Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

IR
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:21 pm    Post subject: IR Reply with quote
I have been considering an IR thread for a while. I bought an IR filter (720 nm) last year and have taken some shots now and then. This thread may contain traces of AF, I’m not sure of a couple of shots.
There is a great difference between cameras. The D200 is pretty useless for IR but my Pentax * Ist Dl is quite sensitive without any modifications. I have also modified a D100 by taking away the IR blocking filter. This makes it very sensitive. I can use it handheld in most situations.

Snow might not be the typical IR motive. It doesn't look that different from visible light. I think it gets a bit more grain and contrast though. This should be a Nikkor 1.8/50 on the D100






This is a more typical IR image with light foilage, dark water and high contrast between clouds and sky. Taken with the Pentax (might be AF)







This one is with the D200. The only advantage with the long exposure is that it can be used to flatten out the water surface. The lens is a 3.5/28







I prefeer B/W but it can be fun to experiment with the colours. On this one (from my window) I have switched the blue and red channel in PS. Makes the sky blue but otherwise unrealistic compared to visual. D100 and 2.8/24








Night sky in IR. This one is with a Nikkor Q 4/200








Pretty severe light conditions taken with the 3.5/28. Obviously some gosting and flare.







Another snow capture. The darks sky reveals it for being IR. 3.5/28







My son is interested in astro-photography. He told me that certain objects can be easier to capture in IR. This is the M42 nebula in Orion captured with a 2.8/180. Obviously nothing like what the big guys in astro photo can acieve, but taken from a fixed tripod with multiple 3 s exposures.







Another blue sky attempt






This is how the un-processed pictures usually look. Can sometimes be useable, but most often not.





An arcitecture shot. Not very dramatic. Also a bit more contrast than visible light I think.



PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Shocked WOW So many excellent images here!!! Hard to pickup wich one is my favorite I love them all.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Attila!
IR tend to make most pictures more dramatic, so it's a bit of cheating i guess. Motives that might have been quite plain in visible light can somtimes look more exotic in near IR.
I think it's fun to experiment with anyhow.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sven wrote:
Thanks Attila!
IR tend to make most pictures more dramatic, so it's a bit of cheating i guess. Motives that might have been quite plain in visible light can somtimes look more exotic in near IR.
I think it's fun to experiment with anyhow.


I agree , IR is a great tool and best of in IR it works when weather is crap and hard to shoot 'normal images'


PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Shocked WOW So many excellent images here!!! Hard to pickup wich one is my favorite I love them all.


Shocked +1


PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Sven wrote:
Thanks Attila!
IR tend to make most pictures more dramatic, so it's a bit of cheating i guess. Motives that might have been quite plain in visible light can somtimes look more exotic in near IR.
I think it's fun to experiment with anyhow.


I agree , IR is a great tool and best of in IR it works when weather is crap and hard to shoot 'normal images'


Thats true, and it also give me a chance to re-visit places and capture them a bit differently


PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
danikatia wrote:
Attila wrote:
Shocked WOW So many excellent images here!!! Hard to pickup wich one is my favorite I love them all.


Shocked +1


Thanks Smile


PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
VERY well done Sven!! Great processing also.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
VERY well done Sven!! Great processing also.


Thanks a lot!
I find processing to be the hard bit really. Sometimes an IR image can look promising in Raw, but I can't seem to get it right in PP.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
These are very nice. I've experimented a little with my D40 some time ago (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photoreceptor/sets/72157624317931692/). Are you using a 720nm high-pass filter like the Hoya R72?


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cistron wrote:
These are very nice. I've experimented a little with my D40 some time ago (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photoreceptor/sets/72157624317931692/). Are you using a 720nm high-pass filter like the Hoya R72?


Thanks!
I like your captures.
I'm using a no name 720nm filter. Blocks visual except for a small transmittace of some very deep red in the visual band. Shouldn't it be low-pass in terms of frequency or is it high pass with regards to wave lenght?
Is the D40 enough IR sensitive so that you can hand hold it?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
Page 1 of 1