40 breathtaking examples of infrared photography

SarahLee

SarahLee

TPer Emerita
Suspended / Banned
Messages
13,060
Name
Sarah
Edit My Images
No
Cracking set of images and loads of variety, enjoyed that
 
These are a bit special.
 
I feel an urge to despatch a D70 for a filterectomy!!!
 
Amazing aren't they?
Just had another look through. Sydney Opera House and Midnight Palace just blow me away.

Nod said:
I feel an urge to despatch a D70 for a filterectomy!!!
Click to expand...

I'm feeling the same Nod . . . well maybe not a D70, but the same general urge.
I find waiting for a really still day and problems with light seepage a bit too restrictive with the filters.
I just know that I don't get enough time to get out and about to justify investing in a dedicated body though :(
 
Some striking images there :thumbs: it's probably the heathen in me but I have to say I've never really seen the point, why do you do IR photography, does it have a application or is it more just about experimenting? I'd love to be able to understand the motives in IR Photograhy
 
For me, it'll be something different! I love the look of mono IR photos with the bleached foliage and black skies. The D70 is pretty much surplus to requirements (I have a D700 as a backup to the D800) and deserves more use!
 
Hmm, I've had a look at those 40 images, and I really can't see what's so great about them?

Composition is poor in a lot of them, and the images don't seem that interesting. If they were colour they would considered nothing but snapshots....... :shrug:
 
not really into that colourised look. Love the 2 insect ones though, the butterfly and dragonfly.
 
None of these take my breath - there are some interesting effects (the portrait of the girls' face) but they just look a bit 'meh'....

With IR it's always puzzled me whether the shooter uses IR because they know the effect on a given scene, that it's a happy accident on an otherwise banal scene, or that they're doing it because they can.
 
For me the appeal is in being able to see the world in a way that we can't see it with the human eye.
I like the "otherworldly" feel of images viewed as they appear outside the spectrum of visible light.

I suppose the same could be said of long exposures or B&W. They all capture something that we can't view naturally . . . and yes, in all of them there's the well thought out, the downright poor and the occasional happy accident.
 
That's it for me too. I already have a FLIR camera that sees heat rather than visible light and also fancy the idea of seeing closer to the visible spectrum.
 
I love the effect personally, and there is a huge range of variations on the false colour theme in that set. Surely anyone could combine one of those final processing techniques with a great picture with good composition to produce a really special image.

Beats milky water any day IMHO.
 
This thread makes me want to buy a D3200 and get it converted :)

I've not shot IR for years. Last time I did was with Kodak colour IR film.
 
I love IR photography and almost all of the photos in that link are awesome IMO.

Can this be done by just adding an IR filter to the front of the lens, or is there more to it than that?
 
Some older DSLRs and compacts are more sensitive than others to IR naturally so results can be obtained simply by sticking a filter in front of the lens but (from what I can gather), having a camera converted allows you to use the viewfinder to compose (not easy through an IR filter!) and also reconfigures the AF to correspond to the IR wavelength rather than visible. The conversion might even remove the need for PP to achieve the look (as in removing the colour cast from the images).

Not looked into it that heavily yet but having finished a couple of non-photographic projects over the weekend, I might spend some tome researching soon.
 
I think I would've preferred most of those in true colour or a black and white conversion of true colour :lol:

I did like the butterfly one though.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
Yes but what alternative is there? Us humans need to colourise IR imagery as we can't see in the IR spectrum.:thinking:
Click to expand...

no we don't - IR is a specific wavelength not a range of colours. don't get me wrong I do like some of the fake colour images but they are photoshopped IR images not IR. liken them to false colour EM images.
 
POAH said:
no we don't - IR is a specific wavelength not a range of colours. don't get me wrong I do like some of the fake colour images but they are photoshopped IR images not IR. liken them to false colour EM images.
Click to expand...

Infra Red is a spectrum of wavelengths not a single one.

<edit>I agree that with IR imagery like this the detail in the image is generated from the level of radiation emitted and not IR 'colours', (analogous to monochrome). <edit>

A bit of a brain-f**t when I posted this last night. Much of the IR in NIR is still reflected rather than emitted.

