IR shooters, post process - is RAW useful?

Tango · October 20, 2008

does anyone have an opinion about IR post processing?

main question: will shooting in raw help in post processing like it does in usual-normal-peoples photography?:D

i.e. WB adjustments, White/ Black point, Expo slider...etc...etc...

side question: has anyone heard about any photoshop plug-in that converts normal images into a mimicked IR exposure?
is it worth looking into?

:thumb thanks for any info

Nikolai · October 20, 2008

Aaron, simply from general stand point - RAW (being 12-bit) provides much more flexibility in case something goes wrong - and something always does. I mean, if your name is Anwm1 and you always nail your jpegs - you may not need it, but if you're more like us mere mortals - you'd appreciate the extra layer of cushion.

I saw several quai/pseudo IR actions/filter in PS and LR - IMHO the is nothing super magical about them. Blow up green channel, darken the blue one - that's about it...

Andy · October 20, 2008

Of course, yes, it helps

I want to work with the original data, not a preprocessed jpg.

pathfinder · October 20, 2008

Aaron, I am still learning my way around IR processing, but by chance, I shot a few frames yesterday, so I will try to tell how I do it. I will be interested to hear the opinions of other IR shooters about Aaron's questions.

For myself, I do choose to use RAW in shooting IR. It captures the most complete data array, why throw all that data away and end up with an 8 bit jpg? Maybe others disagree.

I process just about like most other shots, but use the white eyedropper on grass to create my white balance. The recommendation is to shoot a frame of grass and use that as a custom white balance, but I always forget to do that in the field, and if the light changes from sun to shade, then you would need to reshoot grass in the shade as well, so I just shoot a frame of grass in the sun and use that for a white balance for my other frames that are sunlit later in PS.

If you do not have an IR adapted camera, you can create faux IR with the B&W conversion tool in CS3. There is a setting for IR that is a good starting point, but I just slide the sliders around until I get what looks good to my eye. The blue and cyan have to be dropped to the left to kill the blue light for the black skies.

Here is a faux IR I did that way a couple years ago.

You just drop into the Image>Adjust>B&W conversion and dial back the blue and cyan slider way down to the left, and the red and yellow slider to the right and viola from this color image to this B&W with these B&W slider settings

[imgl]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/398713221_2JaZU-M.jpg[/imgl] [imgr]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/398713482_YB6Un-M.jpg[/imgr]

I used the following settings in the B&W conversion tool in CS3

There is a very good, short video about IR processing in PS here - http://www.lifepixel.com/videos/basic-infrared-photoshop-info.html

Here is a frame I shot yesterday with my IR converted 300D, with a blue sky created by inverting the B channel in LAB. I simply took the b channel and converted it from lower left to upper right, to an upper left and lower right slope.

And a standard IR shot of a John Deere

I am looking forward to getting my 40D converted to IR in the near future.

I need to shoot some multi-frame IR panos with the 300D IR and process them to for the very best landscape images.

Tango · October 20, 2008

golden, pathfinder, this is golden

Pezpix · October 21, 2008

Nikolai wrote:

Aaron, simply from general stand point - RAW (being 12-bit) provides much more flexibility in case something goes wrong - and something always does. I mean, if your name is Anwm1 and you always nail your jpegs - you may not need it, but if you're more like us mere mortals - you'd appreciate the extra layer of cushion.

I saw several quai/pseudo IR actions/filter in PS and LR - IMHO the is nothing super magical about them. Blow up green channel, darken the blue one - that's about it...

Exactly my thought as well. Plus, using and utilizing RAW means you can change the kelvin temperature beforehand to be sure your photo is maximizing the colors you need to output even more. A cooler temperature (3500-4500k) seems to always help me make reds and yellows stand out a bit more. Your mileage may vary of course

pathfinder · October 21, 2008

Pezpix wrote:

Exactly my thought as well. Plus, using and utilizing RAW means you can change the kelvin temperature beforehand to be sure your photo is maximizing the colors you need to output even more. A cooler temperature (3500-4500k) seems to always help me make reds and yellows stand out a bit more. Your mileage may vary of course

A good point - I noticed when I used grass as a sample for my white balance, the color temp was 2000, now that is a really warm color temp.

