Infra Red

grandmaRgrandmaR Registered Users Posts: 2,258 Major grins
edited January 5, 2015 in Technique
In the old days if we wanted to shoot with a different kind of light spectrum, we used special film. What do you do now with digital cameras?
“"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited December 31, 2014
    I prefer to use a permanently altered, dedicated dSLR body; in my case a Canon 350D/XT altered by LifePixel for near IR.

    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=92492

    Remember that IR captures can be negatively affected by some lenses which appear to create a hot-spot in the resulting image capture. Be sure to find a list of lenses compatible with IR applications and see if you already own IR compatible lenses, or if you would need some additional lens purchases.

    A couple of my IR images after processing:

    i-rxN2Qpm-L.jpg

    i-DMtHMgn-L.jpg
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • grandmaRgrandmaR Registered Users Posts: 2,258 Major grins
    edited January 1, 2015
    Thank you. I think I would want to be sure they would let me take such a camera to the site, but at least I know what I might need.
    “"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,949 moderator
    edited January 1, 2015
    I think it's probably a better choice to buy a modified point and shoot these days. You'd probably be more likely to use it.

    I have a modified Rebel also and it's a chore to add that body to the two I may already carry-so it's the first to go when the bag gets heavy.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited January 1, 2015
    The mirror less m4/3 bodies offer a lot of advantages to IR conversion.

    There are a number of older models of m4/3 bodies that convert nicely - I sent my Limix GH2 to Life Pixel for conversion. Simple, fast and not too epensive.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,249 moderator
    edited January 1, 2015
    I just purchased the LifePixel conversion during their end-of-year sale for my Canon SL1 (100D) and will send it in next week. The SL1 is the smallest and lightest dSLR made, and I hope to also purchase a 24mm pancake lens for it when they become available as a "refurbished" offering at the Canon site. I agree with Pathfinder that mirror-less is probably a better way to go due to their size.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • grandmaRgrandmaR Registered Users Posts: 2,258 Major grins
    edited January 1, 2015
    ian408 wrote: »
    I think it's probably a better choice to buy a modified point and shoot these days. You'd probably be more likely to use it.

    I have a modified Rebel also and it's a chore to add that body to the two I may already carry-so it's the first to go when the bag gets heavy.

    So where would I go to buy a modified point and shoot? Do I buy it and then send it someplace for someone to modify? I have two Kodak D640 that I've stopped using - could I have them modified?

    (Seems like it was in some ways simpler when you just bought special film - I've been thinking about whether I still have a film camera I could use, but I don't know where I could get the film or where I would have it developed.)
    “"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,949 moderator
    edited January 1, 2015
    grandmaR wrote: »
    So where would I go to buy a modified point and shoot? Do I buy it and then send it someplace for someone to modify? I have two Kodak D640 that I've stopped using - could I have them modified?

    (Seems like it was in some ways simpler when you just bought special film - I've been thinking about whether I still have a film camera I could use, but I don't know where I could get the film or where I would have it developed.)

    Different vendors will modify different cameras. You'll need to pick one and go from there if you want to send a camera for mods. MaxMax sells complete cameras. I think LifePixel only modifies.

    www.maxmax.com or www.lifepixel.com are two places people around here have used (I used MaxMax).
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • grandmaRgrandmaR Registered Users Posts: 2,258 Major grins
    edited January 1, 2015
    OK - good ideas.

    I guess you have figured out that I'm not a professional - just an old lady who has been taking photos a long time but still has a bunch to learn.
    “"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
  • alaiosalaios Registered Users Posts: 668 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2015
    Thanks everyone for all this useful information. Can you please remind us what ir photography can do that the typical does not?
    Regards
    Alex
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited January 3, 2015
    alaios wrote: »
    Thanks everyone for all this useful information. Can you please remind us what ir photography can do that the typical does not?
    Regards
    Alex

    Infrared (IR) is a wavelength beyond visible light; i.e., humans cannot "see" infrared. Both CCD and CMOS sensors, including photographic imagers, are sensitive to IR, and an IR-cutout filter is added before the imager to prevent the IR from affecting the visible light image.

