Infrared photography

[Ben johns]

If I use a r72 filter in front of a normal digital camera will I still the infrared look or does the camera have to be adapted?

 

[Mr Perceptive]

If I use a r72 filter in front of a normal digital camera will I still the infrared look or does the camera have to be adapted?

You will get an IR image, your sensor though is likely to have an IR cut filter of some sort, so the image will be attenuated, ie you will need long exposure times = tripod mounted (or shoot at high ISO handheld)

The resultant image on review in the camera will be very magenta/red but you can sort that out in post, or create a suitable custom WB

Your len(es) may have IR hotspots, just search for IR hotspots on the internet and you'll find lists of lens so affected (lots of zooms have IR hot spots especially at smaller apertures)

 

[Brian G]

I must confess, I've never understood IR photography.

I think it would be simpler to achieve the distorted colours that result by using "Colour Replacer" in an image editing program, especially if the IR image needs a lot of PP anyway. Why not just start with a normal image and screw that up?

 

[StephenM]

I can't comment on digital IR, but with black and white film you get an aethereal quality not easily obtained by other means, plus significantly greater haze penetration for distant views. With colour (when it was available) apart from pictorial effects it had scientific uses (such as distinguishing healthy and unheathy trees from aerial photos which were visually the same but markedly different in the IR region).

 

[Dave Canon]

I have a converted DSLR and the performance is much better than using a R72 filter. The main differences is that exposures settings are similar to normal photography and the auto systems all work. Even auto focussing works because they move the sensor slightly to compensate. I agree with Stephen that it is difficult to fully create the B&W effects by other means. Whilst my converted camera can produce B&W or Colour IR the main difference is the visual reception. We cannot see near IR light so we translate the wavelength recorded to "false colours". A popular effect is the swap Red and Blue channels which results in foliage looking pink though sky still a strange blue. The reaction is like marmite with many hating color IR and few liking it. Brian's comment "start with a normal image and screw that up" has some merit though it would be more difficult to achieve the ethereal quality mentioned by Stephen.

Dave

 

[James Blonde]

What Mr Perceptive said. I used to aim for 20-30 second exposures at low ISOs at F8ish on my old D90 when I was using a screw in filter, so anything moving obviously also had the long exposure effect which you may or may not have wanted. having a camera converted makes life a whole lot easier!

and yes, IR is definitely marmite, especially false colour! Though I hate marmite, and like infrared (though a bit on the fence on false colour), so.... hmm...

To turn a colour photo into something that looks vaguely like IR would take a decent amount of post processing and still not quite hit the spot. but I doubt many would bother as they'd just buy a filter!

 

[Dave Canon]

Just a thought, if anyone wants to explore IR further there is some information in the techniques area of my website as well as some examples.

Dave