Scott_Quier · October 21, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

does anyone have an opinion about IR post processing?

main question: will shooting in raw help in post processing like it does in usual-normal-peoples photography?:D

Mo' data is mo' better!

AaronNelson wrote:

i.e. WB adjustments, White/ Black point, Expo slider...etc...etc...

My camera is moded with an 830nm filter, so the RGB channels are equally responsive to the IR light -> means I can only get mono-chrome photos from my camera. Setting the WB is simply a click of a mouse ANYWHERE in the photo. As for the white point/black point - yup I use then when I need them - usually. Exp slider - when I miss the exposure (usually, that is). With my camera, I have to pay very close attention to the histogram and I find that I usually have to shoot at least two frames, and sometimes as many as 4 or 5 frames, to get a "good and proper" exposure.

AaronNelson wrote:

side question: has anyone heard about any photoshop plug-in that converts normal images into a mimicked IR exposure?
is it worth looking into?

thanks for any info

HTH

Tango · October 21, 2008

im glad i asked, i was thinking IR was so funky that raw wouldnt help much...

i was just going to get a P&S (sony wsc-300) but maybe id better just go the extra little bit and find a dslr....(ive been thinking about it since Scotts glacier IR shot)

pathfinder when does the 300d go up for auction:D

Nikolai · October 21, 2008

Scott_Quier wrote:

With my camera, I have to pay very close attention to the histogram and I find that I usually have to shoot at least two frames, and sometimes as many as 4 or 5 frames, to get a "good and proper" exposure.

Scott, get 50D, and you'll enjoy Live histogram in LiveView:-)

Tango · October 21, 2008

Nik, i looked up a IR software plugin, its from alienskin....($199)

it seems to me no software could get as good as a result as a modified camera...right???

Nikolai · October 21, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

Nik, i looked up a IR software plugin, its from alienskin....($199)

it seems to me no software could get as good as a result as a modified camera...right???

That's correct. Just like with polarizer, the real IR filter effect is rather hard to achieve in software. Deinitely not worth $200 imho...

Scott_Quier · October 21, 2008

Nikolai wrote:

Scott, get 50D, and you'll enjoy Live histogram in LiveView:-)

Nik, I got 50D (two of them), but it'll be a long time before I have one of them converted to IR!

BTW - I'll be posting 2 30D cameras (and accessories) for sale in the next day or two. Want one, Nik?

D How about you Aaron? There might be someone here who'll vouch for me as a seller/buyer

Nikolai wrote:

That's correct. Just like with polarizer, the real IR filter effect is rather hard to achieve in software. Deinitely not worth $200 imho...

I'll second that. IR modified cameras are sooooo cool!

pathfinder · October 21, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

im glad i asked, i was thinking IR was so funky that raw wouldnt help much...

i was just going to get a P&S (sony wsc-300) but maybe id better just go the extra little bit and find a dslr....(ive been thinking about it since Scotts glacier IR shot)

pathfinder when does the 300d go up for auction:D

Probably sometime this winter, before the end of the year.

Tango · October 21, 2008

im all ears Scott...pm me sometime...though i fear my budget wont afford such nice equipage just for a tanget of my main hobby....:D

Nikolai · October 21, 2008

Scott_Quier wrote:

Nik, I got 50D (two of them),

Score! :-)

BTW - I'll be posting 2 30D cameras (and accessories) for sale in the next day or two. Want one, Nik? D How about you Aaron? There might be someone here who'll vouch for me as a seller/buyer

Nah I'll pass, I have 40D + 50D now, and I'm saving for 5D2 (40D will have to go then)

But I'll surely vouch for you!

Scott_Quier · October 21, 2008

Nikolai wrote:

Nah I'll pass, I have 40D + 50D now

Yeh, I knew that and thought you might say that.

AaronNelson wrote:

im all ears Scott...pm me sometime...though i fear my budget wont afford such nice equipage just for a tanget of my main hobby....

Will do - look for the FS in the flea market on Sunday (I have a wedding on Sat and that will be the big test for the 50D camera - don't want to let go of a tested tool until the new tool gets vetted.)