However, the point I was making is that we have to use fake colours (even if it is only one) as we can't see anything in the IR spectrum without doing so.

In my day job (defense related) I have seen IR imagery composed of more than one wavelength and believe me it looks weird however you colourise it.
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
don't get me wrong I do like some of the fake colour images but they are photoshopped IR images not IR.
Click to expand...


No photoshop here. I took this so long ago, there was no photoshop :) This has no editing whatsoever.


8ThvWHV.jpg


Incidentally, Chris is right. IR is a part of the spectrum, yes, and just a wavelength group, yes, but wavelength IS what determines colour. Red objects appear red because they reflect wavelengths that we see as red, and absorb others. Filter that out, so only IR is recorded, and ordinarily, we can't see it, so have no frame of reference. Basically, we don't KNOW what colour it is.. because we can't see it. The only way we can see it is to translate it into wavelengths we can actually see. By default, you've altered it to the visible spectrum. We can not see IR... we've no idea what colour it is.

It can be whatever colour you like.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
None of these take my breath - there are some interesting effects (the portrait of the girls' face) but they just look a bit 'meh'....

With IR it's always puzzled me whether the shooter uses IR because they know the effect on a given scene, that it's a happy accident on an otherwise banal scene, or that they're doing it because they can.
Click to expand...

Agree, as IR photography goes most were very meh.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No photoshop here. I took this so long ago, there was no photoshop :) This has no editing whatsoever.


8ThvWHV.jpg


Incidentally, Chris is right. IR is a part of the spectrum, yes, and just a wavelength group, yes, but wavelength IS what determines colour. Red objects appear red because they reflect wavelengths that we see as red, and absorb others. Filter that out, so only IR is recorded, and ordinarily, we can't see it, so have no frame of reference. Basically, we don't KNOW what colour it is.. because we can't see it. The only way we can see it is to translate it into wavelengths we can actually see. By default, you've altered it to the visible spectrum. We can not see IR... we've no idea what colour it is.



It can be whatever colour you like.
Click to expand...

Been trying very unsuccessfully to get hold of some of this film, it's horrendously expensive when you do find it though! I have got some HIE in the freezer which I'm saving for my retirement fund! :naughty:
 
The portrait and the butterfly shots are my personal favorites. Just a shame IR filters are expensive, otherwise I would have a go myself.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Been trying very unsuccessfully to get hold of some of this film, it's horrendously expensive when you do find it though! I have got some HIE in the freezer which I'm saving for my retirement fund! :naughty:
Click to expand...

I've got some 5x4 B&W IR in my freezer still... ran out of colour ages ago though. You're right... you pay through the nose for it now. If you're getting into this, much better to convert a cheap DLSR.
 
Nod said:
That's it for me too. I already have a FLIR camera that sees heat rather than visible light and also fancy the idea of seeing closer to the visible spectrum.
Click to expand...

Any examples Nod?
I'd really like to see what they come out like.

Pookeyhead said:
. . . If you're getting into this, much better to convert a cheap DLSR.
Click to expand...

:nono: Now will you PLEASE stop tempting me?:lol:

p.s. Really do like how that portrait has worked out in IR.
 
jabbermack said:
Just a shame IR filters are expensive, otherwise I would have a go myself.
Click to expand...

I knew that this was going to be one of those love it or hate it things when I posted (but wouldn't life be dull if we all liked the same things?)
If you do like it and fancy a try, the IR filters to fit on the front of your lens are really not expensive at all.

It can be a bit hit and miss though, some bodies are more receptive to IR than others and hot spots can be an issue with some lenses.
Plenty of information on what works best out there if you Google your specific body / lens combination.
Because of the long exposure times required (the filters effectively block all visible light and only let IR through) light seepage around the edges can be a bit of an issue as can motion blur in foliage etc unless you get a very still day.
Hence why I've been considering getting a body converted for a while - just don't think I'd use it enough to really justify it.
 
SarahLee said:
p.s. Really do like how that portrait has worked out in IR.
Click to expand...


Cheers. It's a crap scan of a 35mm neg, but on the 30" cibachrome it looks awesome.. her eyes are jet black, shiny orbs. When you couldn't do shizzle like that on photoshop back in the 80s it was pretty damned cool :)

Been done to death now though.

