IR filter at my local shop today and have just taken a look at the images... very disapointed. I guess that my 30D must have a strong internal IR filter as the results were not what I was hoping for. Basically I've just got shots with a very strong red cast that I can't process to give anything other than a typical B&W effect, nothing like the files I got when testing a IR converted D200 the other week... I guess I need to either forget IR for the time being or bite the bullet and get my 30D converted.

Don Hoey
12-05-09, 16:38
Peter,

I am about to post in Duncans Infra Red Photography thread and that gives some indication of the changing cast as the image is processed. Never having seen an out of camera shot from a converted camera its hard to know the difference between that and a filter job.

I am not convinced by the Cokin system for this as the filter to lens is not light tight. If you post a copy of what you got I will give it a look in NX2 using the same route that I took in my latest post in the Infra Red Photography thread.

Don

Don Hoey
12-05-09, 17:30
I tried the Cokin IR filter at my local shop today and have just taken a look at the images... very disapointed. I guess that my 30D must have a strong internal IR filter as the results were not what I was hoping for.

Peter I have found this on the 30D and Hoya R72 filter for infrared if it helps.
Cokin filter will have a similar wavelength cutoff. The Hoya is screw in so no possibility of stray light.

Never going to equal a sensor conversion but then its lots cheaper. ;)

http://www.dimagemaker.com/2006/11/10/canon-30d-digital-camera-infrared-photography-performance/

Don

wolfie
12-05-09, 19:43
I've been waiting for some decent IR weather before replying to Dons post re. shutter/aperture settings. These are printed on the photograph, but Exif should be available on each photo

Well this evening the sky turned a reasonble blue, so I popped outside and fired of two shots.

The first two are taken from my front garden with the sun shining in the wrong direction. The photo is facing North with the sun in the East.

The second is taken a short distance up the road from me. Here the sun is more or less behind me (the best place for IR), but shaded by the nearby trees.

In both cases I have uploaded both the B&W and False Colour IR version.

Before taking the photos I created a custom white balance by taking a full frame exposure of the lawn and a second at the church. This is very important for false colour IR and is needed to create the nice blue sky and white foliage.

Processing was Auto Levels + swapping the Red & Blue Channels for the colour version and just Auto Levels for the B&W.

Not the best examples, but hopefully when the weather improves, they will improve.

Harry

Adey Baker
12-05-09, 21:01
I tried the Cokin IR filter at my local shop today and have just taken a look at the images... very disapointed. I guess that my 30D must have a strong internal IR filter as the results were not what I was hoping for. Basically I've just got shots with a very strong red cast that I can't process to give anything other than a typical B&W effect, nothing like the files I got when testing a IR converted D200 the other week... I guess I need to either forget IR for the time being or bite the bullet and get my 30D converted.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that earlier models like the D30 and D60 are more sensitive to IR than later models

andy153
12-05-09, 21:29
Nice examples Harry, thanks. Adey, from the reading I am doing it appears that some models of cameras are better for conversion than others, I think this is due to the make up of their original sensors. There are one or two DSLR's that are definitely not recommended. The earlier digiloyd link I posted above has something about different cameras and their sensors.

Adey Baker
12-05-09, 22:32
Adey, from the reading I am doing it appears that some models of cameras are better for conversion than others, I think this is due to the make up of their original sensors.

Sorry, I should have explained more fully - I was thinking that they might be worth trying without going to the expense of having a 'decent' camera converted which then needs additional expense for the filter to bring it back to 'normal'. 'Enough is as good as a feast,' so they say, and IR shots can look dramatic, but you wouldn't want to churn out a 'feast' of hundreds of them!

The D30 and D60 probably only give a similar effect to Don's D100 (Nikon's D70 is also good according to last week's 'Amateur Photographer') but you can often pick up a 'well used' example very cheaply, though you have to be aware that EF-S lenses are incompatible with these earlier models.

Don Hoey
13-05-09, 11:56
Wow Harry,
I really like the effect you have achieved on the fourth image. Thanks for taking the time to take & post those, even more fired up now. :)

Seems like the weather is now conspiring against trying more stuff out. 9/10 cloud now, and the next 5 days do not look promising :(. Still I suppose it does give time to look at processing options and surfing for more info.

Reading Adey's post on suitable cameras I found this link which also details some suitable and not lenses. Quite impressed as to where my D100 sits in the sensitivity scheme of things as I have found my D2X is not really suitable. Bucket loads of info if you go through the links at the bottom as well.
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/ir.html

Don

Don Hoey
13-05-09, 19:42
Harry,

I spent the whole afternoon spent trying to get any sort of False Colour from the few I took the other day.
Not knowing about the white balance bit at the taking time, I resorted to trying most combinations of white balance from 2600k through to 7042k on the RAW file. Even following a few processing sequence clues posted on the net I keep ending up with a B&W. I have read that as the IR cut off gets higher up the range as with filters like B+W 092 and 093 images only go that way, no colour. So maybe my diy job falls in that range. Blue skies to follow your method are I fear a few days away. :(

Decided that I will lash out the £35 on a Hoya R72 tomorrow. Should be interesting anyway, as I will be able to compare its results with those from the film strip filter.
I need a new cable release anyway, as after 20 plus years mine has fallen apart. Norwich has WHE, London Camera Exchange and Jessops, unless of course the old fashioned job is now not stocked by anyone. :rolleyes:

Don

wolfie
13-05-09, 22:49
Don here's an IR file for you to play with, just some local trees.

First do an Auto levels, the swop over the red and blue channels.

Harry

andy153
13-05-09, 23:40
Thanks for that Harry, I'm also going to have a play, hope you don't mind.

wolfie
14-05-09, 09:47
No problem Andy. When will you get your converted Nikon back?

Have you come across this IR site yet http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Infrared/index.html

I differ slightly from what he says about using Raw, I prefere to use Jpg and do a Custom White Balance on the day.

Harry

Harry

andy153
14-05-09, 12:32
No problem Andy. When will you get your converted Nikon back?

Have you come across this IR site yet http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Infrared/index.html

I differ slightly from what he says about using Raw, I prefere to use Jpg and do a Custom White Balance on the day.

Harry

Thanks Harry, yes I've come across Diglloyd and signed up for his IR bits. You've answered a question I had about JPEG though, I was going to try the RAW, but I'll also try JPEG as well now. The camera is due any day now, it has been with them since the 17th April, but they did say that due to a backlog it might be up to six weeks :( :(

wolfie
14-05-09, 13:49
Andy.

"it has been with them since the 17th April, but they did say that due to a backlog it might be up to six weeks".

Business, must be booming for them, I wonder how much of this is due to IR conversions. My 10D conversion was returned to me within a week. I had the camera converted the backend of 2007.

