Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
IR photography
Page <prev 2 of 2
Oct 18, 2017 11:48:02   #
John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN
 
Lots of articles over the years about IR photograohy makes me wonder about UV photography.

Reply
Oct 18, 2017 12:19:38   #
chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA
 
whatdat wrote:
Thanks for the info. Will ck with life pixel. This forum is a great source of info.


...I've had two bodies done; a D70s by Lifepixel at 720 nm (nm is "nanometer" and 720 is pretty much sans color) and a D300 done by Isaac Szabo at 590 nm (commonly known as a "Super Color" filter, which allows some color). I've had a ball learning about IR, but it's a chore and you MUST do your homework, if just to *understand* what it is you are trying to do. I've produced some nice images with both versions, but feel I'm woefully short of really groking the entire gamut...but that's what draws me back!





Reply
Oct 18, 2017 15:49:57   #
pecohen Loc: Central Maine
 
whatdat wrote:
I am interested in IR photography, as I have seen some really stunning pics using IR. Questions:
1: I have two nikon p520 bridge cameras. Can one of these be converted to IR, and at what cost?
2. If not able to convert, would an IR filter work, and if so, suggestions on brands and-or numbers representing strength?

Have learned a lot from being involved with the UHH forum, so am hopeful to get some useful information.

Thanks.

Just putting a screw-on IR filter does not work so well. The problem is that cameras generally come from the factory with a filter over the sensor to block IR. If you add a screw-on filter that passes only IR the result is a camera that lets very little light through to the sensor.

I have a camera with that IR-blocking filter removed and not replaced with any other filter. I can screw on a filter to block IR and the result is something like a normal camera. Likewise I can screw on a filter to block light other than in some region in the IR and it behaves roughly like a camera where such a filter has been applied over the sensor. It can be used without any screw-on adapter to get full-spectrum images. In short, it is quite versatile and it is an alternative you might consider, at least as a way to get some exposure to what is involved with this kind of photography.

Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2017 17:29:35   #
whatdat Loc: Del Valle, Tx.
 
Many thanks, everyone. I knew nothing about IR, but it looked like something I would like to try. I have a d5500 nikon (still learning), but don't want to convert it. But, I do have two nikon p520 bridge cameras, and could convert one of them, if possible. I will check out the info you all gave me and let you know how my investigation goes.
Thanks, again.

Reply
Oct 18, 2017 22:19:20   #
Pixie Jackie Loc: New Hampshire seacoast
 
It's times like this that film cameras outperform digital cameras. It was so easy in the "old" film days. If you wanted to shoot infrared, you just bought IR film, but made sure that when you loaded the film into your camera you did it in complete darkness (no stray light). Then you just picked some nice scenery (especially with trees) focused then matched that to the red IR mark on your camera. Then when you took the film out of the camera, again you had to make sure it was in complete darkness. Since I had a darkroom for 18 years, that was no problem. I developed the film myself in the darkroom, and from then on it was easy. Made prints as usual, etc. with excellent results.

Reply
Oct 18, 2017 23:01:14   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
whatdat wrote:
I am interested in IR photography, as I have seen some really stunning pics using IR. Questions:
1: I have two nikon p520 bridge cameras. Can one of these be converted to IR, and at what cost?
2. If not able to convert, would an IR filter work, and if so, suggestions on brands and-or numbers representing strength?

Have learned a lot from being involved with the UHH forum, so am hopeful to get some useful information.

Thanks.


I had had two cameras converted - a Sony A55, a DSLT, and an Olympus em5ii, mirrorless. Both to full spectrum, which means that I need to pick the filter I wish to use. I have various filters such as 590nm, 630nm, 720nm and 850nm for different results.

With the mirrorless camera, there is no issue with auto focus, no matter what lens I use. The other camera is not mirrorless, and I find that it is best to use manual focus with that camera.

I have a number of lenses and a number of filters in several filter sizes.

Reply
Oct 18, 2017 23:31:19   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
Pixie Jackie wrote:
It's times like this that film cameras outperform digital cameras. It was so easy in the "old" film days. If you wanted to shoot infrared, you just bought IR film, but made sure that when you loaded the film into your camera you did it in complete darkness (no stray light). Then you just picked some nice scenery (especially with trees) focused then matched that to the red IR mark on your camera. Then when you took the film out of the camera, again you had to make sure it was in complete darkness. Since I had a darkroom for 18 years, that was no problem. I developed the film myself in the darkroom, and from then on it was easy. Made prints as usual, etc. with excellent results.
It's times like this that film cameras outperform ... (show quote)


I shot IR film back in the day, and I like my converted digital camera much better. The dark red IR filter for film meant long exposures, usually requiring a tripod, and you needed a tripod anyway because it was very hard to focus and compose through the filter, so you would take the filter off to focus and compose and then replace it. With a converted digital camera the exposures are easily handholdable, and easy to focus. I shot exclusively B&W IR film because I didn't like the way the color IR looked. With the red skies it just looked too surreal. Now with digital IR you can do the red/blue channel swap so you get blue skies, which is closer to reality but still somewhat surreal, and then you can manipulate the colors further in post processing. I now do much more faux color IR than B&W.

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2017 04:01:05   #
wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
 
whatdat wrote:
I am interested in IR photography, as I have seen some really stunning pics using IR. Questions:
1: I have two nikon p520 bridge cameras. Can one of these be converted to IR, and at what cost?
2. If not able to convert, would an IR filter work, and if so, suggestions on brands and-or numbers representing strength?

Have learned a lot from being involved with the UHH forum, so am hopeful to get some useful information.

Thanks.


If I were you, I would look for a used IR sensitive Canon. Canon has made a couple of models that did not have an IR filter on the sensor. It was very good for astrophotography for its extra sensitive in one of the basic starlight's IR.

Reply
Oct 19, 2017 11:50:48   #
John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN
 
Some early digitals did not have IR blocking coating on the sensor. The Olympus C2020 was one. Still have it. Once tried it out on a soldering iron in a dark closet. Trouble is, it uses those old Smart cards which makes getting the pics out a royal pain.

Reply
Oct 19, 2017 15:13:34   #
JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA
 
wdross wrote:
If I were you, I would look for a used IR sensitive Canon. Canon has made a couple of models that did not have an IR filter on the sensor. It was very good for astrophotography for its extra sensitive in one of the basic starlight's IR.


The conversion is way better. The camera becomes sensitive enough to IR that you can hand hold without concerns. And the live view allows you to manually focus real easily.

Reply
Oct 19, 2017 19:42:55   #
whatdat Loc: Del Valle, Tx.
 
Again, thanks for all the info. Sounds like I need to study the issue.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.