Infra Red Photography - What am I doing wrong?

[rob.e]

Hi Guys,

I bought a Wratten 87 Infra Red Filter the other day and I don't seem to be having much luck with it on my 40D.

I've followed the instructions here but my results are pretty poor. I took a photo of the grass and set the WB to that, then have taken the photo, but as I shoot RAW it seems the WB only applies to the preview, which is then ignored when I import the photo to lightroom. In LR I've tried setting the WB by picking a point on the grass but this doesn't do much, it just makes the picture a bit purple.

Am I doing something wrong with the processing or have I got a rubbish filter?

If it helps, here's some images (excuse the boring subject)

Straight off the camera, imported into LR

Opened in Photoshop with the WB set

Red & Blue channels swapped & auto levels done.

I realise that even after doing this it'll need some work, but it doesn't seem like I'm getting anything like what I expected :bang:

 

[Mangelwurzel]

There's alot of info here describing the magenta issues you're experiencing with RAW.
Can't offer any other help other than that, sorry.

 

[Studio16]

"Infra Red Photography - What am I doing wrong? "

If im honest the answer would have to be infra red photography.............i just dont get, dont see the point, dont like it, cant understand it, dont like looking at it, would never fork out ££££££££ for filters for it, dont even like commenting about it...............i just dont get it:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

Anyone else feel like this

 

[joxby]

"Infra Red Photography - What am I doing wrong? "

If im honest the answer would have to be infra red photography.............i just dont get, dont see the point, dont like it, cant understand it, dont like looking at it, would never fork out ££££££££ for filters for it, dont even like commenting about it...............i just dont get it:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

Anyone else feel like this

But.....you have an 8mm fisheye

Am I doing something wrong with the processing or have I got a rubbish filter?

Maybe the IR blocking filter on the sensor is too strong to see much of an IR effect without longer exposures..

 

[MisterE]

But.....you have an 8mm fisheye

8mm fisheye you say? Strange. Why would anybody want to take such an unrealistic view of the world??? Just don't get it :shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:



So, back to the question. I've dabbled in IR over the years, even the real film stuff a long while ago. I tried a filter on a dslr and compact with not really outstanding results but didn't give it the time it deserved. I recently got a 20D that had been converted and I've had a quick play with some but haven't had time to get stuck in yet. But I have experienced the problems that you're encountering. My 20D produces the magenta raw, and almost proper IR jpgs out of the camera, but with a bit of a sepia tint. Probably because I've just been using the custom WB set by the previous owner. I know the camera will do some good pictures because the previous owner has an excellent online gallery. It's a question of reading. Here are all the links that I have with IR tutorials. I haven't trawled through them myself yet so I don't know how useful they will be.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev00.html#top_page

http://dpfwiw.com/ir.htm

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/index.html

http://irphotocom.proboards.com/index.cgi?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/infrared dslr.shtml

http://irbuzz.blogspot.com/2008/05/featured-ir-photographer-showcase-jack.html

http://www.echeng.com/photo/infrared/

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Infrared/

http://www.cocam.co.uk/CoCamWS/Infrared/INFRARED.HTM

 

[swanseamale47]

I never had any luck with a Canon on IR, I think the sensors or sensor filters just don't respond very well, I found the best was a Nikon D70 (this is not a canon v nikon thing) that worked easily everytime with a Kodak 87 filter. Wayne

 

[fleaz]

you will get better results if you convert the camera instead of using just a filter

 

[mole2k]

Im quite surprised taht you dont seem to be getting any sort of an effect from it at all. I've used an 87c filter on my 20D with relative sucess, just several minute long exposures. So it should be more than capable.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

"Infra Red Photography - What am I doing wrong? "

If im honest the answer would have to be infra red photography.............i just dont get, dont see the point, dont like it, cant understand it, dont like looking at it, would never fork out ££££££££ for filters for it, dont even like commenting about it...............i just dont get it:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

and yet here you are.......:shrug:

Personally I prefer b/w infrared

 

[Studio16]

8mm fisheye you say? Strange. Why would anybody want to take such an unrealistic view of the world??? Just don't get it :shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:[/url]

I take several "unrealistic views" of whatever im shooting and then create "realistic" 360º virtual tours to put YOU the viewer right inside the scene.

Dave

 

[rob.e]

Thanks for the replies guys, I've read a few of the links already and done a lot of searching on the internet without much luck Although some of the links are new to me, I'm still not getting very far.

I was under the impression that Canon's have a more aggressive IR blocking filter than Nikons, but I thought it just meant longer exposures. Long exposures aren't much of a problem for me, I don't mind using a tripod. I don't seem to be having much luck as it is so spending more money to modify a camera probabaly isn't the best idea right now.

Mole2k kindly offered to have a go at editing it, so I've uploaded the RAW file, it is here if anyone would like to have a look.

 

[ROFL2K9]

Personally I prefer b/w infrared

I've noticed in PS CS3 that when I'm doing a B&W conversion there's an infrared option, does anyone know if that'll give the same results as you'd get if you had a filter on the camera when you took the shot, or is it just a bit of a gimmick?

