- This topic is empty.
IR…by Mister IR
-
I have no idea where I picked up that unfortunate title, but it’s bloody stuck. I finally got around to throwing up the first part of an infrared photography guide. Being the awesome person that I am, I’m reposting it here:
Part 1, actually getting the bloody photo:
Preamble:
So you want to shoot digital infrared, eh?
I’m going to be my typically negative self and say that there’s an inordinate disparity between the effort and results. I’ve taken 30 or 40 photos in one go (at 05-120 seconds per exposure) and thrown them all out as I wasn’t happy.
Still, when I get a great photo, I get a great photo, as borne out by the fact most of my consistently popular pictures just about everywhere are IR. There’s lots of ways to process an IR photo: You can leave it as-is, you can convert the colours back to a semblance of ?normal.? It’s surreal. My preferred methord is to convert the photo I take into high-contrast black and white, which generally look pretty spiffy, and also incidently what I’ll base this around.
There’s also lots of ways to take the photo for that matter. There’s film, modded digital cameras, and even a select few (mostly Sony) cameras with a native infrared mode. My own work has been with Hoya filters on the end of various pieces of glass.
I’ve used varying cameras and lenses over the past nine months for this, as listed below:
Canon EOS-350D
Canon EOS-400D
Canon EOS-30DCanon f/4-5.6 18-55mm
Canon f/1.8 50mm
Canon f/2.8 28mm
Sigma f/2.8-4 28-70mmHoya R72 near-infrared filters in 52 and 58mm sizes.
A tripod is also a must. As far as usability goes, the best combination for me would be the 400D with the 28mm lens. The camera for it’s ?friendly? baffles and the lens for it’s sheer awesomeness. My one gripe about the lens is that it’s field of view is annoyingly narrow, which limits a lot of shots I’ve wanted to try over time. I hope to get a filter for my 17-85 after I leave for America.
Going down in usability, the 350D is a horrible camera and the 30D maybe middling. The 50mm is about on par with the 28mm, with the advantage of a bigger aperature for a shallower depth of field and the disadvantage (again) for narrow field of view making actually having a use for the filter awkward. The two zoom lenses has horrible hotspot problems and I’d really advise everyone to go out and get a prime if you want to do this.
Hotspots come from light bouncing around the inside of the lens and show up in your photo as a very obvious white spot in the middle of the picture. There’s no way around hotspots other than to purchase a lens (most primes are good) that’s suitable for IR. Did I mention I swear by my 28mm f/2.8?
Enough preamble, advice!
White Balance:
This is something that took me an embarassingly long amount of time to figure out. The white balance on your camera at the time of shooting has much more of an effect on the image than with conventional photography. Essentially the warmer your WB is, the brighter the final image will be. The best way to see this is to open up this file in Lightroom or your raw editior of choice and drag the white balance slider up and down. As well as colours shifting, your image will get much brighter or darker depending on the temperature. The most effective way to get it right is to just to take your camera off auto-white balance and instead set it to whatever the light is like. Shooting in shade? Use Shadow. And so on.
Due to their noise levels, infrared photos really don’t take being pushed all too well, so if you can get the image right at the time of shooting. Looking at the preview on your camera, the histogram should be just left of centre and the colours should be pink/red without being too bright or dark. Blood red and purple and just naughty and right out.
Skies and Polarisation:
Skies are a fascinating thing in IR, as they’re normally darker than the ground because of a few very technical reasons. Which is to say that with just a circular polariser you can get a completely black sky if you’re lucky.
Clouds are the exception, as with foliage they are extremely bright reflectors and if you’re shooting in daylight with scattered cloud, you pretty much need a polariser to avoid random white blobs in the sky
On the other hand, if you’re shooting somewhere dull (say a forest) you’ll get a brighter sky, although it’s rare that it’ll be blown out and it’s normally easier to recover. As a rule of thumb, on a bright day the sky will be about a stop darker than the ground.
Water’s also very dark in infrared and generally makes for an interesting backdrop.
Exposure:
There’s little point here giving advice on exposure as it’s going to vary from photo to photo. Aim for an exposure just left of centre in the histogram, playing with aperature, shutter speed and ISO. There’s different mixes to give different results.
Cover up!
Light spilling in through the viewfinder can be a problem when there’s a strong light source (such as uh, the sun) behind you. Canon cameras at least come with a clip to cover the viewfinder for just such purposes on their strap. You know when you’ve had such flare when there’s a bright blue streak/blob on your IR photo.
