roadsideron Loc: Apache Junction, AZ

I'm thinking about buying infrared filters for my Sony A7iii and try my hand at IR photography. Has anyone here done that with filters? I'm not interested in having my camera set up for just IR. My question is, one way to test whether a camera can see IR is to use a TV remote and look through the camera as you press the remote button. Now you either see light or you don't. My problem is that some say the tint of the light you see will determine the quality of the photo using filters. The light is see is light purple, not white, but it is clear in my view finder. I'm not sure if this is good enough to buy the filters. Any suggestions?

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

I suggest you buy a 520 or 620nm low-cost IR filter for your Sony. Do not fall for the "you get what you pay for people." IR is not something you will do much of why waste money. If you become adicted to IR, then, of course, you spend money, but for what gain? A 520 or 620nm gives some visible light as well as IR and makes interesting photos. "Everything you need to know but were afraid to ask"**... go to:
https://kolarivision.com/articles/choosing-a-filter/

** Play on title of Woody Allen Movie... about sex.

You will want to go to for quick easy color swap [Note the word FREE]:
http://www.flamingpear.com/freebies.html

Flaming pear is great... With a click, you can convert R/B sky/trees OR you can do the noble thing and fight with Adobe PS to do the conversion with complication and frustration. Me, I do a click and it is done. I am disgusting... I use Topaz with presets and sliders rather than the great learning curve with a monthly fee of the antiquated Adobe.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Visit this site to get what's IR photography, after that you may have a clear idea what and how you are going to start your IR photography adventure. Good Luck!

https://www.lifepixel.com/

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Thanks for posting this.
I used to shoot IR film and was considering a converted camera, but I’ll opt for the filter for now before I dive back in.

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

Lifepixel also has cameras that have already been converted so you don't have to use your own cameras and some are pretty reasonable. IR can be very addictive!

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

IR filters are typically designed to pass some region of IR spectrum, and they block most of the visible spectrum. And most cameras have a filter installed over the sensor that blocks IR (mostly). Unless you have that filter removed, adding a filter that blocks the visible spectrum will simply mean that not much light gets to your lens; that means you will have to take very long exposures to have any image. Moreover, since your camera is mirrorless, autofocus will not work at all and manual focus will be nearly impossible.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

I converted an older camera and it was not difficult. The conversion is 6 + 3 small screws and about an hours work. See:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-547605-1.html

In the "Kolarivision filter choice" article there is one that is odd... Blue IR... say what? OK, IR and UV... Having removed the Hot Mirror [IR blocker] IR is now on the sensor. However, UV is another story...
" Only near UV is of interest for UV photography, for several reasons. Ordinary air is opaque to wavelengths below about 200 nm, and lens glass is opaque below about 180 nm. UV photographers subdivide the near UV "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_photography

So, back to the Blue/IR filter. It appears that the ZB2 and ZB3 filters do what we want as shown in the graph/Photo attached. Note visible is blocked and UV and IR are transmitted.

On EBay [77mm] for $30 looks good.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/77mm-UV-IR-Multiband-Pass-Glass-ZB2-BG3-Violet-Blue-Camera-Photography-Filter/273967376364?hash=item3fc9ba67ec:g:NHAAAOSw~FhdL8ig

or a 52mm which fits my system:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32998618727.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.65211042DUofqe&algo_pvid=a38d3e49-c3b2-47d2-a801-53bfd161e5aa&algo_expid=a38d3e49-c3b2-47d2-a801-53bfd161e5aa-36&btsid=ef9a4d5c-4e23-47e8-893f-0cb44d2daed2&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_4,searchweb201603_52

IR BLUE TRANSMISSION

(Download)

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

Haha...you *are* disgusting! I love my Topaz and all the other plug-ins and geegaws I've collected, but IR is a different animal and I prefer to learn about it by digging-in and manipulating the files as I go (...as Vonnegut wrote, "pain is instructive"). There are SO many outcomes! That said, on the other side of the coin, there's no way I'm gonna mess with a bunch of filters...it's just too slow. I want to get my shots, hand held, and get behind the 'puter and work 'em. Maybe it's just that I like to work fast/shoot fast that I've chosen to pursue the genres of photography I have to this date...so I spend money where it counts; to help me go fast!

