IR on the CHEAP
 

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.

"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

Very good Don - I would never have thought it wasn't IR

Very convincing, I would never have known.

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

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

Thanks for that Don, I like the shot of Sandringham, and I note the very sturdy tripods.

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?

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.

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/photogr...0_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

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

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.

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

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...hread.php?t=63 -

it also makes very interesting reading. Thanks.

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.

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.

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

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/2006/11/1...y-performance/

Don

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Thanks for that Harry, I'm also going to have a play, hope you don't mind.

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

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 :( :(

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

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

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

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

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.

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...digital-ir.htm

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

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/

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

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