Aspire · October 21, 2008

Hope I am not doubling up too much but you should check out these two threads in Landscape, Pezpix has some IR simulated images http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=109005 & I also have a thread on there with some I have done since seeing his brilliant image - http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=109122

Thanks to Pezpix for inspiring me to fiddle in Elements and try to simulate IR effect. All photos were;

1/ Shot in RAW - with 18-55 stock lens with CPL attached
2/ Levels slightly adjusted in Canon Digital Photo Pro then converted to JPEG
3/ Converted to simulate IR effect in Photoshop Elements 6;

Open Adjust Colour - Hue Saturation & increase green to +50 & Yellow to +40
Go to Convert to Black & White
Click IR Effect Style
Move Blue Adjustment to -90
Red to -43 & Click ok

(All these colour levels are not static - play with them & get different results!)

4/ If you want a soft glow effect I opened the AutoFX Plugin Dreamy Photo & applied the glow effect & adjusted it to suit.

Here is one of the photos I converted;

It is great fun & takes less than a couple of minutes to do. I think I feel the beginnings of a IR bug... lol

CavalierPhoto · October 21, 2008

I want to work with the original data, not a preprocessed jpg.

I'm also kinda lazy when it comes to it and I'm not really very tech savvy to know the type filter or Kelvin temps

. I just set a WB once using the frame of grass method. Can't remember if it was a sunny day or not but it's worked out to be a nice average. If the lighting changes I just over/under-expose accordingly.

My images come out of the camera red and white. I desaturate them and adjust the main RGB curve to arrive at B/W image.

I have messed around with some of my color images using the preset filters in LR and CS3 for comparisons and will have to agree with Nikolai. They're not very impressive.

Neither does $200 for conversion SW. Last I checked Lifepixel the conversions were around $400 which is well worth it if you plan on shooting a lot of IR.

aktse · October 22, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

im glad i asked, i was thinking IR was so funky that raw wouldnt help much...

i was just going to get a P&S (sony wsc-300) but maybe id better just go the extra little bit and find a dslr....(ive been thinking about it since Scotts glacier IR shot)ction

I can be blamed for getting at least six people to buy an IR body, including Scott; his wonderful glacier IR shots are from my camera. Skippy is my latest victim. (i'm evil

) And after Moab, I think at least two other people are thinking about IR bodies since I let them run off with my camera for a few frames.

I would not dream of shooting IR in anything but RAW since the exposure is so different that what I'm used to since it's with a spectrum of light that I can not see.

Without a custom white balance, the photos are an angry red:

And a little false colors makes all the difference.

These days, I'm lazy and set things to the coolest temperature and take of it in post. Somethings, I just leave the photo in the sepia tone.

Someone was trying to convince me that a point and shoot IR is better than the a dSLR. In same certain cases, that might be true (when weight matters, when you can't carry two bodies like when you're hiking the sierras), but in general, I love having the ability to change my lenses and to go from a ultra wide to my zoom.

There are various post on "faking" IR using PS, but there is something that people tend to forget about IR bodies.

IR cameras can cut through the haze and can produce incredibly clear results.

It was considered a clear San Francisco day, but not as clear as this photo would make you believe. I can't believe that I can "see" across San Francisco, through the water, and to the other said of the bay.

IR, hand held, single frame. Basically, I stepped out of a car and took a snapshot and if you zoom into the photo, you can see people in the water and the windows of the building.

And another shot, a few steps down the path using my regular body and a lens with a similar focal length. This was taken about five minutes later (look at the clouds, similar). You can't see the mountain range, let along the water on the other side of San Francisco.

IR is just fun and allows you to shoot when you don't have sweet light, but it isn't for everyone. IR photos need to be "developed" and generally, can not be used SOC.

pathfinder · October 22, 2008

Inter-changeable lens cameras offer a lot of advantages over P&Ss for me. I tried an R72 Hoya for my G9, but the images were so noisy I never tried it again.

One thing to be aware of using different Canon lenses for IR, is that some very good lenses ( even L lenses ) are very poor choices to use with an IR enabled body.

Some lenses seem to allow reflections from the posterior optical surface back onto the silicon sensor, causing what is called "hot spots" or areas of blown out pixels in the center of the image. If you do not know this fact, the experience can be a little confusing. I had exactly this experience with an EF 85 f1.8 - normally a very highly regarded lens. The 50mm f1.4 is also said to be a bad actor in this regard. The 17-40mm f4 is said to work well for IR usage and that has been my experience also.

