Infrared photography

[goinggreynow]

Just purchased a Hoya R72 IR filter 2nd hand and thought I'd give this a go. Have so far used it on a 25mm prime attached to a G80.
Have read so many articles about Infrared that my head is spinning but one principal question remains. Am I correct in concluding that if I ever want to get serious about IR then I have no real choice but to convert a camera either to IR only or full spectrum?
I ask this only because my limited experience so far strongly suggests that IR with just a filter has many of the same constraints as (say) using a 10 stop ND - i.e. extremely long shutter times giving rise to motion blur in foliage/plants/grass (water/clouds normally with ND).
Have so far done some test shots in my garden and they have all come out dreadfully messy. I realise that I need to pick my subjects carefully but so far, I am thinking that it would be best to photo trees etc from a long distance on a relatively calm (no wind) day.
To those of you who have experience of IR, does the above make sense/are my conclusions reasonable?
Many thanks.

 

[Canon Bob]

An unconverted body will require you to concentrate on subjects that are not moving or ones where any movement can be used for artistic purposes. For maximum flexibility you'll need a dedicated body.

Bob

 

[AJQS]

Just purchased a Hoya R72 IR filter 2nd hand and thought I'd give this a go. Have so far used it on a 25mm prime attached to a G80.
Have read so many articles about Infrared that my head is spinning but one principal question remains. Am I correct in concluding that if I ever want to get serious about IR then I have no real choice but to convert a camera either to IR only or full spectrum?
I ask this only because my limited experience so far strongly suggests that IR with just a filter has many of the same constraints as (say) using a 10 stop ND - i.e. extremely long shutter times giving rise to motion blur in foliage/plants/grass (water/clouds normally with ND).
Have so far done some test shots in my garden and they have all come out dreadfully messy. I realise that I need to pick my subjects carefully but so far, I am thinking that it would be best to photo trees etc from a long distance on a relatively calm (no wind) day.
To those of you who have experience of IR, does the above make sense/are my conclusions reasonable?
Many thanks.

Yeh pretty much, if you want normal shutter speeds and to be able to see what you're focussing on properly a converted camera is a must.

 

[goinggreynow]

An unconverted body will require you to concentrate on subjects that are not moving or ones where any movement can be used for artistic purposes. For maximum flexibility you'll need a dedicated body.

Bob

Yeh pretty much, if you want normal shutter speeds and to be able to see what you're focussing on properly a converted camera is a must.

Thanks to both Alan and Bob. As I suspected from only a few modest attempts with the filter - a body converted to IR is a must. Over to me now. I'll continue to have a play with the filter on my G80 before deciding if IR is for me. I really don't want to go down the route of extra expense (which will include having to buy a body as well as the conversion) if it turns out to be just a whim!

 

[mickledore]

Thanks to both Alan and Bob. As I suspected from only a few modest attempts with the filter - a body converted to IR is a must. Over to me now. I'll continue to have a play with the filter on my G80 before deciding if IR is for me. I really don't want to go down the route of extra expense (which will include having to buy a body as well as the conversion) if it turns out to be just a whim!

I could be persuaded to sell (via classifieds) my converted 40D, plus lens for less than the cost of conversion

 

[magicolor1]

As others have said, your conclusions are pretty much spot on. The only other alternative would be a Leica M8 which didn't have the IR-cut filter and caused Leica lots of problems! But it has the advantage that with an IR-cut filter on the lens it behaves normally, and with an IR-pass filter it's an IR camera with hand-holdable shutter speeds

 

[goinggreynow]

As others have said, your conclusions are pretty much spot on. The only other alternative would be a Leica M8 which didn't have the IR-cut filter and caused Leica lots of problems! But it has the advantage that with an IT-cut filter on the lens it behaves normally, and with an IR-pass filter it's an IR camera with hand-holdable shutter speeds

Hi Simon. Many thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

[goinggreynow]

I could be persuaded to sell (via classifieds) my converted 40D, plus lens for less than the cost of conversion

Thanks for the thought. Don't think I'm anywhere ready to take the plunge just yet: quite apart from the fact that I have no idea how I could justify bringing another camera into the house!
Could I just ask, though, did you go for a full spectrum conversion or just IR?
Presumably with full spectrum you need an IR blocker to be able to take "normal" photos?

 

[mickledore]

Thanks for the thought. Don't think I'm anywhere ready to take the plunge just yet: quite apart from the fact that I have no idea how I could justify bringing another camera into the house!
Could I just ask, though, did you go for a full spectrum conversion or just IR?
Presumably with full spectrum you need an IR blocker to be able to take "normal" photos?

That's a good question to which I don't have a good answer.
I bought it already converted. Full spectrum conversion wasn't mentioned so I would assume that it's just normal IR.