Composition:
Most digital cameras have a baffle to prevent infrared light reaching the sensor, as it causes noise. Because of this baffle, exposure times with a typical SLR and an infrared filter start at 5 seconds and only go up. The problem here is that you’re basically allowing in noise-causing light for long periods of time, so that no matter what ISO you choose, you’ll get a noisy photo. This makes it hard to really push a badly-exposed photo. It’s very close to taking a photo in the dark at ISO 3200 and then pushing it up a stop. It’ll look horrible.
To get to the point of all this, you need a strong foreground interest for the photo, as everything in the distance is going to be…fuzzy. The foreground too if it’s windy (long exposure), but it’s not as noticeable.
One effective thing to do is place your interest at some point short of where the lens focuses to infinity (ie, very close), focus on that and then open your aperature up. It’ll give a nicely soft background to the subject.
Light:
You don’t need a bright and shiny day to make the most of infrared. In fact, a cloudy day can make for some very broody and dramatic photos as you’ll have a nice dark sky above.
Paitence:
This should really go without saying. You need to set your camera, fiddle with filters and then wait for anything up to a minute to see if you got anything worthwhile. Cover your bases ? once you’ve settled on an exposure your like, go and take more at different exposures. You’ll never know which photo you’ll pick out and use.
Good to see someone else with an interest in Infrared photography. I do allot of IR stuff myself. Does not seem to be many on this site interested in it which is a real shame.
Some very good information you posted above. I used to use the R72 filter with my Nikon D200. I got some good results but its was hard to get them as i had to use up to 30 second exposures. One of the best cameras for doing IR stuff with the R72 is the Nikon D70 as the IR blocking filter in it is not very strong.
Eventually i picked up a second hand Nikon D70 camera and converted it to an IR only camera. This involved opening the camera up and removing the IR blocking filter altogether and replacing it with a normal light blocking filter (bought the normal light blocking filter from http://www.lifepixel.com in the US). After doing this the D70 became an IR only camera but the advantage of this was that i could take IR pictures handheld like as if i was taking normal colour pictures eg i normally shoot IR now at a 60th of a second at F16 at ISO 200. I can also with the converted camera use what ever lenses i like with it. If your serious about digital infra red this is the way to go. Only other thing to note about IR light is that it focuses closer than normal light so be careful if doing close up stuff.
Below is a link to a thread where i posted a few IR pictures with my converted D70IR
https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=5869
I used to dabble in IR photography before I went digital. In fact, it’s the main reason I haven’t gotten rid of my Bronica ETRSi, because I still have lot’s more experimenting I need to do. Sadly, IR film is on the decline and my favourite IR Film, MAco IR 820c is no longer being made. IR photography is one aspect of photography where film absolutely beats digital every time. I’ve looked at getting an old Canon EOS D30 converted, but I’m not yet convinced that it’s worth the expense. Using a regular digital camera doesn’t really work and trying to reproduce the effect in Photoshop doesn’t work either because you haven’t actually captured any IR wavelengths. I don’t have any decent medium format scanning equipment, so these are about as good as I could get when I scanned them some time ago. Oh, and apologies for the huge watermark – went a bit mad with it at the time :oops:
These two examples have been good sellers for me. Both shot on 120 Maco IR 820c using a Hoya R72 filter and developed in Rodinal. It’s definitely something I need to do again sometime soon. The downside is that it’s both time consuming and expensive – because of the heavy bracketing that I’ve been doing, I’ve been getting three useable frames out of each roll of 15 exposures. As I’ve become more experienced with the film, this rate has improved, but now that I’m going to have to go back to square one…:(
To be honest, I see absolutely no difference between those photos and those from a modded digital camera.
Fenster wrote:
To be honest, I see absolutely no difference between those photos and those from a modded digital camera.
There’s no reason why you should see a difference either. Both IR sensitive film and a modified digital camera should result in quite similar images. The IR properties of digital image sensors are well known and have been made use of for years prior to the advent of digital photography in applications such as CCTV security cameras. It’s just at this stage I can’t see myself investing in the cost of converting a digital camera so that it can be used for IR photography. The removal of the AA filter and IR blocking filters renders the camera useless for any other type of photography and I don’t really do that much IR work that such a dedicated camera would be of use to me right now.