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Hi, roadsideron! I’ve been dabbling in digital, not film, Infrared Photography for a few years now. Yes, based on your description, your camera's unmodified digital sensor will detect a very small portion of the near-IR spectrum. But just to be sure, do you already have a fundamental understanding of the issue involved (no offense intended, as you may already know, though it’s not evident in your first post.)

Please explain, at least to yourself, how a great number of infrared photons of various wavelengths (from say, 700-1200 nm,) regardless of any applied external optical filters, will actually reach your camera's unmodified digital sensor?

Oh, I am certainly cognizant that a few 700-720 nm photons will interact with your sensor and thus with the appropriate external filter blocking visible light and a sufficiently long exposure time, you might obtain "an infrared image," but it will only be of a fraction of the near-Infrared spectrum. Will that truly satisfy your IR photo "quest"?

If not, then since you don’t want to convert your expensive Sony a7 mk III to Full Spectrum (which is, in my humble opinion, the only way to convert that makes sense in the long run,) perhaps you could convert an older digital camera of yours or buy one for that purpose. Typical camera conversion costs in the U.S. run $200-$300 nowadays. For perspective, keep in mind that one of those IR filters you seek to buy new will cost you at least $70.

PGHphoto Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

The biggest drawback to filters rather than conversion for digital is the long exposures typically required. Most DSLR's have an "anti' IR filter built in. As it still lets a little IR and near IR in, the amount filtered requires really long exposures. My experience with Canons are that, similar to film, you will need to do most of your setup and focussing without the filter and then attach a filter. That will make it too dark in viewfinder or live view to make changes. This is often a problem because IR does not focus at the same point as visible light. If you use auto focus and an IR filter, your results will almost always be soft.

For that reason I got an old T2i converted and am able to use the live view mode to focus (since I am seeing what the sensor sees) and get exposure set using the internal meter. Adding a hood loop makes live view a lot easier. Exposure time is a lot closer to visible light and the image in live view is very bright.

That was my experience anyway. I wish you luck - make sure you post some results.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I used a Sony DSC-F-707 combination with an IR filter to see and shoot IR. http://malarz.com/scenes_bw_04/04.html
It required a very minor addition to block the IR diodes from emitting IR light for the Night Vision setting on the camera. It worked fairly well.

I've used the same filter on my D700 and D800 cameras without modifications. Since my intended results were going to be black and white only, I didn't need to modify the camera in any way. It works, but the new lenses don't have the IR focal point on them. So, I have to guess just a bit for focusing. I've not done enough to determine if Auto Focus will work with IR or not. I should probably do that sometime in the near future. So, to this point in time, I know it works but haven't fine-tuned the systems yet. I should think it would work with your camera much the same as mine.
--Bob

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

The best filter for IR is the Hoya R72 infra red cutoff filter. This is an extremely dense red filter. You will have long exposures and you have to focus before you put on the filter. You should also check that your lenses do not have a hot spot problem. There are sites that list problem lenses, Kolarivision is one that has a good data base for lenses with hot spot problems.

roadsideron Loc: Apache Junction, AZ

I think the best way to go is to convert my A6300 camera. It's not as expensive as I thought I just have to decide which filter to get. The 590 has nice effects but my understanding is that it's not sharp. The 720 would provide more focused photos.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...there's no "sharpness" problem with *my* 590! Love it to death and have created a few pieces of wall art with it. My 720 (yes, I have two cameras dedicated) is fine, too, but there is really no difference in sharpness between the two (I use an olde 18-70 DX Nikkor lens or, lately, a DX Tokina 10-17 fisheye...so maybe I'm lucky.)...

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...you're thinking right AFA the conversion...filters are a PITA and you absolutely are in the mud and can't shoot fast at all...