Mind you I did have rather a long chat with them on the phone and that I would post on the various forums regarding quality of their work and also the turn around time. Possibly that had something to do with the quick modification.

Harry

Don Hoey
15-05-09, 14:27
Don here's an IR file for you to play with, just some local trees.

Harry

Many thanks for that Harry.
Its just what I need. At least I will now know that any failure in pp will be down to operator error at this end. :D

Yesterday I got a Hoya R72, and a replacement cable release so all I'm waiting on now is some sunshine. ;)

BTW I found a copy of Amateur Photographer, the Christmas Special, and that has an article on IR converted cameras and they used Advanced Camera Services to convert their 20D.

Don

wolfie
15-05-09, 14:58
Don you don't always need sun, but it's far better if you have.

Extremely bored this afternoon, so when the rain eventually stopped pouring down, but still very overcast I took this snap of a clematis.

Harry

Don Hoey
15-05-09, 15:27
Harry,

I did as instructed and ran Auto levels followed by the action available for download in the Processing False Colours in this link and it came out like your final result. Quick and easy. :)
http://khromagery.com.au/digital_ir.html

I tried this proceedure the day before yesterday on mine and all I got B&W, so it is definately down to your method of setting custom white balance.

I'll have to take a trip into the loft now for the D100 manual. :rolleyes:

Don

postcardcv
15-05-09, 15:58
Yesterday I got a Hoya R72, and a replacement cable release so all I'm waiting on now is some sunshine. ;)

BTW I found a copy of Amateur Photographer, the Christmas Special, and that has an article on IR converted cameras and they used Advanced Camera Services to convert their 20D.

Don

the suns out now Don, get out and try it... :)

ACS are worth a visit, I popped in last week and had a chat with them about IR conversion, the chap even let me have a play with his IR D200.

Don Hoey
15-05-09, 16:34
the suns out now Don, get out and try it... :)

ACS are worth a visit, I popped in last week and had a chat with them about IR conversion, the chap even let me have a play with his IR D200.

Peter

Well its in and out. :)

I am trying to work out the WB thing. Could not find the manual so had to download a copy. Doing at print of the relavent bits now. Not a feature I have ever used and the manuals route looks tricky until I understand what I am doing.

First job is to do a Custom WB and then Auto and see what the kelvin difference is in NX2.

For IR conversion I could spend the money on a conversion or get a decent IR lens that I can use for anything else plus have a fair bit left over. I prefer the lens route so a 20mm f3.5 AIs is on the cards. Manual focus job but no probs as hyperfocus at around 3 metres and all from 1.5 to infinity will be good at f11. Ideal for this I think. Ok it will not meter on the D100 but if I am not doing IR it will be on the D2X and make a great compact lens FOV equal to 30mm on full frame.

Don

PS : I am trying to stick to RAW as on the D100 there is a significant image quality difference between RAW and Jpeg Fine.

andy153
15-05-09, 17:09
Hi folks - here is another website that I think will bear looking at.
http://www.crhfoto.co.uk/index.htm
It's IR section is very good and takes you through things step by step.
http://www.crhfoto.co.uk/crh/digital%20infra-red/digital-ir.htm

Don Hoey
15-05-09, 17:39
First job is to do a Custom WB and then Auto and see what the kelvin difference is in NX2.



Conditions for this test are not good today so I will repeat tomorrow. But from my first experiment the shift in deg kelvin of setting a custom WB off grass ( cloudy conditions ) is really significant.

Cloudy normal WB = 6000k. Custom WB off the grass is comming in at 3530k with a tint of -12 in NX2.
Grass is naturally looking a bit freaky in custom WB shot. :eek:

Looking good for using RAW though. :)

Don

andy153
15-05-09, 18:11
Don, Peter - is this any good in helping to sort out WB for infrared? It's a new approach for me and I'm getting stuck into the various links it gives you.
http://thegistofit.org/custom-white-balance-using-lab/

Don Hoey
15-05-09, 19:49
Andy,

I just had a go with Persimon image in Lab but got nowhere.

BIG OOPS from me re my last post :o :o :o. Did whe WB thing but not with the filter on so those figures are duff.
Fairly poor light but I just did a quick job with the filter on and that is well different from the Persimon shot. So here's hoping for a bit of sun tomorrow.

Don

wolfie
15-05-09, 20:59
I'm a little further North than you Don. Waited an hour for your weather to reach me, then took Peters advice and went out with the IR camera. By no means perfect weather so this is the result. Actually it's two images stuck together as a Pano.

Shot in Raw Temperature adjusted in Lightroom to 2000 then just the normal conversion. Then a gradient mask to darken the sky a touch.

Harry

Don Hoey
16-05-09, 09:27
Well I am well impressed with that Harry. :cool:

Not sure how my experiments will go today as light levels are pretty low. A quick check of the Met Office satellite sequence shows we are not likely to get much better either. :(

I see you mention adjusting temp in Lightroom. Does this mean you did not do a Custom WB ?

Don

wolfie
16-05-09, 10:33
Well I am well impressed with that Harry. :cool:

Not sure how my experiments will go today as light levels are pretty low. A quick check of the Met Office satellite sequence shows we are not likely to get much better either. :(

I see you mention adjusting temp in Lightroom. Does this mean you did not do a Custom WB ?

Don

Don. You had mentioned having a slight problem with the custom WB, (just a few seconds job on the Canon) so yesterday evening I decided to use raw and adjust the WB on the PC so as to find what I considered an optimum colour temperature.

So yes, as I convert all my raw files via Lightroom. On this occasion I did not do a custom WB.

The weather here is much the as your neck of the woods, so I'm about to redo the horse photo using various other WB settings, if any of these proove to be better than the one posted I will let you know.

Harry

andy153
16-05-09, 11:41
Great Pano Harry, been onto ACS again - another two weeks for the D100, they say they are snowed under.

Don Hoey
16-05-09, 17:26
Don. You had mentioned having a slight problem with the custom WB, (just a few seconds job on the Canon)
Harry

:D :D

Harry,
I discovered that not only will the D100 not meter with my m/f lenses, but it also will not allow Custom WB. Put an a/f lens on and no probs.
My problem a/f lens wise is I only have 12-24 ( cannot use due to a hotspot ), 35mm, 85mm and 180mm. This has shown m/f lenses have advantages and disadvantages on the D100. At least with m/f I can get to 24mm.

Conditions for testing are not so good. Quite a high wind so the sun comes and goes. Difficult to get a set of directly comparable images at various WB settings. Here is my first effort though, nothing fancy just a shot over the garden fence.

This one is with Custom WB and processing is just a case of convert from RAW to Tiff, Auto levels, run the Action I refered to in post 33, resize and USM .... finished. So with easy processing I will stick with Custom WB for false colour.
Exposure on this is ISO400, 1/6sec at f8, so at least one stop less light loss than the double transparency filter.

