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.