I Kind of agree with specialman to an extent. Most of those posted at the top of the thread are not really great shots... take away the IR, and they'd be pretty average landscapes. The process still fascinates me though. I need to think of an original use for it, because I got the IR landscape thing out of my system back in the 80s.

I'm SOOO grabbing a used D3200 of fleabay though.... and ripping it apart :) This thread has given me some awesome ideas for a project.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Cheers. It's a crap scan of a 35mm neg, but on the 30" cibachrome it looks awesome.. her eyes are jet black, shiny orbs. When you couldn't do shizzle like that on photoshop back in the 80s it was pretty damned cool :)

Been done to death now though.

I Kind of agree with specialman to an extent. Most of those posted at the top of the thread are not really great shots... take away the IR, and they'd be pretty average landscapes. The process still fascinates me though. I need to think of an original use for it, because I got the IR landscape thing out of my system back in the 80s.

I'm SOOO grabbing a used D3200 of fleabay though.... and ripping it apart :) This thread has given me some awesome ideas for a project.
Click to expand...

Yep, I took the scanning process into account with that shot and I can see that the original must be stunning.
It may be done to death, but I still think it's VERY damned cool - and it is a really fascinating process (to me anyway)

Oh well temptation finally got the better of me . . . I've just ordered a cheap and cheerful converted Canon Powershot from Fleabay.
If I only use it 2 or 3 times a year, for the price I'm not going to feel guilty about it sitting in a cupboard doing nothing and I'll have my money's worth in fun on the occasions that I do use it.

Just need to specify whether I fancy the 590nm or 665nm filter . . . and think of something creative and interesting to do with it when it arrives.
 
To be honest, I have a D40X which I converted to IR and have also done a few others (450D and compacts) and although I'm keeping the d40X for now, I'm not that impressed by anything I've done with it:|
Everything so far is 'meh'.
For some reason, I prefer the longer exposures from using a filter in front of the lens rather than a dedicated camera:cuckoo:
The D40X produces good results in IR but it is lacking something and I cannot put my finger on it.
Food for thought for anyone considering an IR conversion (also its not that hard to do it yourself)
 
JulesP said:
To be honest, I have a D40X which I converted to IR and have also done a few others (450D and compacts) and although I'm keeping the d40X for now, I'm not that impressed by anything I've done with it:|
Everything so far is 'meh'.
For some reason, I prefer the longer exposures from using a filter in front of the lens rather than a dedicated camera:cuckoo:
Click to expand...


Then why didn't you fit a IR filter on the sensor when it was converted? You need to use a IR filter (on sensor, or lens)... just shooting open with no IR filter on a converted camera (IR filter moved only) will be crap, as it will still record the visible light. That's probably why your shots were less than impressive.
 
Last edited:
It has a 680 filter fitted to the sensor. Its a proper IR camera but I'm just not keen on it at the moment.
If you have no filter at all it would be full spectrum.
 
JulesP said:
It has a 680 filter fitted to the sensor. Its a proper IR camera but I'm just not keen on it at the moment.
If you have no filter at all it would be full spectrum.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's just that you mentioned a filter on the lens being better. It will make no difference if the filter is on the lens, or the sensor. It's the wavelength cut off of the filter that makes the difference... not where in the light path it's placed. Exposure length, results... everything.. will be identical if the the two filters are identical.
 
Yes that's true but I think images look better from a non converted camera with the IR blocking filter still in place which means you have to use a filter on the lens.
There just seems to be something lacking from shots from a dedicated IR camera in my opinion.
I meant a filter on a "normal" non IR camera
 
I think what Jules is alluding to is using a filter on the lens on a non converted camera - where the exposure times are longer because the IR blocking filter is still in place on the sensor.
As opposed to a converted camera with the IR blocking filter removed and an IR filter inserted in its place.

EDIT : Cross Posted.
 
SarahLee said:
I think what Jules is alluding to is using a filter on the lens on a non converted camera - where the exposure times are longer because the IR blocking filter is still in place on the sensor.
As opposed to a converted camera with the IR blocking filter removed and an IR filter inserted in its place.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top