Don

wolfie
16-05-09, 21:24
Well it looks as though you've cracked it Don. Now all we need is some decent weather.

You will now have realised the downside of using an IR filter and why I had my old DSLR converted. 1/6 sec does not give much scope when shooting in windy conditions, but a least you're now ble to shoot IR.

Andy, what is the turn round time for a conversion now? From what you say it would seem many people who have upgraded are having their old cameras converted.

Soon all the oldies such as Don will be shooting IR:)

Harry

andy153
17-05-09, 00:25
Hi Don, you do seem to have cracked it but I am interested in what you say about the 12-24, I assume Nikkor, because apparently the 12-24 DG Sigma is highly recommended for IR. Here is a link to Nikkor lenses and there use with IR.
http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DIP/publish/lenses-Nikon.html

Hi Harry, ACS got mine on the 17th April, on Friday they told me another two weeks - so about six weeks at the moment. There is a firm on ebay that advertises conversions for £150, and quotes a week to 10 days turn around. These are the people who told me there was no need to retune the auto focus, just stop down to f8. From my reading, that is why I chose ACS and decided the longer wait was worth it.

Don Hoey
17-05-09, 09:48
.........Soon all the oldies such as Don will be shooting IR

Harry

Harry,
Well its all a matter of cost. I just could not afford the covenience that an IR converted camera would give. £35 for a 52mm Hoya R72 filter, although more than my for free film filter, still reasonably falls into the IR on the cheap bracket. Of course the advantage of being an oldie is that I am used to what is by todays standards, more primitive kit. :rolleyes: :D

The next step is to get to fully understand the response of the 3 channels to infrared and get a FAR better understanding of photoshop to be able to play with the subleties of tints.
Keep posting pics here as I am sure I will learn a lot from them.

Andy,
Your link is does not work ...... sign in job so I expect it is a pay to view so I cannot see what you are pointing me at.

12-24 then to quote Bjørn Rørslett, and he is a guy who has done a lot of IR with mostly 'UNCONVERTED TO IR' Nikons, and a huge array of lenses, so who I am I to argue. " IR performance: This lens is frequently severely flawed by a dominant hot-spot. The tendency for hot spotting develops towards the shorter focal settings and is exacerbated when the lens is stopped down. You have to try with your own camera to see if the combination works satisfactorily, the chances are against it though. " By contrast from what I read in a previous link Diglloyd appears to be using converted cameras.

A significant difference here as converted cameras have the AA filter swapped out. At IR wavelengths some lenses suffer a 'hotspot' as a result of light bouncing back and forth between the AA filter the rear lens element. I cannot remember what I was playing around with, ( not IR but maybe flash experiments ), but I have come across this 'hot spot' effect before, and it does not show in normal use. So it is a lens specific phenomenon at certain wavelengths of light. Complexity of the lens design and coatings may well be the factors influencing this. So stunning visible light performance does not equal the same in the IR wavelengths, and equally a mediocre lens in normal light can redeem itself in IR. For example for normal light photography the ancient Sigma 24mm f2.8 I am using for IR cannot hold a candle to my Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIs. In IR though the 28mm produces a 'hotspot', so in this case the Sigma wins, as it has no 'hotspot'.

For your interest I have a number of AIs lenses in 52mm filter thread that I can test when the sun finally comes out for long enough to conduct a series of consistent tests. - 24mm f2, 28mm f2.8 (tested-hotspot), 50mm f1.4, 55 f2.8 micro, 105mm f2.5, 105mm f2.8 Micro and 200mm f4,

I could have gone the Cokin route despite needing to tape the whole thing up to prevent visible light leak, to allow use of the 85mm, 180mm and Stevies 18-35 on adaptor rings but these lenses lack decent distance markings or in the case of the zoom an IR focus mark. So there is something to be said for old technology after all.

Don

wolfie
17-05-09, 11:04
Hi Don, I realise cost is a great consideration, but I have a delightful wife who still goes to work (should be retired) and is quite happy to pay for these extras for me.

If you follow this link http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/ReviewInfo.html then scroll down the page you will see an article marked "Now Free". Click on that and follow the various links.

Harry

Don Hoey
17-05-09, 19:37
Hi Don, I realise cost is a great consideration, but I have a delightful wife who still goes to work (should be retired) and is quite happy to pay for these extras for me.

Harry

:D :D

I showed that to Stevie and she laughed. Still a spend is OK'd if I find a 20mm f3.5 for a good price. ;)

No pics today as the weather has not been on my side. Spent a bit of time making an eye piece blind. Not impressed with what came with the camera.
I read in one of the links that on longer exposures like I am using, it is highly recommended to prevent stay light through the viewfinder degrading the image. That reinforces my view re the Cokin filter and the need to seal the holder from stray light.

Don

Don Hoey
19-05-09, 16:19
I tried the Cokin IR filter at my local shop ..........


Peter,
I think you must have Mark fired up now. I suggested he join so he could follow this thread. :)

A bit frustrated with the weather at the moment, but that has lead to another idea. ........ IR with flash. Some of you could probably have guessed that one might come up. :rolleyes:

We were in Dereham today, so I popped into Norfolk Camera Centre for something I had ordered, and they had Cokin IR filters on a really good deal. So I got one. The idea is to tape it inside my bellows hood and fire a flash through it. Not sure if it will work but nothing ventured nothing gained. At least that will keep me going until the weather improves. If it works then the next plot will be to try it with a double layer film filter as that is pliable and easier to wrap around a Stofen diffuser.

Of course now I have that, I can test Stevies lenses for hotspots as I am not limited to the 52mm filter thread of the Hoya R72 when I use the bellows hood.

Don

wolfie
19-05-09, 22:32
Don you may find this interesting

http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt/sets/72157602682146318/detail/

Don Hoey
20-05-09, 10:47
Thanks for posting that Harry. It must work then. :)

As I do not have any more film I will do a mod on my bellows hood to seal off the 75mm square filter holder to make the thing light tight with the Cokin filter, and then try firing a flash though it.

Don

Don Hoey
20-05-09, 15:02
Well I cobbled together a method of firing a flash through the Cokin IR filter. A second IR filter Hoya R72 was fitted to the camera lens.

The pics were taken in the workshop which was lit by flourecent tubes only - no daylight. A straight flash shot was taken with the the pop up flash to give a master to guage the IR effect.
As I am unlikely to take pics in pitch black, for the IR shot I selected an exposure that would benefit a bit from the workshop lighting. I really needed a more powerful flash than the SB-80DX as there is significant light loss. Exposure for the IR shot was ISO800, 2secs at f8, with the flash 30 inches from the subject.

Processing of the IR was Auto levels followed by the False Colour action I have previously mentioned, so nothing fancy.

