On 2013-07-15 15:42:50 -0700, Fred McKenzie said:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 7/14/2013 3:56 AM, rwalker wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, I got a Canon 5DIII about two weeks ago. I
decided to see what kind of infrared sensitivity it had, so I got an
R72 filter and took a few shots. This was one of the better results.
10 seconds, F4, ISO 100.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/5164668...1330/lightbox/


Something is missing. Infrared is supposed to have quite a different
look. You must have done something in post.

http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photo...mw4B9R#!i=1730
614889&k=WGpJLmN&lb=1&s=A

PeterN-

I took one roll of infrared film about 50 years ago, which definitely
made vegetation white. It looked like a snowstorm in July! I also have
played with an IR filter on a couple of DSLRs with mixed results.

Comparing your photo with RWalker's, it occurs to me that the reason his
exposure is so long, is that the camera sensor is not sensitive to IR.
The exposure could be dominated by visible light attenuated by the
filter, with relatively little IR response.

Seeing his later exposure using the Hoya filter seems to reinforce my
theory. It will be interesting to see the effect he achieves using the
Hoya filter to photograph outdoor vegetation.

That makes sense to me.

If there is a conversion that increases IR sensitivity, wouldn't it
degrade the camera for normal use?

Yes.
http://www.lifepixel.com/


--
Regards,

Savageduck