5DIII and infrared

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 20:35:34 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-07-14 20:24:22 -0700, PeterN said:

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

I

suspect the OP just added the R72 filter and believed he was going to
get true digital IR captures.
The proper use of the R72 is in combination with IR film. You are not
going to get the greatest IR results with an unconverted DSLR.

I am still considering converting my D70 as it is getting little to no
general use these days.
http://www.lifepixel.com/


That's what I was starting to consider. My old 350D seemed to have
fairly high IR sensitivity and I got some pretty good results with it,
without modifying the camera. I guess the 5D blocks a good deal more
IR than the 350D.

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 20:35:34 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-07-14 20:24:22 -0700, PeterN said:

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

I

suspect the OP just added the R72 filter and believed he was going to
get true digital IR captures.
The proper use of the R72 is in combination with IR film. You are not
going to get the greatest IR results with an unconverted DSLR.

I am still considering converting my D70 as it is getting little to no
general use these days.
http://www.lifepixel.com/

And this is why I come to this news group. Always good stuff to read,
and always good feedback to be had.

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.

--
PeterN

On 7/14/2013 11:35 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-07-14 20:24:22 -0700, PeterN said:

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


I

suspect the OP just added the R72 filter and believed he was going to
get true digital IR captures.
The proper use of the R72 is in combination with IR film. You are not
going to get the greatest IR results with an unconverted DSLR.

I am still considering converting my D70 as it is getting little to no
general use these days.
http://www.lifepixel.com/


I was at a photoconference this weekend. The presenter told me that her
infrared images were shot without conversion. She agrees that they are
not true infrared, but they come durn close.

http://www.deborahsandidge.com/Photography/Infrared/20932680_GkSFqm#!i=1666435305&k=ZSvRL4q




--
PeterN

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.

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:30:06 -0400, rwalker
wrote:

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.

Well, I think at least part of the problem is that my 77 mm R72 filter
is a piece of crap. Tonight in my office, under very poor light, I
took some shots with my Canon F1.8 50 mm with a Hoya R72 filter. Still
having a little problem getting the focus right, but as you can see
from this comparison of infrared on the left and normal light on the
right, the Hoya filter is getting definite infrared effects. Look at
the snake plant, and the speaker cover that is black in normal light,
but light gray in infrared:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/5164668...1020/lightbox/

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.
--
PeterN

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.

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.


Yes, I think it's the filter. I'll be posting something in a moment
to show what I mean.

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.