Apart from foliage, which would reflect IR light, I added what I considered a IR dead object in the shape of the camera, again to see the effect. Glad I did now as there is a newly observed side effect to IR. Check out the self timer and lens release buttons on the front of the camera. IR light has seen straight through the plastic. A bit like an X ray. :eek:

I am well impressed with this first effort. I need to aquire some film now to try out a film filter which would make it an easier to handle flash set up. Even get back to multiple flash guns.

Managements calling, so I've got to go and help Stevie with her gardening now. :rolleyes: :D

Don

andy153
20-05-09, 17:26
Hi Don, of course Nikon used to make the SB-140 flash that had three changeable sensors, one for normal, one for UV and one for IR. This link explains http://www.ultraviolet-photography.com/
Also spot the other link on that page for "Beyond Visible". I notice that Nikon do IR flash adapters for the SB-600 & 800, - I like your shot of the camera & rose. By the way one of these articles speaks briefly about the effect of the fresnel screen on the front of the flash and how it lessens the power of an IR flash.

Don Hoey
21-05-09, 16:36
Thanks for the link Andy.
Saw the prices in $$ and nearly fell off my chair. :eek: :eek:
I will read through the linked pages at my leisure.

I will mod my Metz 45 first with a Cokin IR filter, and then the Vivitar 283 and Nikon SB80-DX with film filters all for a lot less than that. :)

As far as power loss goes you are right, but then multiple flash exposures on a single frame is a cost free way round that problem as I will only be doing still life.

Don

wolfie
21-05-09, 21:16
Don, as I mentioned in my PM. I went out today with the sole purpose of shooting a little IR, unfortunately before I got where I was going the heavens opened up, so IR was really out of the question, but even so here is one taken inbetween the raindrops:)

Harry

sassan
22-05-09, 05:17
Sorry guys if I haven't follow this topic from begining.
Just to jump in, if you don't mind, I learn a lot while web shopping.
Here is one eg. Just go throught the page without playing the role of buyer and a lot of basic info is well shown especially make sure to go throught the sample images.

_ _ L I N K _ _ (http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-20D-8-2-Megapixel-Infrared-IR-Digital-Camera_W0QQitemZ270390132086QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDig ital_Cameras?hash=item3ef481fd76&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1546%7C66%3A4%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C 240%3A1318%7C301%3A0%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A200#ebaypho tohosting)

Don Hoey
22-05-09, 09:06
Nice one Harry.
Just goes to show that there are IR possibilities even in conditions one might not expect. The sky says it all about the conditions that this pic was taken in.

Sassan,
How I wish I had seen those White Balance comparisons when I started with my first film filter shots at the start of this thread. They explain a lot. A great link and thanks for that.

Harry has totally saved my life with his input in this thread so I am much in his debt. ;)

Still early days for me, but as the D100 has two shooting banks, I have one set for Auto WB and the other on Harrys suggested custom WB taken from bright grass. Auto WB gives good B&W and Custom WB for false colour. Still to play with a B&W from custom WB. BTW the flash experiment shot was taken using shooting bank B, with custom WB from bright grass.

Setting a WB to suit certainly seems to be key even if you are shooting RAW.

I guess I am doing IR with a ball and chain round my ankle.
Hoya R72 filter rather than an IR conversion, manual focus lenses that cannot communicate with the camera, and a limited understanding of photoshop. Still I am loving the challenge and it's really broadening my photographic horizons. :)

Don

andy153
22-05-09, 10:54
Very good Harry, nice shot.
Sassan, thanks for the link, I think they pinched the examples from Life Pixel or someone who does conversions.
Keep at it Don. My D100 should be here any day.

postcardcv
22-05-09, 14:08
I've just been re-reading this thread and have got myself slightly confused, why are you converting a flash for IR? Without the mod the flash will output IR and visable light and the filter on your camera will block the viable light leaving only IR to be recorded by the camera. I'm struggling to see the advantage of adding an IR filter to the flash, but that's probably just me being slow.

As an aside I decided to order a screw in IR filter to give it a proper go, they are relatively inexpensive so will give me a way to try it out before spending out on a conversion.

Don Hoey
22-05-09, 19:36
...... Without the mod the flash will output IR and visable light and the filter on your camera will block the viable light leaving only IR to be recorded by the camera. I'm struggling to see the advantage of adding an IR filter to the flash, but that's probably just me being slow.

As an aside I decided to order a screw in IR filter to give it a proper go, they are relatively inexpensive so will give me a way to try it out before spending out on a conversion.

Not at all Peter, your statement sounds quite logical.

Pure instinct told me the result would be different though hence adding a filter. That is probably based on the fact that I know that years ago Nikon sold a IR/UV specific flash plus the relavent filters. In fact Andy posted a link in post no. 54 to that particular bit of kit. Nobody is going to make specialist kit like that unless there is a requirement based on experiences.

Just to confirm my instinct was correct I took a pic without the filter to compare later while I was at it.

Attached is a side by side screen grab of each Nef with it histogram. It is fairly large 1122 x 764 to give a reasonable view. Exposure on both is identical. White balance was custom, and taken from grass in sunlight. The difference I think you will agree is quite significant, hence I am going to do a job on my three portable flashguns.

As you are going to give it a go, and myself not being familiar with Canon lenses, does the lens you hope to use have an infrared focusing mark. I mention that, as with most lenses infrared focusses in front of the normal light distance. So it is a case of focus then manually refocus on the IR mark.
I will do a pic of one of my lenses to explain that.

Don

postcardcv
22-05-09, 23:10
interesting stuff Don - looking at your image and thinking about it a bit more I guess that the 720nm filters cut out most visable light but not all, so by adding an IR filter to your flash you are reducing the amount of visable light 'contaminating' the IR image. But that might just be twaddle! If possible I'd like to meet up at somepoint and see your set up and get some tips on this, probably best to leave it until after the half term though!!!

Don Hoey
25-05-09, 17:35
........ If possible I'd like to meet up at somepoint and see your set up and get some tips on this, probably best to leave it until after the half term though!!!

No probs Peter, just PM me so I can e-mail you a map of where we are.

Today I got round to making the infrared accessory for my Metz 45CL3 flashgun. Image attached.

I have previously made a diffuser for the Metz which is almost never off it due to the quality of light it produces. Link to the thread and pics on making that.
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com/showthread.php?t=1862

Instead of the bowl being attached to the mounting plate, I stuck velcro to the front on this one. The Cokin has a land 7mm wide on one side, and I made up and attached a velcro ring to that so as to allow the filter to be detatchable for safe storage. While light tight at the front there are some ventilation slots at the side to allow heat from the flash tube to eascape. The small amount of visible light that gets through those is not enough to degrade the IR image.