    The primary photographic benefit to having an IR-only converted camera is that some vegetation is highly reflective to IR, as is human skin. Leaves will reflect brightly, compared to bark and open sky (for instance), and the IR capture can be more dramatic than a visible light capture, especially around true noon and very early morning light and very late evening light.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • grandmaRgrandmaR Registered Users Posts: 2,258 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2015
    Would it help at all reading worn grave markers?

    Do lichen and mold 'count' in the brighter reflection under IR? If so, it probably wouldn't help because those are the things that sometimes obscure the reading of the markers.
    “"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited January 3, 2015
    I should add that IR captures generally have little contrast, and, since this is a wavelength beyond visible light, it has no "color" in a conventional sense. IR captures generally require specialized RAW post-processing for best results (IMO).

    For instance, in the folowing image I processed everything except the barn siding as B&W. The barn siding was processed to look like red paint, but in actuality the different grays were mapped to the different reds. The whole image was processed in 4 different zones, each zone treated very differently, in order to accomplish my vision of the scene.

    i-59NSxBN-L.jpg
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited January 3, 2015
    grandmaR wrote: »
    Would it help at all reading worn grave markers?

    Do lichen and mold 'count' in the brighter reflection under IR? If so, it probably wouldn't help because those are the things that sometimes obscure the reading of the markers.

    I haven't tried IR photography for headstones/gravestones but I doubt that IR would assist in viewing worn headstones any better than properly positioned visible light. I have used light skimming to help read old headstones with some success.

    Then again, I knew someone who was fairly successful using charcoal "rubbings" to read the raised sections.

    Moss, algae and lichen overgrowth will likely just complicate any process, so I suggest gently removing any such nuisance before attempting to photograph or make a rubbing.

    http://www.iscga.org/how-to-clean-a-gravestone.html
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • DonRicklinDonRicklin Registered Users Posts: 5,551 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2015
    There are a number of threads featuring IR by Panther in the Other Cool Shots Forum right now. Well worth checking out.

    thumb.gif
    Don




    Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk
    Don Ricklin - Gear: Canon EOS 5D Mark III, was Pentax K7
    'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
    My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook
    .
  • grandmaRgrandmaR Registered Users Posts: 2,258 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2015
    PLEASE do not touch old stones to do rubbings with any substance. It damages them and is considered vandalism.

    Removing moss and lichen is not very effective because moss roots get into the stone and can't be readily removed. Trying to scrub them off just makes the whole area muddy and damages the stone. And then it just grows back.

    Yes light can be used very effectively. But I was hoping to have some way to do it without having to lug a lot of equipment to cemeteries that might be in other countries.
    “"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,249 moderator
    edited January 4, 2015
    I've shot graveyards in IR, and I did not notice any more clarity to grave markers than normal shots converted to B&W or with increasing contrast.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited January 4, 2015
    grandmaR wrote: »
    PLEASE do not touch old stones to do rubbings with any substance. It damages them and is considered vandalism.

    ...

    A charcoal rubbing leaves no residue. I would never recommend anything that would damage cemetery stones.

    I agree that some sandstone, flaking limestone and soapstone may be too fragile for any contact process. One has to use good judgement. thumb.gif

    Here is an excellent guide to responsible marker stone rubbing, from people who care about cemetery preservation, the Maine Old Cemetery Association:

    http://www.moca-me.org/Gravestone-Rubbing
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • grandmaRgrandmaR Registered Users Posts: 2,258 Major grins
    edited January 4, 2015
    David_S85 wrote: »
    I've shot graveyards in IR, and I did not notice any more clarity to grave markers than normal shots converted to B&W or with increasing contrast.