 

[Johnny1982]

Your camera is fine. Its your white balance that isn't set properly.
email me your raw file and I'll see what the problem is?
Johnny@lucid-composure.co.uk

I have many infrared images taken on
Canon 20D, 30D, 40D 350D (infrared only)
www.lucid-composure.co.uk

 

[Johnny1982]

Thanks for your email.
I am sorry to say that I have no idea what is wrong with that image and why the white balance wont adjust correctly.
Unless its something to do with shooting into the sunlight.
Only other thing different is your using a wratten IR blocker. I have only ever used Hoya.

really strange that sorry my friend

 

[rob.e]

Thanks for your email.
I am sorry to say that I have no idea what is wrong with that image and why the white balance wont adjust correctly.
Unless its something to do with shooting into the sunlight.
Only other thing different is your using a wratten IR blocker. I have only ever used Hoya.

really strange that sorry my friend

Hey Johnny, thanks for the effort I really appreciate it. I did think it was something I was doing with photoshop, as I did try with a Capture One demo which wanted to set the white balance lower than photoshop will let me, but I wasn't sure what I was doing. I did try taking a few different photos with my back to the sun and at other angles which all seem to give pretty similar results. I'm starting to think you are right and that it's the filter, although there are a few shots on flickr taken with the wratten 87 such as this which looks ok to me.

I've got a friend who shoots with a Nikon D80 so might get him to give it a go and compare our results.

Going off the graph here - http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/_img/ir-refl.gif and the graph showing transmission of the filters here - http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/_img/ir-trans.gif, I'm thinking that the grass should appear a lot lighter so perhaps the filter is passing lower frequencies than I'm expecting. I could be wrong though.

 

[MisterE]

I take several "unrealistic views" of whatever im shooting and then create "realistic" 360º virtual tours to put YOU the viewer right inside the scene.

Dave

I do actually know why you would use an 8mm fisheye. My point was that you have an interest in one particular area, and Rob has an interest in another. But we don't step in to a thread asking for help and question or criticise other people's chosen interests on the basis that we don't like or understand why. Sorry if you don't want to read this but you did stick your head above the parapet.

 

[Studio16]

I dont mind reading your opinion MisterE or your sarcasm but i was just stating my interest in the subject which is none sorry if you dont like reading that

Dave

Hope you find the answers rob.e

 

[joxby]

perhaps the filter is passing lower frequencies than I'm expecting. I could be wrong though.

What can you see through the filter ?

iso 100 f/8, 3 seconds doesn't seem like a very long exposure for a filter that isn't supposed to pass any visible light, I dunno I could be wrong, I'm shooting IR film tomorrow @ iso 10 with an R72 that's nearly black.

 

[mole2k]

With my 87c, I had to use settings around iso400, f4, 4min on a bright sunny day. I think your shot might just need exposed for a bit longer.

 

[Johnny1982]

Theres nothing wrong with your exposure. For some reason the white balance isn't working properly. It might be due to shooting into the suns general direction.

To set your white balance.

1- set it to sunny
2- set up your camera pointed at a close crop of grass only
3- Take your shot and get a good exposure
4- in the menu set THAT shot as your custom white balance
5- on camera set your new white balance to the custom icon. ( looks like a square dot hovering above two slopes)

Shoot away!

 

[rob.e]

What can you see through the filter ?

iso 100 f/8, 3 seconds doesn't seem like a very long exposure for a filter that isn't supposed to pass any visible light, I dunno I could be wrong, I'm shooting IR film tomorrow @ iso 10 with an R72 that's nearly black.

I can just about see through it looking into the sun, according to wikipedia, visible light ends at 750nm and the 87 filter should start transmitting just below that, so I think that's what I'd expect really.

With my 87c, I had to use settings around iso400, f4, 4min on a bright sunny day. I think your shot might just need exposed for a bit longer.

I did try taking a few more shots where I overexposed the photo, I took a sequence of about 7 or 8 shots getting longer each time, looking at the red channel on the histogram until it started to clip, it didn't seem to make any real difference

Theres nothing wrong with your exposure. For some reason the white balance isn't working properly. It might be due to shooting into the suns general direction.

To set your white balance.

1- set it to sunny
2- set up your camera pointed at a close crop of grass only
3- Take your shot and get a good exposure
4- in the menu set THAT shot as your custom white balance
5- on camera set your new white balance to the custom icon. ( looks like a square dot hovering above two slopes)

Shoot away!

Thanks for that, I don't think I'll get a chance till the weekend as I've got a lot of work, but I'll do that, I'll try a close up shot of some grass for the white balance. I did think the white balance could just be sorted out in processing as I'd shot RAW, but I'll try those steps and shoot RAW + JPEG and see if I have any more luck.

 

[The Matt]

I can just about see through it looking into the sun

You really shouldn't do this. There's (practically) no visible light getting to your eye but the IR that passes through can still damage it just as light would. So I have been told anyway, but I have never personally tested this.

 

[rob.e]

You really shouldn't do this. There's (practically) no visible light getting to your eye but the IR that passes through can still damage it just as light would. So I have been told anyway, but I have never personally tested this.

Sorry, I didn't phrase that too well, I actually mean looking through it in to areas which are brightly lit by the sun. I think I was a bit tired when I wrote that.

 

[joxby]

I can just about see through it looking into the sun, according to wikipedia, visible light ends at 750nm and the 87 filter should start transmitting just below that, so I think that's what I'd expect really.

Well I shot my film and after calcs I over cooked a few at 4 seconds f/11, the IR effect is pretty strong on Rollei IR film with an R72, so 3 seconds looks about right.
So its over to Johnny1982