 

[gad-westy]

Thanks for the thought. Don't think I'm anywhere ready to take the plunge just yet: quite apart from the fact that I have no idea how I could justify bringing another camera into the house!
Could I just ask, though, did you go for a full spectrum conversion or just IR?
Presumably with full spectrum you need an IR blocker to be able to take "normal" photos?

Yes, full spectrum does what it says on the tin. Let's everything in. Some people like to use them like that without filter. You can even use one like a normal camera by putting an IR cut off filter on the lens.

As you say, for IR photography, you'd then stick something like an R72 on the camera. In this scenario, you can use normal shutter speeds because there is nothing on the sensor anymore cutting off the vast majority of IR light.

In some ways a full spectrum conversion is the ultimate option but it does mean that you then need filters to do IR only images which can mount up if you want them for different size lenses and want a variety of wave length cut offs.

 

[Mark twiglet]

This is a converted nikon d70 with a 720mn conversion!

You get higher and lower values to get different effects and it shoots at normal speeds! It's good when out all day cos you can shoot in middle of day in bright sun

 

[Canon Bob]

......

......you'd then stick something like an R72 on the camera. In this scenario, you can use normal shutter speeds because there is nothing on the sensor anymore cutting off the vast majority of IR light.

An R72 has a filter factor of 16....so 4 stops.

 

[goinggreynow]

An R72 has a filter factor of 16....so 4 stops.

So just to confirm & clarify, does this mean (all other things being equal) that you would need a slower shutter speed with a full spectrum camera with R72 fitted, as compared to a camera converted to just IR?
Apologies if I've missed the point here.

 

[gad-westy]

An R72 has a filter factor of 16....so 4 stops.

For visible light. IR light will be near enough 100% transmission. So shutter speeds should be more or less normal. Viewfinder will be dark with filter attached though.

(Still talking about a full spectrum converted camera)

 

[gad-westy]

So just to confirm & clarify, does this mean (all other things being equal) that you would need a slower shutter speed with a full spectrum camera with R72 fitted, as compared to a camera converted to just IR?
Apologies if I've missed the point here.

This is worth a read.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/55027594@N00/discuss/72157634210570062/

 

[goinggreynow]

For visible light. IR light will be near enough 100% transmission. So shutter speeds should be more or less normal. Viewfinder will be dark with filter attached though.

(Still talking about a full spectrum converted camera)

This is worth a read.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/55027594@N00/discuss/72157634210570062/

Many thanks for taking the time to reply. I've had a quick look at the Flickr postings and the only thing I was surprised to read (assuming I've understood it correctly) is one contributor saying he/she can successfully handhold an unmodified camera with a 720nm filter attached, but needs to use a fast lens & high ISO.
In this case, I must be doing something very wrong with my initial attempts (shutter speeds 30/60secs). Back to the drawing board!!

 

[gad-westy]

Many thanks for taking the time to reply. I've had a quick look at the Flickr postings and the only thing I was surprised to read (assuming I've understood it correctly) is one contributor saying he/she can successfully handhold an unmodified camera with a 720nm filter attached, but needs to use a fast lens & high ISO.
In this case, I must be doing something very wrong with my initial attempts (shutter speeds 30/60secs). Back to the drawing board!!

Some cameras are far more sensitive to IR light than others. Newer cameras seem to be far less sensitive than older digital cameras as a general rule. That probably accounts for the difference in your experience.

 

[goinggreynow]

Some cameras are far more sensitive to IR light than others. Newer cameras seem to be far less sensitive than older digital cameras as a general rule. That probably accounts for the difference in your experience.

Many thanks. I took the camera out again this afternoon but haven't had a chance to do anything with the images yet. I'll persevere for now.

 

[ynot]

Thanks to both Alan and Bob. As I suspected from only a few modest attempts with the filter - a body converted to IR is a must. Over to me now. I'll continue to have a play with the filter on my G80 before deciding if IR is for me. I really don't want to go down the route of extra expense (which will include having to buy a body as well as the conversion) if it turns out to be just a whim!

Ive a cheap unwanted Nikon D70s thats been converted if your interested. Much better than using filters in my opinion.
IR photography can get pretty addictive.

 

[goinggreynow]

Ive a cheap unwanted Nikon D70s thats been converted if your interested. Much better than using filters in my opinion.
IR photography can get pretty addictive.

Many thanks for the offer. Earlier in this thread, another member offered me a Canon 40D which, sadly, I also had to decline.
I did, however, spend a very pleasant 15 minutes or so looking at the photos on your website and was very impressed - especially the "long exposure London" and "Into the Sea" sections.

 

[ynot]

Many thanks for the offer. Earlier in this thread, another member offered me a Canon 40D which, sadly, I also had to decline.
I did, however, spend a very pleasant 15 minutes or so looking at the photos on your website and was very impressed - especially the "long exposure London" and "Into the Sea" sections.

Far too kind.
Not enough IR photos on there, ill have to get some up.