IR Converted EPL1 (photos)

http://www.pbase.com/swandy/infrared_photography

Recently had and Olympus EPL1 Pen camera converted for infrared
photography. (720 nm filter)
So far very happy with the results.
Comments welcome,
Steve

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:12:38 -0400, swandy wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/swandy/infrared_photography

Recently had and Olympus EPL1 Pen camera converted for infrared
photography. (720 nm filter)
So far very happy with the results.
Comments welcome,
Steve

I feel that only one or two of your images work with the pseudo-color tints
included.

http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127804621
http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127890759

And should be toned-down a bit.

Otherwise their posterized or splotchy and uneven distribution really
detracts from the subjects, as-in, something went wrong.

Please, always level any image as best you can. Especially those with
reflecting water in them. Those become an instant eye-sore if not leveled.
Level those by striking a vertical between a subject and its reflection and
setting a 90-degree level to that. Using an object near to the center of
your image to avoid keystoning and lens-geometries nearer the edges from
offsetting what should be a 100% vertical reflection.

Remember too that no amount of special gimmicks nor effects will ever help
a photo that is uninteresting to begin with, not even IR. (Unless you are a
mundane "artist" like Andy Warhol and want to duplicate soup-can labels to
express the meaningless, barely indistinguishable, easily discardable,
assembly-line lives of everyone today.)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:12:42 -0500, C. Werner
wrote:

I feel that only one or two of your images work with the pseudo-color tints
included.

http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127804621
http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127890759

And should be toned-down a bit.
Well we each have our own opinions and I am sorry that you only felt
one or two worked as IR. But with regards to the "toned-down", I
always felt that IR (if not in B&W) that the colors don't look natural
anyways.


Otherwise their posterized or splotchy and uneven distribution really
detracts from the subjects, as-in, something went wrong.
Don't have a clue to what you are refering to here. Can you be more
specific because I dont see that "something went wrong".

Steve

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:05:27 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

Very nice, I liked the images. I disagree with C.Werner's comments - in
my opinion as a photographer it's your choice how you want your images
to look like.

Thanks Alfred and yes I agree that while everyone might not like what
others do, it is up to the photographer how he wanted his image to
look. (Unless there is something techinically wrong, but that is
another discussion.)
Steve

"swandy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:12:42 -0500, C. Werner
wrote:

I feel that only one or two of your images work with the pseudo-color
tints
included.

http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127804621
http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127890759

And should be toned-down a bit.
Well we each have our own opinions and I am sorry that you only felt
one or two worked as IR. But with regards to the "toned-down", I
always felt that IR (if not in B&W) that the colors don't look natural
anyways.



I don't think IR is supposed to look natural. When done right. it brings out
a nice abstract quality in the images.

--
Peter

In article ,
swandy wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:05:27 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

Very nice, I liked the images. I disagree with C.Werner's comments - in
my opinion as a photographer it's your choice how you want your images
to look like.

Thanks Alfred and yes I agree that while everyone might not like what
others do, it is up to the photographer how he wanted his image to
look. (Unless there is something techinically wrong, but that is
another discussion.)

Steve-

I liked the Bridge.

I don't think I could visualize how the infrared image will appear. I
would consider Werner's suggestion about making photos that are
fundamentally interesting, so it won't matter if the IR is a bit
splotchy!

I notice that green vegetation (chlorophyl) seems to reflect the most
IR. I'm reminded of a lecture by a researcher who found that solar
water heating pipes were more efficient if painted a certain shade of
green. It seems that he received so much harassment about not painting
them black, that he gave up. He painted them black and stopped making
the ridiculous claims about green!

Fred

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:


The best way to do the fake colour thing is to leave the IR filter off
the sensor and use it on the lens when you want the pure black and
white IR images. When you shoot without it with the sensor's own IR
filter removed, folliage turns purple but most other colours stay
true, with some exceptions.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...81608/original

That is a lovely picture, but if it was not titled as IR Sunset,
perhaps I would have just thought it was normal light for a sunset in
the area it was taken.
For me (personally) I prefer the faux colors you get when do do a
channel swap on an IR image. Though I have seen some beautiful work
where the folliage is a yellow/gold tint. (Forget what type of filter
was used.)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:47:44 -0400, Fred McKenzie
wrote:


Steve-

I liked the Bridge.
Thanks.

I don't think I could visualize how the infrared image will appear. I
would consider Werner's suggestion about making photos that are
fundamentally interesting, so it won't matter if the IR is a bit
splotchy!
When I shoot I have the camera set for Monochrome, so the view in
either the LCD or the EVF is a "normal" B&W IR image, so it is easier
to visualize the shot. It is afterwards, that I decide which shots
might look more interesting if converted to the faux color.
(And I still don't understand what he meant by "splotchy".)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:28:06 -0400, swandy wrote:


(And I still don't understand what he meant by "splotchy".)

In these images (as well as others):

http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127965459

The blue hues appear only in some areas on the roof. Making it look like
you painted them in but missed some areas.


http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127965458

In this image some of the foliage is tinted cyan, and the rest is B&W,
looking like a badly done paint-job, or that your sensor and optical-path
was not detecting the IR evenly, badly vignetting it. Not unlike the
strange color-shifted vignetting that was occurring in the Leica M8 due to
the sensor with an improperly matched IR filter for some lens
configurations.

The same problem occurring in this one
http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127965457 , easily seen in the water as
well as in the foliage. Like someone had taken a transparent cyan-blue
brush in their editor and not-too-carefully swiped it over areas they
wanted to be garishly cyan-blue.

That's what I mean by "splotchy". Apparently all these other critics are
blinder than cave-fish when it comes to evaluating photography.

Why isn't all the water in that one image or the subjects in others all the
same shade of blues, nicely graduated hues, or all B&W? Most of your images
are a pseudo-color-shifted splotchy mess. I suggest you play with a
different IR filter for that camera that blocks out all visible wavelengths
(~740nm-750nm or shorter), until you can narrow down what causes this. You
can buy a whole set of decent IR filters today at 720nm, 760nm (what I
mostly use), 850nm, and 950nm cut-off points for only $5.95 (55mm) to $8.60
(72mm), those prices WITH shipping, per filter today, on Ebay. IR is not
the specialty high-priced thing it once was.

C. Werner wrote:
swandy wrote:

(And I still don't understand what he meant by "splotchy".)

The same problem occurring in this one
http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127965457 , easily seen in the water as
well as in the foliage. Like someone had taken a transparent cyan-blue
brush in their editor and not-too-carefully swiped it over areas they
wanted to be garishly cyan-blue.

This one looks magenta in the center, especially the water. Could that
be what they refer to has a 'hot spot' which some lenses show for IR?