Image and IR question

chrismoore

Hi, I've seen some IR photos posted lately and really like them. This is a photo from my stock that I reprocessed with Nik Silver Efex Pro for an IR look. While I like the effect, it doesn't compare to the images taken by those with IR cameras. I recently bought a Singh Ray IR filter, but haven't used it yet. I understand that using an IR filter requires a long exposure, which could potentially be ruined with motion. Most people that post IR images say there camera was modified for IR. I understand the process that is involved with replacing the sensor filter, but was wondering-- how much does it cost? and where do you send it to be done? I replaced my Rebel Xti with a 5D, could I modify my old Rebel?
Thanks, and here's the image...

Cuong

Chris, it's addictive once you can see what an IR modified camera gives you. Most people get their camera converted by LifePixel or MaxMax. Cost is around $400, depending on what option you want to get.

Cuong

jeffmeyers

Cuong wrote:

Chris, it's addictive once you can see what an IR modified camera gives you. Most people get their camera converted by LifePixel or MaxMax. Cost is around $400, depending on what option you want to get.

Yes, I got my Nikon D70s converted by LifePixel. LOVE it. They did a great job. I recommend them to you. I believe they also can tell you if your Canon will convert well. Not all cameras convert as well as others.

FYI, I got a "color enhanced" IR conversion and am VERY happy with it. You can see some of my images here. I think I'm getting better with processing.

aktse

At last count, I've gotten about ten people to convert a body into an IR only body, including many dgrinnners Oops.

Your rebel can be modded. You can either pay Lifepixel or MaxMax to do it (about $400-$450) and I believe that Lifepixel also has a do it yourself kit as well (requires you taking apart your body). I have heard good things about both companies and this is a review of MaxMax by Scott Quier.

An IR filter requires long exposures and the use of a tripod. If you have a body that's not being used and have the money to convert a body, I recommend you do it. As an added bonus, you have can use all of your current lens lineup!

I find that although I take less images with my IR body, I find that I have more keepers and that I can keep shooting when the light is harsh.

These two images were taken one right after another and both using a similar focal length during a mid-day hike at Glacier National Park during the shootout.



I could have nailed the exposure more on the standard image, or even attempted HDR to save it, but the image isn't anything special; just a snapshot in the middle of the day in harsh light.

However, the IR photo has so much more drama and my eyes are drawn to so much more detail!

Also, most people don't realize that IR cuts through the haze.

SF --- This was a clear day by bay area standards, but not as clear as this capture shows. I got out of the car and took a snapshot. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was able to see "though" San Francisco and across the bay to cities like Oakland, etc. In a 100% crop of the waterline, I can see people in the water!


This was during the same shoot and shot about 10-20 minutes afterwards.

chrismoore

Thnx for all the feedback, IR does look exciting and addictive. Do you find that there is a difference between taking a photo with an IR filter vs. with a modified camera (ie, all else being equal, are the images better with a mod camera, or is it just more of a pain to get the exposure correct with a filter)?
Chris

jeffmeyers

chrismoore wrote:

Thnx for all the feedback, IR does look exciting and addictive. Do you find that there is a difference between taking a photo with an IR filter vs. with a modified camera (ie, all else being equal, are the images better with a mod camera, or is it just more of a pain to get the exposure correct with a filter)?
Chris

There are huge differences. 1) You need a tripod if you are using a filter. No moving subjects either. It's all so very inconvenient. You can't just see a opportunity, whip out your camera, and shoot.

2) You'll have to use one or two lenses with a filter. Unless you buy an IR filter for every lens you want to use.

3) You'll have to compensate for focus with a filter. That's not easy when you can't see the subject through the viewfinder because of the opacity of the filter.

4) Yes, exposure is difficult. Lot's of trial and error.

5) The image quality is significantly better with a converted camera. I tried to use IR filters for many years, but just gave up. I never got much of anything that was keepable.

aktse

jeffmeyers wrote:

1) You need a tripod if you are using a filter. No moving subjects either. It's all so very inconvenient. You can't just see a opportunity, whip out your camera, and shoot.
2) You'll have to use one or two lenses with a filter. Unless you buy an IR filter for every lens you want to use.
3) You'll have to compensate for focus with a filter. That's not easy when you can't see the subject through the viewfinder because of the opacity of the filter.
4) Yes, exposure is difficult. Lot's of trial and error.
5) The image quality is significantly better with a converted camera. I tried to use IR filters for many years, but just gave up. I never got much of anything that was keepable.

I want to add
6) Expect long exposure times (e.g. up to 30s +) . Don't expect to hand hold any shots (with much success).
7) You need to be aware of weather patterns -- if the air isn't still (windless), your images will not be tack sharp and you'll have motion blurr in the leaves, grass, water reflection, etc. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's something you need to be aware of.
8) You will not cut haze and other atmospheric elements with an IR filter; the anti-IR filter is still over the camera's sensor

From what I've read, an IR filter combined with the camera's anti-IR one will let through less than 0.1% of the incoming light.

If you have no other option and want to try IR beyond playing in PS, a filter is a decent way to try this without the $$$ commitment. However, if you have the an extra body (dslr or p&s), a dedicated IR body is the way to go and what I recommend.

jeffmeyers

aktse wrote:

I want to add
6) Expect long exposure times (e.g. up to 30s +) . Don't expect to hand hold any shots (with much success).
7) You need to be aware of weather patterns -- if the air isn't still (windless), you're images will not be tack sharp and you'll have motion blurr in the leaves, grass, water reflection, etc. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's something you need to be aware of.
8) You will not cut haze and other atmospheric elements with an IR filter; the anti-IR filter is still over the camera's sensor

From what I've read, an IR filter combined with the camera's anti-IR one will let through less than 0.1% of the incoming light.