Don

Don Hoey
26-05-09, 18:22
Anyone using either Hoya R72 or Cokin 007 Infrared filters needs to be aware of the difference between the plane of focus of infrared light when compared to visible light, and the best way to demonstrate that is by showing it in a photo.

For this I drew a line chart, which is attached ( 1200 wide ), and can be printed on a sheet of A4 paper.

To demonstrate the effect I needed to have the shallowest depth of field I could get. As I am using the D100 for IR I chose to do the test with an autofocus lens so used an 85mm, set to f1.8 at near its minimum focussing distance. A Cokin 007 filter was used for the IR shots, but a Hoya R72 would have given the same result. I did not check the film filter but that is also probably in the same ballpark.

Method :
I firstly autofocussed on the centre mark and took a visible light pic.
Next, I turned A/F off to retain that point of focus, placed the IR filter on the lens and took another pic.
Lastly, I manually refocussed the lens to the IR index and took another pic.
All three were stitched together for the composite attatched.

For Canon users I am afraid I am not familiar with the lens markings, so assuming they are similar, I have attached a pic of Nikon lenses to give an idea of where a focus compensation mark may be found.

When using wide angle lenses its not that much of a problem. If you look at the focus scale on the 20mm lens in the pic you will see that f5.6 will cover everything from 2mtrs to infinity. It is a bigger problem though if you intend to do macro shots at 60mm plus, where depth of field is far shallower. Hence attaching the printable line chart so you can conduct you own tests, particularly if the lens has no IR compensation mark.

Don

andy153
26-05-09, 20:58
Thanks for that Don, I've printed off the line chart already.

Don Hoey
28-05-09, 18:51
Well today was dull enough for an outdoor experiment with the IR attatchment on the Metz. So a Cokin IR filter on the Metz, and a Hoya R72 on the lens.
The composite shows the visible light version in comparison with the IR flash version. I tried direct and diffused flash. Adding a diffuser produced a rather soft image and also showed that I should really have bought a Metz CT60 all those years ago :rolleyes:. Never enough power when I want it ;). Light loss through the diffuser really required ISO to be ramped up to 1600. Not a good plot on the D100 as I think of NR as a detail killer, so never use it.

Fairly pleased with the experiment but it also put a thought in my head that I should try my Multiblitz studio job, as the flash duration is a lot longer and that may boost the IR effect.

For the gallery pic I which is a crop of the IR version here, I added a bit of tint and then boosted the whole effect with curves. Sort of Autumn rose.

To save going back to the gallery to compare, I have put it in this post.

Don

wolfie
28-05-09, 19:45
I like the tinted version Don. Now while I'm away on my holidays, how about trying various white balance setting:)

Harry

andy153
28-05-09, 23:21
Hi Don, Harry and all IR on the not so cheap :D

sassan
29-05-09, 00:38
Andy I see the burning enthusiasm at spectrum of IR.
Remember to sleep tonight as there is no usable IR once the sun is set and then there is a full day waiting for you tomorrow.

Enjoy your wonderful new toy.

Don Hoey
29-05-09, 08:32
Andy,

Welcome to the club. :)

Now you have your IR converted D100 I can reference some of my experiments from your pics if you give some details, paricularly WB setting. It would also be very helpful to post an unprocessed pic to reference that info.

Now we actually have some sun, I will be able to compare a double thickness film filter with Hoya or Cokin IR filter as they both have the same cut-off. Still not sure at what wavelength the film filter cuts off.

Don

andy153
29-05-09, 08:46
Hi Don, The filter that was installed is a 720 nm, in the camera and on download they all show the magenta cast. At the moment my white balance is set to auto. This is the original of Bodnant Hall

wolfie
29-05-09, 08:51
At last Andy, welcome to the club. "Bodhall" is what IR is all about, great sky.

I will now be absent for a couple of weeks. Holidays in the Carribean, perfect weather for IR, but it's doubtful the IR camera will be with me due to weight constraints.

Harry

Don Hoey
29-05-09, 08:58
Cheers Andy,

I have saved it so I can compare side by side with a Hoya R72 shot. Yours has quite a different tint to my film filter ones taken on auto WB.

Normal rules apply here. Get a bit of kit and the weather changes to limit your possibilities to play. :rolleyes: So I have no good sunshine shots with the R72 filter.

Still we are on sun, sun, sun for the next few days. :) :)

Don

andy153
29-05-09, 08:58
Thanks Harry, enjoy a well earned break, I will be looking forward to your contributions on your return - enjoy ! :)

Don Hoey
29-05-09, 09:08
Have a great holiday Harry.

There should be a fair bit for you to catch up with on your return.

Don

wolfie
29-05-09, 11:01
Have a great holiday Harry.

There should be a fair bit for you to catch up with on your return.

Don

Thanks, will do, My wife reckons she can manage the IR camera, so maybe I'll come back with a few IR shots.

Harry

have just been playing around with "One to Back Process"
There are quite a few alternate methods with this one. All of which IMO are well worth pursuing.

JAKE4
30-05-09, 15:17
I've attached an old colour pic converted to infra red, just out of interest.It's another way of looking at the problem.I used to shoot Kodak and Konica IR in the old days when we got our hands smelly in the darkroom.

Don Hoey
30-05-09, 19:34
I've attached an old colour pic converted to infra red, just out of interest.It's another way of looking at the problem.


I tried a similar thing last year but cannot remember, or find info on, the steps I took. Hence I got involved in the film filter bit at the start of this thread.

It may help others if you can post a processing step by step, as I do not recall anyone doing this in the Digital Darkroom Forum.

Don

postcardcv
30-05-09, 21:22
Well I ordered a screw in filter to have a go on the cheap, unfortunately the 30D clearly has a very strong internal IR filter - without the filter I was getting 1/400th at f8, with the filter on I needed to push the shutter speed out to a ridiculous 25 seconds to anything. Even then the files don't have that IR feel, I think with the long shutter speed I'm also getting some visable light contamination. I think I now have two choices, get the camera converted or forget about IR for now...

As an aside has anyone tried the Sigma SD14? It has an IR filter just behind the lens mount that can easily be removed and replaced, it could make IR much easier... a good solution if you're a Sigma user.

andy153
30-05-09, 22:18
For those who are interested in doing this without conversion here is a link to a set of Photoshop Actions that recreate IR effects - known a "faux or false infrared" This link comes from Steve's Digicams and one of them is an action where you can tweek the results yourself. There is also a pdf guide to how it all works.




http://forums.steves-digicams.com/plug-ins-actions-photoshop-compatible/79332-free-action-set-faux-infrared-effects.html

JAKE4
31-05-09, 18:05
I have used a plugin from www.CYBIA.CO.UK called Fotomatic.It can get close to what you are looking for, but best of all it's free.
The other alternative is to buy Paintshop pro12 which has a good IR effect.I have included some samples of colour pictures that have been converted.

andy153
31-05-09, 22:13
Not bad Jake but the conversion of the greenery is what lets all these false effects down.

