5DIII and infrared

On 7/15/2013 2:55 PM, rwalker wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:14:28 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/15/2013 1:30 AM, rwalker wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:36:00 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/14/2013 11:35 PM, rwalker wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:24:22 -0400, 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/Photography/Landscapes/21271534_mw4B9R#!i=1730614889&k=WGpJLmN&lb=1&s=A


Yes, I agree, I looked at your link and that's what I think IR should
look like.


If you care to send me the original I will be happy to look at it.

Sure. Send me an e-mail at r*w*a*l*k*e*r*@*y*a*h*o*o*.*c*o*m Remove
the obvious.



Yahoo said you have no account.

My addy is real, just remove the "nospam"
Going shooting today, so I will lok at it later.


Strange it would say that. At any rate, I think the problem is my 77
mm. IR filter. I've ordered a new one. Watch for another post here
in a moment and I'll show you what I mean.


Could be. Check this link, for an interesting discussion about IR filters.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008471/article/100-in-100-Part-II-Infrared-filter-guide

And this link for some examples.
In alt.photography, Tony Cooper & I were discussing her.
http://www.deborahsandidge.com/Photography/Infrared/20932680_GkSFqm#!i=1666435305&k=ZSvRL4q

--
PeterN

On 7/15/2013 3:04 PM, rwalker wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 06:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Sunday, 14 July 2013 08:56:53 UTC+1, 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/

it doesn;t look like infra red to me, I was expecting whitish trees at the very least. I wouldn't have expected the exposure to be so long.


OK. It does come down to the Bower IR filter being a piece of
garbage. You get what you pay for. Here is the same scene, using
daylight, shot with the D5III, Canon 50 mm. 1.8 lens, 100 ISO, 30
seconds with Hoya R72 filter, and program mode in vsible light:


Infrared:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9295556742/

Visible light:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/5164668...n/photostream/

I've ordered a Hoy 77 mm. IR filter. Going outside later this evening
with the 50 mm. lens.

Thanks for everyone's comments and feedback.


You may be right. Normally an iR filter would turn the green into white.
Here is the best conversion I could do using SilverEfex.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20130713_0783.jpg

--
PeterN

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:14:21 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/15/2013 3:04 PM, rwalker wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 06:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Sunday, 14 July 2013 08:56:53 UTC+1, 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/

it doesn;t look like infra red to me, I was expecting whitish trees at the very least. I wouldn't have expected the exposure to be so long.


OK. It does come down to the Bower IR filter being a piece of
garbage. You get what you pay for. Here is the same scene, using
daylight, shot with the D5III, Canon 50 mm. 1.8 lens, 100 ISO, 30
seconds with Hoya R72 filter, and program mode in vsible light:


Infrared:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9295556742/

Visible light:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/5164668...n/photostream/

I've ordered a Hoy 77 mm. IR filter. Going outside later this evening
with the 50 mm. lens.

Thanks for everyone's comments and feedback.


You may be right. Normally an iR filter would turn the green into white.
Here is the best conversion I could do using SilverEfex.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20130713_0783.jpg


That actually looks pretty nice! Thanks.

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:57:14 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/15/2013 2:55 PM, rwalker wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:14:28 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/15/2013 1:30 AM, rwalker wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:36:00 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/14/2013 11:35 PM, rwalker wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:24:22 -0400, 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/Photography/Landscapes/21271534_mw4B9R#!i=1730614889&k=WGpJLmN&lb=1&s=A


Yes, I agree, I looked at your link and that's what I think IR should
look like.


If you care to send me the original I will be happy to look at it.

Sure. Send me an e-mail at r*w*a*l*k*e*r*@*y*a*h*o*o*.*c*o*m Remove
the obvious.



Yahoo said you have no account.

My addy is real, just remove the "nospam"
Going shooting today, so I will lok at it later.


Strange it would say that. At any rate, I think the problem is my 77
mm. IR filter. I've ordered a new one. Watch for another post here
in a moment and I'll show you what I mean.


Could be. Check this link, for an interesting discussion about IR filters.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008471/article/100-in-100-Part-II-Infrared-filter-guide

And this link for some examples.
In alt.photography, Tony Cooper & I were discussing her.
http://www.deborahsandidge.com/Photography/Infrared/20932680_GkSFqm#!i=1666435305&k=ZSvRL4q


Thanks.

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.

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

Fred

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

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:42:50 -0400, Fred McKenzie
wrote:

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.

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

Fred

I'll have some photos of outdoor vegetation in a bit. Vegetation
certainly shows up very light colored. From my reading, I know that
an unmodified DSLR has an infrared filter in place, but it doesn't
block all the IR, but most of it. So with an IR filter and long
exposures, you still get some infrared.

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:19:14 -0400, rwalker
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:42:50 -0400, Fred McKenzie
wrote:

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.

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

Fred

I'll have some photos of outdoor vegetation in a bit. Vegetation
certainly shows up very light colored. From my reading, I know that
an unmodified DSLR has an infrared filter in place, but it doesn't
block all the IR, but most of it. So with an IR filter and long
exposures, you still get some infrared.

Ok. Some successful experiments outdoors this afternoon using the 50
mm. lens and the Hoya R72 filter on the 5DIII.

A field of corn (maize):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9297836418/

A general view of the same vicinity. Not sure why such vignetting.
This is a 30 sec. exposure at 100 ISo and F1.8. At 10 seconds I still
get the vignetting but not as severe. But the vegetation certainly is
what I was expecting:

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

A crop of the above:

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

I'm much more satisfied now.

On 2013-07-15 18:42:36 -0700, rwalker said:

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:19:14 -0400, rwalker
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:42:50 -0400, Fred McKenzie
wrote:

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.

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

Fred

I'll have some photos of outdoor vegetation in a bit. Vegetation
certainly shows up very light colored. From my reading, I know that
an unmodified DSLR has an infrared filter in place, but it doesn't
block all the IR, but most of it. So with an IR filter and long
exposures, you still get some infrared.

Ok. Some successful experiments outdoors this afternoon using the 50
mm. lens and the Hoya R72 filter on the 5DIII.

A field of corn (maize):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9297836418/

A general view of the same vicinity. Not sure why such vignetting.
This is a 30 sec. exposure at 100 ISo and F1.8. At 10 seconds I still
get the vignetting but not as severe. But the vegetation certainly is
what I was expecting:

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

A crop of the above:

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

I'm much more satisfied now.

Much better.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:58:40 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

snip


Ok. Some successful experiments outdoors this afternoon using the 50
mm. lens and the Hoya R72 filter on the 5DIII.

A field of corn (maize):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9297836418/

A general view of the same vicinity. Not sure why such vignetting.
This is a 30 sec. exposure at 100 ISo and F1.8. At 10 seconds I still
get the vignetting but not as severe. But the vegetation certainly is
what I was expecting:

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

A crop of the above:

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

I'm much more satisfied now.

Much better.

Thanks! It's getting there.