If you have no other option and want to try IR beyond playing in PS, a filter is a decent way to try this without the $$$ commitment. However, if you have the an extra body (dslr or p&s), an dedicated IR body is the way to go and what I recommend.

Thanks for adding these!

chrismoore

Hi guys,
sent my camera off to Lifepixel to be converted, really looking forward to it! If anyone out there is considering this, enter promo code SISLEN at checkout, you get $50 off. I came across this through google.

chrismoore

Also, are there any good tuturials on post-processing for IR? I've heard some say their photos are good out of the camera, but I've also read posts where folks make it seem like processing IR is a whole new talent. Thanks for the input.

jeffmeyers

chrismoore wrote:

Also, are there any good tuturials on post-processing for IR? I've heard some say their photos are good out of the camera, but I've also read posts where folks make it seem like processing IR is a whole new talent. Thanks for the input.

It all depends on 1) the type of IR conversion you have. Some look good out of the camera, some don't. But I've yet to see an "out of the camera" shot that didn't need some adjustments.

2) What ind of images you are looking far. If you want red skys, then out of the camera might work (unless you have a B&W infrared conversion).

I've got a tutorial on how to process with Capture NX2 here.

But you can google this and find any number of different approaches.

chrismoore

jeffmeyers wrote:

It all depends on 1) the type of IR conversion you have. Some look good out of the camera, some don't. But I've yet to see an "out of the camera" shot that didn't need some adjustments.

2) What ind of images you are looking far. If you want red skys, then out of the camera might work (unless you have a B&W infrared conversion).

I've got a tutorial on how to process with Capture NX2 here.

But you can google this and find any number of different approaches.

Thanks, I'll check it out- I just got the standard IR conversion from Lifepixel. Guess I'll just see what comes out of the camera when I get it back and see what needs to be done.

catspaw

Read up!

And apply


http://www.irleague.com/gallery/5351357_i3weC

dlplumer

I love your shot Chris. Great PP

chrismoore

catspaw wrote:

Read up!

And apply


http://www.irleague.com/gallery/5351357_i3weC

that's a great link. I was disheartened to find that my entire lens collection (with the exception of the 24-105) are on the list that produces hot spots.

catspaw

chrismoore wrote:

that's a great link. I was disheartened to find that my entire lens collection (with the exception of the 24-105) are on the list that produces hot spots.

That's one reason I went with a modified point and shoot (G10) since the last thing I needed was to haul another big body around and then worry/remember which lenses would and would not work!

schmoo

chrismoore wrote:

Also, are there any good tuturials on post-processing for IR? I've heard some say their photos are good out of the camera, but I've also read posts where folks make it seem like processing IR is a whole new talent. Thanks for the input.

There's lots of great resources and an endless number of ways to do it, but here's one from Andy. And I remembered that one of our users posted this good one about processing false color IR shots, too.

chrismoore

Those are all great links. I read through them all and went out and took a few shots with my R72 filter to try some of the processing techniques, and really ran into more trouble than I thought I would. The histogram looked good on the camera so I don't think that's the problem although I'm not sure. Anyway, I posted the image in this thread, in Finishing school as I thought that would be a more appropriate location. If anyone can give me some ideas I would really appreciate it.
Chris

aktse

chrismoore wrote:

Those are all great links. I read through them all and went out and took a few shots with my R72 filter to try some of the processing techniques, and really ran into more trouble than I thought I would. The histogram looked good on the camera so I don't think that's the problem although I'm not sure. Anyway, I posted the image in this thread, in Finishing school as I thought that would be a more appropriate location. If anyone can give me some ideas I would really appreciate it.
Chris

Sorry to say, you didn't read through all the links.

I posted this link earlier and it includes Scott's thoughts on shooting IR, including screen shots of histograms and camera settings.

In a nutshell, you can't interpret the histograms in the same way when shooting IR, you need to exposure compensate about one/two stops and setting a custom while balance helps, but not necessary. I also recommend shooting in RAW.

I also replied in your other thread and spent 20 seconds adjusting your image. The first step is always adjusting your exposure and setting your white balance. Most IR photos SOC using AWB will come out in a shade that I call "angry red".

I rarely shoot AWB in IR (only the first two days when I got my body), but I did find a gallery in which I noted that I did this on purpose. I might have done this to teach someone about IR photos and processing...

This is one of my snapshots in that SOC gallery.


After a quick PP:


edited: my apologizes. I just read your reply in the other thread and I didn't realize that you desired false color... this example is just a quick color swap and not a full false color treatment. It's not what you're looking for...

chrismoore

I may have missed that, sorry I'm new to all this.
Thanks for your input, gives me homework to do.

jeffmeyers

aktse wrote:

I also recommend shooting in RAW.

Definitely shoot in RAW. Here's an example. I pulled off the side of the road to capture this shot. I captured about 10 images and got back onto the highway and sped away. I was pleased. Until later. Turns out that I inadvertantly had my exposure compensation set to -1.5. Bad news. When I looked at the images later I realized what had happened. Nothing to do now. No reshooting. Here's the RAW (NEF) shot.



Because I shot in RAW I was able to take and otherwise worthless shot and make it into something interesting. And here's the image after correcting and adjusting in Capture NX2:



There's a lot of data to play with in a RAW file. And given that you will always be tweaking IR shots, shooting in RAW is a must.