JAKE4
01-06-09, 08:39
I agree they are not perfect, but they were not shot as infra-red .Also evergreen trees do not come out as white because of their structure.It also depends which type of IR film you are trying to imitate.Kodak was a grainy film and the later Konica had very little grain.
I won my first club competitions printing Kodak on a hard paper so that the picture came out like a pencil drawing.The negatives were so dense that it took over 30mins under the enlarger.The results were nowhere near the traditional concept of IR.
I tried Konica but sometimes it looked no different to ordinary monochrome, so I think it depends what effect you are looking for as to which way you go.

andy153
01-06-09, 08:49
Agreed Jake - it does depend on what effect you are looking for. Have you tried any of the "photoshop actions" - there are loads of free ones on the web, some of which have a go at the false colour effects. It's a matter of trial and error, but some of them are very good indeed.

JAKE4
01-06-09, 15:31
Yes, I have accumalated more actions than I know what to do with, it's a weakness of mine. As regards this problem I am sticking with Paintshop, my other program is PS7, can't afford to buy anymore.
Paintshop is not perfect, it runs on my laptop but not on my desktop,both use Vista.It was better in the days of XP.

Don Hoey
01-06-09, 20:07
I agree they are not perfect, but they were not shot as infra-red .Also evergreen trees do not come out as white because of their structure................. I think it depends what effect you are looking for as to which way you go.

Agree with you on evergreens Jake, and that shows well in your third image. Lots of vegetation appears to be as it would in IR.

Just read Peters post re IR and his 30D. So maybe this is his only option for now. I also re-read the link I posted re the 30D and IR and noticed the exposure times/aperture and ISO.

D2X is a no, no for IR due to its strong AA filter. I have dug out a B+W 091 red filter ( cut off probably about 600-650 ) so I will give that a go, and look at individual colour channels.
Not at all sure how to get rid of any one of the 3 channels in photoshop yet to get a B&W image from the result. :confused: Thats a call for a photoshop wizard. ;) :)

Still I will have a go tomorrow as its a full sun day and the field of spuds over the fence should do fine for seeing the effect on foliage.

Don

andy153
01-06-09, 21:12
Hi Don, Does this help? it applies to CS4.

"You may want to delete spot or alpha channels you no longer need before saving an image. Complex alpha channels can substantially increase the disk space required for an image.

In Photoshop, select the channel in the Channels panel and do one of the following:
Alt-click (Windows) or Option-click (Mac OS) the Delete icon .
Drag the channel name in the panel to the Delete icon.
Choose Delete Channel from the Channels panel menu.
Click the Delete icon at the bottom of the panel, and then click Yes.
Note: When you delete a color channel from a file with layers, visible layers are flattened and hidden layers are discarded. This is done because removing a color channel converts the image to Multichannel mode, which does not support layers. An image isn’t flattened when you delete an alpha channel, a spot channel, or a quick mask.

Don Hoey
02-06-09, 10:34
Cheers Andy,

I am using CS2 but will give it a go.

Let the testing begin. :D

Don

andy153
02-06-09, 10:46
Fine Don, here's the same for CS2
http://www.uwec.edu/Help/PhotoshopCS2/layers.htm

Don Hoey
02-06-09, 14:33
Thanks Andy.

Before starting with the B+W 091 Dark Red filter which I have confirmed as 0% at 600nm, 50% at 620nm, I thought I would go for broke and try the Hoya R72 on the D2X.

To give some understanding of probs I would have with the D2X this is what Bjørn Rørslett says of using it for IR
" You should not do IR with D2X. Simple message, simple remedy: Just don't do it. There are so much more satisfying approaches to digital IR than those available with D2X. On the other hand, the low sensitiivty to IR implies you may get less problems with skin tones, which are unduly susceptible to excessive IR. "

Finding an acceptable exposure took no time at all as I added 3 stops to the D100 mark. Settled on ISO800 - 4secs - f8.

Initially I set WB to Auto and the image is very red, and although I converted this to a B&W easily, I have been playing with various options for a Custom WB. Time taken out to find my manual and actually read it.

With the D100 I found far better results were obtainable with Custom WB taken from sunlit grass. The D2X set to the same gives reasonable results, but after the simple route processing as mentioned in post 44 I had to remove a blue cast and tweek it in curves. Left and right edges of the frame taken with the 35mm lens had to be cropped as they have an odd look. The 20mm lens that is brill on the D2x in visible light, and excellent on the D100 in visible and IR, suffered significant probs in bright areas at the edge of the frame on the D2X in IR. Enough not to use it for these experiments.

Attatched is the first false colour image from the D2X. The fence which came out light brown on the D100 is not so good and shows the blue cast well.
Next up I will add a polariser which on the D100 removes most of the false colour leaving a near B&W image.

Don

Don Hoey
02-06-09, 16:55
D2X polarised false colour infrared.

Well this one is a bit of a surprise. On the D100 most of the false colour would have gone, particularly in the sky. Processing was the same as in my gallery shot of The Swaffham Turbine taken on the D100. I have attatched that for comparison.

Adding a polariser has taken the exposure out to 15secs. In this situation an eyepiece blind of some sort is absolutely critical to prevent visible light contamination.

Don

Don Hoey
02-06-09, 17:32
I have just tried the B+W 091 Dark Red filter, and that just lets too much visible light through. So it is a no go way of getting round the long exposure times required with a proper IR filter.

Don

Don Hoey
02-06-09, 17:55
Well I ordered a screw in filter to have a go on the cheap, unfortunately the 30D clearly has a very strong internal IR filter - without the filter I was getting 1/400th at f8, with the filter on I needed to push the shutter speed out to a ridiculous 25 seconds to anything. Even then the files don't have that IR feel, I think with the long shutter speed I'm also getting some visable light contamination. I think I now have two choices, get the camera converted or forget about IR for now...



What filter did you get then Peter.
Looking back at the 30D test with a Hoya R72, that chap was getting 4 secs at f2.8 at ISO800. So say 16 secs at f5.6 ISO800 puts you in the same ballpark as my D2X with polariser. Stronger IR filters than the R72, example the B+W 093 that cuts at 800nm, would probably require far longer exposure times.

My tests show that the only possible source of IR contamination if you use a screw in IR filter, is stray light through the viewfinder. Eliminate that, and exposure duration is not a prob until sensor heat creates its own set of problems.

Don

andy153
02-06-09, 20:34
Hi all, I have just posted a couple to the Gallery. Full processes explained and EXIF preserved. Don these are my first Manual WB - set to the surrounding grass. PS, I chose to convert the D100, rather than a D2x, because several people mention its very strong anti-aliasing (?) filter, which makes it quite insensitive to IR.

