5DIII and infrared

On 7/15/2013 6:42 PM, 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 converted an old Coolpix to IR.
It seems that some DSLRs are sensitive to some IR bands.
Adorama has a comment that to find out. Take a TV remote control and
press it while pointing at your lens.
this was posted previously:
http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008471/article/100-in-100-Part-II-Infrared-filter-guide

--
PeterN

On 7/15/2013 6:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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/



I know Deb's blog says otherwise, but Yesterday she told me that
conversion was not necessary. Since she is a member of Tony Cooper's
Club, perhaps he might ask her the next time he sees her. (Lie #1, Don't
want to put pressure on you, Tony.)
I will also email her about this issue.

--
PeterN

On 7/15/2013 8:19 PM, 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.


I think it depends on the band of iR. I have ordered the i-Ray 77,
distributed by Singh-Ray Filters.


--
PeterN

On 2013-07-15 19:16:08 -0700, PeterN said:

On 7/15/2013 6:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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/



I know Deb's blog says otherwise, but Yesterday she told me that
conversion was not necessary. Since she is a member of Tony Cooper's
Club, perhaps he might ask her the next time he sees her. (Lie #1,
Don't want to put pressure on you, Tony.)
I will also email her about this issue.

Not being necessary, and what she said seems to indicate that if one is
going to make a dedicated exploration of IR photography, the purchase
of a redundant DSLR for conversion might not be a bad idea.
My quote of her words in the alt.photography thread:
"Though a bit more expensive, the benefits of an infrared converted
camera outweigh the cost".

So while adding the appropriate filter might give the DSLR user the
capability to make IR captures, it is not going to be the ideal
solution.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/15/2013 9:42 PM, rwalker wrote:
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.


That certainly is what would be expected. My issue is focusing. Or, is
it my eyes?
Seriously, do not use autofocus with an IR filter. Unfortunately, most
modern lenses do not have the IR focus marks, so you may have to bracket
your focusing, or get an older model lens that has IR marking. If you do
a camera conversion, they will adjust the focusing for the ones you [lan
to use for your iR work. I wish I had a better answer. perhaps someone
here has one.

--
PeterN

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:31:57 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/15/2013 9:42 PM, rwalker wrote:
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.


That certainly is what would be expected. My issue is focusing. Or, is
it my eyes?
Seriously, do not use autofocus with an IR filter. Unfortunately, most
modern lenses do not have the IR focus marks, so you may have to bracket
your focusing, or get an older model lens that has IR marking. If you do
a camera conversion, they will adjust the focusing for the ones you [lan
to use for your iR work. I wish I had a better answer. perhaps someone
here has one.

No, I'm not using autofocusing. Trouble is, like so many modern
lenses, this one doesn't have the infrared indicator, so focus is hit
and miss.

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.


I've learned a few things thanks to many of the suggestions here. So
here is a reshoot of the cemetery scene. 50 mm f1.8 lens. Shot at
F8, 116 seconds at ISO 400. The sun was going down. This was at
about 8 p.m. I used such a small aperture due to a suggestion I read.
To account for the different focus pont of infrared light, use a small
aperture for greater depth of field.

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

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.


I will never buy a Bower filter again. Today my Hoya 77 mm IR72
filter arrived, so I went out experimenting again. These were shot at
anywhere from F6.3 to F10 at 100 or 400 ISO using a Canon 25-104 mm. L
lens.

The original cemetery shot of a few days ago with the Bower IR72
"infrared" filter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9283101330/

Reshot today with the Hoya IR72 filter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9326702828/

A few shot today along the shores of Cayuga Lake near Seneca Falls,
New York:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9326702046/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9323908101/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9326702556/

On 2013-07-20 00:53:03 -0700, rwalker said:

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.


I will never buy a Bower filter again. Today my Hoya 77 mm IR72
filter arrived, so I went out experimenting again. These were shot at
anywhere from F6.3 to F10 at 100 or 400 ISO using a Canon 25-104 mm. L
lens.

The original cemetery shot of a few days ago with the Bower IR72
"infrared" filter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9283101330/

Reshot today with the Hoya IR72 filter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9326702828/

A few shot today along the shores of Cayuga Lake near Seneca Falls,
New York:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9326702046/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9323908101/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/9326702556/

Yup! That meets the expectations for the results one would want to find
in IR photography. My only issue is, in all three shots I find the
result to be very "soft" and not particularly sharp, or "crisp" enough
for my taste.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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

But note that the purpose of the built-in filter is to block those IR
frequencies to which the sensor is most sensitive. So those that get through
a) may not be the frequencies you most want and b) are guaranteed to register
poorly on the sensor. So any resemblance to a "true" IR shot will be
coincidental. If that's all you need, you might as well save yourself the
aggravation of trying to photograph in IR light. Just open up a photo editor
and adjust the RGB values to provide an IR-like effect. An editor that offers
a variety of B&W conversions may even have a pre-canned IR setting.

Bob