You can read more about this topic here and here

These are both very good links to be aware of.

It is interesting that the lists do not completely agree about which lenses have IR hot spots also...... You do not see the hot spots in the viewfinder, only in the images later.

Tango · October 22, 2008

you all rock! thank you for the advice/info/time!

BTW, April, the first time i seen that SF shot of yours awhile back i knew i needed to get into IR for those type of shots (haze), so yes, you are the responsible party behind many dgrinners doing this....
ive been in and out of doing this a few times, but im getting closer...

im still on the fence about what camera to do this with....
thanks to you all if i go with a P&S im sure i need one that will do RAW...
a G9 converted maybe....but i also want to have use of my lenses...

but i gotta find the right match with my wallet i guess.....

aktse · October 22, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

you all rock! thank you for the advice/info/time!

BTW, April, the first time i seen that SF shot of yours awhile back i knew i needed to get into IR for those type of shots (haze), so yes, you are the responsible party behind many dgrinners doing this....
ive been in and out of doing this a few times, but im getting closer...

im still on the fence about what camera to do this with....
thanks to you all if i go with a P&S im sure i need one that will do RAW...
a G9 converted maybe....but i also want to have use of my lenses...

but i gotta find the right match with my wallet i guess.....

I was told by his cousin that the specific IR SF snapshot convinced Cuong to get PS modified. Actually, that photo was such a surprise for me -- I had no clue what I was getting when I snapped it and gave it no thought at all.

If have a canon P&S, you can get most them to shoot raw via a CHDK hack

Also, don't forget about the Canon Loyalty Program where you can turn in a broken P&S for a better camera for a bit of cash. It's a good way to do IR. As of a few months ago, the G9 and XT were on the list and while the XT doesn't have the yummy goodness of liveview, etc., I still get great results from it when I shoot, chimp the histograms, and shoot again.

CynthiaM · October 27, 2008

I often use Lightroom (you can do the same thing in CS3 Camera Raw) to process raw images from a converted rebel xt, but rather than using the greyscale mix, I will often use the HSL panel (Hue, Saturation & Luminance) as it renders less noise, especially in the skies, than using the greyscale mix.

Take a look at this video by Martin Evening. Caution: you must be patient and watch about 5 minutes of the video before he goes into how to use the HSL panel for B&W.

http://lightroom-news.com/2007/08/24/tips-for-better-black-and-white-conversions/

Hope that helps

Tango · October 27, 2008

yes, i prefer the HSL-sat over PS, and i really like the lumo tool for skys....

thanks i will go see what this link brings...always something new to learn

Cuong · November 6, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

you all rock! thank you for the advice/info/time!

BTW, April, the first time i seen that SF shot of yours awhile back i knew i needed to get into IR for those type of shots (haze), so yes, you are the responsible party behind many dgrinners doing this....
ive been in and out of doing this a few times, but im getting closer...

im still on the fence about what camera to do this with....
thanks to you all if i go with a P&S im sure i need one that will do RAW...
a G9 converted maybe....but i also want to have use of my lenses...

but i gotta find the right match with my wallet i guess.....

The decision for me was easy. My Canon G6 was totally neglected once I got into dslr, so it made sense to have the G6 converted to IR. The drawback with a P&S is its slow responsiveness, but I use my G6 to shoot mostly landscape stuff so that issue is moot. An IR modded dslr would give you the high performance and interchangeable lenses, but you have to find the right match for your wallet.:D

Cuong

Tango · November 6, 2008

Cuong wrote:

The decision for me was easy. My Canon G6 was totally neglected once I got into dslr, so it made sense to have the G6 converted to IR. The drawback with a P&S is its slow responsiveness, but I use my G6 to shoot mostly landscape stuff so that issue is moot. An IR modded dslr would give you the high performance and interchangeable lenses, but you have to find the right match for your wallet.:D

Cuong

what has me thinking is the comments about lens choice. i have a couple of "L" lenses and they may not be choice for IR...so, when the time comes i guess it rental time of a few suggested "IR" friendly lenses and see how they do compared to the ones i have....

my current 5d is getting closer as my camera choice since its not selling...
i think it should do well as a IR camera, but it seems overkill to me though...

IR shooters, post process - is RAW useful?

Comments