Don Hoey
03-06-09, 08:35
......... Don these are my first Manual WB - set to the surrounding grass. PS,

Now Andy I suggest you check out the shooting banks.
The D100 has two available. This would allow a set up similar to mine, where I have Bank A on Auto WB, and Bank B on Custom WB taken from sunlit grass. Depending on the effect you want you can just go to menu (1st line) and pick your preference without redoing WB for each session.

Next up if you do not have one, is a polariser. :)

Don

andy153
03-06-09, 09:02
Thanks Don - done the shooting banks and have the polarizer :)

Don Hoey
03-06-09, 19:21
Checking the net for various IR processing methods I found a blog with some info that is quite useful, particularly for any Canon 40D users fancying a go with an unmodified camera.
It is a two parter with quite a few relevant responses in each part.
Part 1
http://stevencastle.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/tips-for-infrared-shooting-on-a-d-slr/
Part 2
http://stevencastle.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/digital-infrared-processing-part-ii-false-colour/

Don

postcardcv
12-06-09, 21:55
after much messing around I've come to the conclussion that either the Canon's aren't great for IR, or my cheap filter isn't a true IR one... or most likely I just don't know what I'm doing! Anyway I picked up an IR converted compact to have a play with and it really does make things simple.

Don Hoey
13-06-09, 09:32
Interesting result Peter.
A couple of questions for you. How much processing did you have to do, and is this taken with auto or custom WB ?

Don

andy153
13-06-09, 10:01
Very interesting Peter, another question, do you know what filter is in it?

postcardcv
13-06-09, 13:31
The shot was taken in jpg using custom white balance and -2/3rd ev comp - not much PP done, just a small adjustment in contrast and brightness, then resized and a dash of USM.

I was told that the camera has a Hoya R72 fitted in place of the hot mirror but looking at my shots I suspect it's a slightly stronger one. I'll have a play shooting RAW in the next few days and see what it's really seeing.

andy153
13-06-09, 20:45
Very interesting Peter, as you can see from my post number 71 in this thread, my pictures all come out with a magenta cast. My filter is a 720 nm which it the high end of the R72 - almost black. How did you set your custom WB? I'm still playing with mine but always get magenta so far. Andy

postcardcv
14-06-09, 09:02
I took a shot of grass in direct sunlight (using auto WB) and set my custom white balance from that, it seems to have worked well enough. From what I've read this is the commonest way of doing it, though you can also get nice results is you use a blue sky to set it from.

andy153
14-06-09, 10:34
Thanks for that, it's what I'm using as well, needs more play.

postcardcv
14-06-09, 13:45
I've just been playing with the sample images that I got from ACS using a converted D200 - the attached image shows the difference in the auto and custom (again using grass) white balances on that converted camera.

andy153
14-06-09, 17:28
Hi Peter, I think I have finally sorted my preset WB - I suppose as the camera is converted for IR I will seldom need to change it. Below is the straight from camera followed by a twitch of RBG. This is a lot easier now.

wolfie
16-06-09, 21:12
Just got back from Cuba, far to hot to bother much with photography, but here's one take from the veranda of my holiday villa.

WB was my custom one set in England by photographing green grass.

Normal P&P plus a little tweaking.

Harry

andy153
16-06-09, 21:19
Excellent Harry, welcome home - trust you had a good time.

andy153
30-06-09, 11:14
As the title of this thread is IR on the cheap, here is a link to a web page that has a Photoshop Action for FAUX INFRARED - ie false infrared - and you cannot get cheaper than that - use your own pics and treat them in post processing, no gadgets - just your imagination. This site has a lot of Actions for Photoshop and they are worth learning how to use as they save you from re-inventing the wheel each time. This is an excellent site and has actions for many different versions of Photoshop - http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/TLRFauxInfrared.htm
Have fun and enjoy playing - the only limit is your imagination.

Don Hoey
30-06-09, 11:43
Looks interesting Andy. Thanks for posting.

A bit busy doing some NX tutorials at the moment but I will check it out when I have done.

Don

andy153
30-06-09, 14:59
And now folks I share the Photoshop Action for true Infrared pictures - which I know works from CS upwards, this one HAS POP UPS THAT WALK YOU THROUGH THE ACTION and will also explain the steps as you go through it. It will also allow you to make your own adjustments at each stage as you go along. Don, this is what I used on Lady Bug. For those who do not have IR cameras or filters, try taking a normal picture, load it into photoshop and INVERT it. Then run this action on it, I think you may find it fun.

LINK:

http://www.prophotonut.com/2008/08/12/colour-ir-photoshop-action-free-download/

I would recommend this site as well as I find it very good and helpful.

And another Tip: SHOOT IN JPEG . I have not yet found it possible to shoot my colour infrared system with RAW capture, as Photoshop, Aperture or Lightroom do NOT have the adjustment range within their colour balance sliders to pull the colours into an acceptable starting point. OTHER PC PROGRAMS may well be different - but I use a Mac.

Don Hoey
30-06-09, 20:07
..........And another Tip: SHOOT IN JPEG . I have not yet found it possible to shoot my colour infrared system with RAW capture, as Photoshop, Aperture or Lightroom do NOT have the adjustment range within their colour balance sliders to pull the colours into an acceptable starting point. OTHER PC PROGRAMS may well be different - but I use a Mac.

Foxy would crack up reading that as he is a Mac nut. :eek: :D

Only time for a quick play with that one Andy.
I use RAW ( nef ), so have done a quick side by side with the Khromagery free action that I use, with files converted to 16bit tiff in NX2.
For this comparison only the actions have been run. No other tweeks.

Link to Khromagery for those processing 16bit files.
http://khromagery.com.au/digital_ir.html


D100 with its old processing engine takes quite some time to write a custom WB raw file to the card which you may find a pain. I am fairly relaxed about that though, as my subjects are not going anywhere. ;)

Don

andy153
30-06-09, 20:24
Thanks Don, it keeps life interesting to tweak Basil's Brush from time to time :eek: :rolleyes: I can tell you went straight through as the Gaussian Blur starts at 50% but I usually reduce it to zero. Did you find the pop-ups a help? I think others might as it sort of explains what it's doing as you go through.
Like both thumbs - I also use the Khromagery Action as well as a couple of others and some I've written myself.

Don Hoey
01-07-09, 10:44
Andy,
This was just a quick comparison and no more. I've been busy doing NX tutorials for David, Jims dad.
Now that is done I will try a few tests having read through your link.