Right. I also use a 30 dollar filter and completely standard equipment for my work. :]
Fenster wrote:
Right. I also use a 30 dollar filter and completely standard equipment for my work. :]
Cool, that makes two of us then :D Although, I admit I’m now slightly confused. In one thread you refer to a “modded camera” and then you refer to “completely standard equipment”. :?
Thorsten wrote:
I’ve looked at getting an old Canon EOS D30 converted, but I’m not yet convinced that it’s worth the expense
It only cost me about 90 euro to convert a Nikon D70. Ordered the replacement IR Filter from http://www.lifepixel.com and opened the camera and did it my self. I am really happy i did it as the results are excellent. If you don’t do that much IR stuff then converting might not be a good use of money. It can also be scary opening a camera up and changing the filters (if you ever do it or anyone else make sure you have the correct set of screwdrivers etc very important)
M
Martin wrote:
Thorsten wrote:
I’ve looked at getting an old Canon EOS D30 converted, but I’m not yet convinced that it’s worth the expense
It only cost me about 90 euro to convert a Nikon D70. Ordered the replacement IR Filter from http://www.lifepixel.com and opened the camera and did it my self. I am really happy i did it as the results are excellent. If you don’t do that much IR stuff then converting might not be a good use of money. It can also be scary opening a camera up and changing the filters (if you ever do it or anyone else make sure you have the correct set of screwdrivers etc very important)
M
Don’t forget to add the cost of a dedicated camera body! After all, this process renders the camera useless for regular photography. I’ve also had a quick look at the site you mentioned and compared the conversion steps for a Nikon D70 and a Canon 10D (they don’t have any listed for a D30). The D70 sensor is far easier to get at than the 10D – the 10D instructions are about three times as long as the D70 and also require desoldering/soldering a few wires. It’s been a while since I’ve done any soldering although I don’t think that’s a skill I’ll ever lose.
At the moment I’m going to keep my 10D intact as I need a backup body for my commercial jobs, but there is certainly a certain appeal to doing this. Think I’ll stick to film for now though. :wink:
“Don’t forget to add the cost of a dedicated camera body”
If your at photography for a while you normally have a few old camera bodies around the place but you made a good point it can add to the price if you have to buy another body.
“The D70 sensor is far easier to get at than the 10D”
Yes the Nikon sensors are easier to get at generally, suppose this is just another good reason to buy Nikon over Canon :-)
“the 10D instructions are about three times as long as the D70”
Just looked at the 10D tutorial just now, i would stick to film also rather than go through that process :-)
All the best
MartinThorsten wrote:
Fenster wrote:
Right. I also use a 30 dollar filter and completely standard equipment for my work. :]
Cool, that makes two of us then :D Although, I admit I’m now slightly confused. In one thread you refer to a “modded camera” and then you refer to “completely standard equipment”. :?
I mentioned that modded gear is one path, but it’s less hassle to just stick a filter on the end.
Thorsten wrote:
Sadly, IR film is on the decline and my favourite IR Film, MAco IR 820c is no longer being made.
Efke are now making that same film and it is available from http://www.retrophotographic.com in 35mm, 120 and sheet film sizes.
Also available from Retro is the Rollei ASA400 IR film and Rollei are currently working on an 850nm IR film.
Kodak HIE is still available in 35mm and Ilford SFX is back in all sizes.
Peter
Peter – thanks for that update. I’ve heard good things about the Rollei film and also heard elsewhere that Ilfor SFX was back. I’ve never tried SFX as it’s not really a true IR film. I’ve been hearing rumours about the future availability of Kodak’s HIE, but it looks secure enough at the moment. Again, not a film I’ve ever used because I have Canon film bodies which utilise an IR sensor as a frame advance counter. Any IR I’ve done has been on my Bronica ETRSi, which actually works very well as an IR camera. I just wish HIE was available in 120 format!
All of this is giving me the itch to go out and do some film based IR photography again. :D
I just heard that the Fujifilm IS-1 is going to be made available outside the US now as well. With a spectral response right up to 900nm, this looks like the ideal off-the-shelf IR camera.
I’m actually in the middle of an article for Lightroom-News.com on IR and Lightroom. Ironically a lot of what I’ve written is being mentioned in various threads. Mark, you get a lot of mention ;)
I’ve even mentioned the Canon IR film issue too! I was told though that the old EOS 100 doesn’t use IR, (or was it a 1000?- Sketchy memory!). I’ve also covered channel swapping and SFX too. I also saw the IS-1 on DPR when it was announced. Looks like my article is going to get much longer. Sigh.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