    Thank you for the information.
    “"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
  • grandmaRgrandmaR Registered Users Posts: 2,258 Major grins
    edited January 5, 2015
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    I haven't tried IR photography for headstones/gravestones but I doubt that IR would assist in viewing worn headstones any better than properly positioned visible light. I have used light skimming to help read old headstones with some success.

    Then again, I knew someone who was fairly successful using charcoal "rubbings" to read the raised sections.

    Moss, algae and lichen overgrowth will likely just complicate any process, so I suggest gently removing any such nuisance before attempting to photograph or make a rubbing.

    http://www.iscga.org/how-to-clean-a-gravestone.html

    That seems to be a good site, provided that people use some common sense. Unfortunately sometimes people don't heed the warnings and under the guise of wanting to clean the stone, people have attacked the marker with wire brushes, and because they wanted to make the stone more readable, they have used chalk, shaving cream and other substances on the gravestones. Sometimes when moving a flower arrangement to see behind it, people have been attacked by fire ants or found a resident snake. So my policy is not to touch anything (I wouldn't mind the snake, but I don't care for fire ants).

    There is another option and that is instead of paper, use aluminum foil and you can gently press the foil (cheap foil is better) into the depressions. If you are careful with it, that will give a very readable result.
    “"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited January 5, 2015
    grandmaR wrote: »
    ... Unfortunately sometimes people don't heed the warnings and under the guise of wanting to clean the stone, people have attacked the marker with wire brushes, and because they wanted to make the stone more readable, they have used chalk, shaving cream and other substances on the gravestones. ...

    Agreed, people can be all of that.
    grandmaR wrote: »
    ... Sometimes when moving a flower arrangement to see behind it, people have been attacked by fire ants or found a resident snake. So my policy is not to touch anything (I wouldn't mind the snake, but I don't care for fire ants).

    ...

    I'm originally from Texas. Fire ants are the reason that Texas lost the $4.4 billion Superconducting SuperCollider project. Some of the brightest people in the world didn't see that coming. mwink.gif
    grandmaR wrote: »
    ... There is another option and that is instead of paper, use aluminum foil and you can gently press the foil (cheap foil is better) into the depressions. If you are careful with it, that will give a very readable result.

    Aluminum foil sounds like a great idea to produce a 3-D facsimile of the stone's surface. After the pressing, you can take the foil to another location where it's easier to light, and you don't have to contend with colorations which might otherwise obfuscate the text details of the stone. thumb.gif
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • grandmaRgrandmaR Registered Users Posts: 2,258 Major grins
    edited January 5, 2015
    And the 3-D foil is all the same color so it removes the imperfedtions in the stone and the mold from the picture.

    I've also had good luck when it is a real shiny stone and you can't see the engraving very well with using reflections of grass or sky in the cemetery to bring out the writing.

    52027735_127310781133.jpg

    straight on can hardly be read.

    52027735_133349788749.jpg

    sideways
    “"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,249 moderator
    edited January 5, 2015
    Now you can just 3D scan an object (like a headstone) with your iPad, and print up another 3D representation of the scanned object at home, give that one has a 3D printer. A couple years ago this would have been $250,000 and a full day at a commercial studio. Now it is $499 and 2 minutes of time and you can do this almost anywhere.

    http://youtu.be/pcXXFFEMWLg
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • grandmaRgrandmaR Registered Users Posts: 2,258 Major grins
    edited January 5, 2015
    I have neither an iPad nor a 3D printer. Bob has one of the very early iPads but I don't think he's taken any photos with it. Not sure if he can. He's just now figuring out how to write a letter and print it on the wireless printer. But I will pass it along and thanks.
    “"..an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." G.K. Chesterton”
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,249 moderator
    edited January 5, 2015
    I wasn't suggesting that this was an option for yourself or most; just that the tech is marching along so fast now that instead of rubbings or other impressions, that shortly, the preferred method might just be the collection of data in the field and then reproducing an object at a selected size ratio.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Sign In or Register to comment.