I have to get my head round this comment from Damiens Recipe for creating colour infrared pictures ............
" Shoot in jpeg. Once you have your camera shoot in jpeg. I have not yet found it possible to shoot my colour infrared system with RAW capture, as neither Photoshop or Lightroom have the adjustment range within their colour balance sliders to pull the colours in to an acceptable starting point. Capture One or Raw Developer may be well be different. "

I am a bit puzzled as my understanding of the difference between 8 and 16 bit is the amount of colour info per primary colour and no more.
8bit - 256 intensity values for each primary colour and 16bit - 65536 intensity values for each primary colour.

I am sure that how an image editor recognises/or not, the custom WB value is a greater influencing factor.

21 bookmarked links on IR still to properly read through. I think it will be a lot quicker for me to do a few experiments myself.

Don

andy153
01-07-09, 19:39
Hi Don it puzzled me too until I realised that most of my stuff comes out of Aperture and I've been exporting jpegs for editing in Photoshop, rather than editing within Aperture itself. So I tried importing direct off a card Via Capture NX2 and used an NEF file in Photoshop and Lightroom. I'm still trying to sort it out because on each occasion I ended up with PSD or TIFF - so I'm pouring through Scott Kelby looking for an answer. I have to say however I'm finding the JPEG route perfectly acceptable so I'm also puzzled by Damiens statement which I confess I just copied without reading too closely.:rolleyes::o

Don Hoey
01-07-09, 19:45
You just beat me to it Andy,

I tried a few shots today to compare those taken in RAW and those taken in Jpeg. Raw were converted to tiff in NX2 and then IR conversions were done in CS2 using the Khromagery action. I could not see much difference between the two. So despite the massive difference in the cameras write to card speed I will stick with Nefs to give myself 16bit images. The advantage of that will no doubt be in lack of posterisation in the skies.

Just for a chuckle I took an infrared and a standard visible light shot in order to try and paint the lavender blooms in on the IR version.
Very difficult to find the flower heads in the mass of white, so next time I will try something a bit easier. :rolleyes: :)

Don

Don Hoey
01-07-09, 19:56
Andy,
If you are happy with Jpegs then stick with them.
I do not know if your converted D100 is any faster at writing a Custom WB NEF file to card, but on mine using an on the lens IR filter that is a long time ( 35 secs ). Jpegs on the other hand are very quick.

Don

Don Hoey
01-07-09, 20:06
........So I tried importing direct off a card Via Capture NX2 and used an NEF file in Photoshop and Lightroom. I'm still trying to sort it out because on each occasion I ended up with PSD or TIFF - so I'm pouring through Scott Kelby looking for an answer.

I am doing it the old fashioned way that I had to go when I used the lack of power laptop.
Open the Nef in NX2 then save as a 16bit Tiff. Open CS2 then process the Tiff.

I remember Chris used to use PSD files untill he got NX. His verdict was Nef's take far less space than PSD's.

Don

andy153
01-07-09, 22:17
Thanks Don, the D100 is set to RAW and the downloads from camera direct connection to computer take forever - 30 images - up to 15 minutes. The card in the reader is not much better but is faster -(I use an 8Gb SanDisk Extreme III). I' going to switch to taking in JPEG and will see what the difference is - Love the Lavender Thumbnail - great shot.

Don Hoey
02-07-09, 11:32
......the D100 is set to RAW and the downloads from camera direct connection to computer take forever - 30 images - up to 15 minutes. ..............(I use an 8Gb SanDisk Extreme III).

30 secs each :eek:

I have Nikon View 6 (pre NX days ) and NX transfer needed for Stevies D300 pics, and I find View 6 with D2X downloads files faster than NX with D300 files. Yet open those same files in NX2 and the D2X ones take longer to load. :confused:

On the card front I have only just retired my origional IBM 1Gb microdrive and replaced it with a suitably low tech Sandisk Ultra II 2GB. In the same vein I read Foxys thread which reminded me that when I got the D100 all that time ago, it came with a 128mb card and a 1 Gb microdrive was considered pretty much state of the art. :)
8Gb would have been unimaginable.

Don

andy153
21-07-09, 11:30
Hi Don and any others following this thread, All my cards are Sandisk Extreme III's, sizes vary from 2 -16 Gb. I use 2x 16 Gb in the D3, a 12 Gb in the D700, and an 8Gb in the D100 IR. Card Download seems to depend upon Camera Model and card size - I Download twice - Once with NX2 - this provides my backup store to an External Firewire Drive. Then I download everything into Aperture for sorting etc. D3 and D700 download in both applications in seconds. D100 is slower in both but now it's not by much - Aperture is slower than NX2 on all cameras.

Now a bit about WB. D100 is set to custom white balance - taken from grass. I have posted two Pics in the Gallery called "What am I ...?"

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=42031&ppuser=2724

And "What am I Original"

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=42053&ppuser=2724

The Original has only been resized. In my opinion it looks very much like the scene in colour - It shows there is not a lot of IR about under the pier to affect the IR sensor of the camera. The next job will be to try different WB's on shots. Green for custom on landscape, perhaps a different custom WB for other types of shots. Perhaps Blue or sand colours for beach and seascapes?

Don Hoey
25-07-09, 20:40
........ All my cards are Sandisk Extreme III's, sizes vary from 2 -16 Gb. I use 2x 16 Gb in the D3, a 12 Gb in the D700, and an 8Gb in the D100 IR.

:eek: :eek:

Just goes to show Andy. Probably the most I take in a single session is equal to three rolls of film. Maybe 4 if its a really good event. :D

Various WB experiments on the IR front will certainly be interesting.

Don

wolfie
30-07-09, 15:58
The atteached pic was processed in a different manner from the norm and results can vary greatly for different manufacturers.

For this image I used my normal "custom white balance" i.e. photographing grass.

The following is my work flow for this image.

Auto Levels.
Create new layer.
Invert colour.
Blend mode colour.
Adjust Hue/Sat to give a suitable colouring. Next on this image selected the resulting pinkish foilage, moved the Hue slider over to the blue range, effectively changing the pinkish hue to green. This gave me unwanted greenery in the foreground which was a little patchy, so use the desaturation brush to remove the colouring from the foreground.

I then used a filter that I particulally like for old buildings, this being "Poster Edges" with the following settings 4-1-4. This totally ruins the image so then I go to "Edit>>Fade" usually with a soft light blend mode.

Smart Sharpen.

Harry

Don Hoey
30-07-09, 17:24
Well that is well different Harry.

Sorry I have not been playing with IR recently as a bit busy on other things, but I am keeping track of whats happening. :)

Don

andy153
08-08-09, 19:14
Hi there all IR fans, just a further tip - I've been experimenting with Custom White Balance and have found a setting I think improves it - certainly in bright sunlight and with a D100. I do the normal set by pointing at very green grass and then dial in -2 exposure bias. This seems to bring out detail in the areas that would go very white, and gives a better overall balance. For information - my gallery posts - Menai Panorama and Contemplating the Straits also had a full strength Cokin P Graduated ND filter on.