A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Fine Art, Framing and Display
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

First images with my infrared converted 350D



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 28th 06, 01:28 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.technique.art
Arnor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default First images with my infrared converted 350D

Hi Wayne,

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
Have a look on my other site:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/digitalir/digitalir.php


Been there I know IR is nothing new, but I'm new to itg It
creates such interesting effects and many of the photos you have on
your site look just awsome.

There are several articles on IR with digital cameras and then tests of
all the recent cameras I've had through for testing, unconverted, using
a Hoya R72 IR filter for the shooting. They should give you a good idea
of what you can get. All digital cameras can shoot in IR, just the
exposures can be very long if they have a strong IR blocking filter
installed, as most do.


I located a Hoya RM-72 IR filter on Adorama for $48 (58mm) - is there a
difference between RM-72 and R72? I think they are probably the same
thing. They also have RM-90 which is at $285 which is a bit too
expensive for me to experiment with.

Hope it helps and let me see the results when you start experimenting.


Will do

Best regards,

Arnor Baldvinsson
San Antonio, Texas

  #12  
Old November 28th 06, 02:45 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.technique.art
Wayne J. Cosshall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 826
Default First images with my infrared converted 350D


Hi Arnor,

Yes, the R72 and RM72 are the same filter. The R72 still lets in a
little red light, whilst the RM90 completely cuts off the visible. This
gives a more intense IR effect but also longer exposure times. I'd
recommend the RM-72 to start with. It is soooo much more affordable and,
with unmodified cameras, more useful, I think.

Thanks re the images on my site. Now I have the modified 350D I will be
expanding the range of subjects I shoot in IR, which I am looking
forward too.

Cheers,

Wayne

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
  #13  
Old November 28th 06, 03:14 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.technique.art
Mueen Nawaz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default First images with my infrared converted 350D

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
Have a look on my other site:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/digitalir/digitalir.php
There are several articles on IR with digital cameras and then tests of
all the recent cameras I've had through for testing, unconverted, using
a Hoya R72 IR filter for the shooting. They should give you a good idea


To get an idea of how sensitive a camera is to IR:

http://www.jr-worldwi.de/photo/ir_comparisons.html

--
"Strange, I don't remember suffering from memory loss."


/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z

anl

  #14  
Old November 28th 06, 06:59 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.technique.art
Arnor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default First images with my infrared converted 350D

Hi Wayne,

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

Yes, the R72 and RM72 are the same filter. The R72 still lets in a
little red light, whilst the RM90 completely cuts off the visible. This
gives a more intense IR effect but also longer exposure times. I'd


What kind of exposure times are we looking at?

Thanks re the images on my site. Now I have the modified 350D I will be
expanding the range of subjects I shoot in IR, which I am looking
forward too.


On an expanding note: Has anyone experimented with the other end of
the spectrum - the ultraviolet? In a previous life, I did some arc
welding and the heavy duty UV screens could produce interesting
effectsg

Best regards,

Arnor Baldvinsson
San Antonio, Texas

  #15  
Old November 28th 06, 07:19 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.technique.art
Wayne J. Cosshall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 826
Default First images with my infrared converted 350D

Arnor wrote:
Hi Wayne,

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

Yes, the R72 and RM72 are the same filter. The R72 still lets in a
little red light, whilst the RM90 completely cuts off the visible. This
gives a more intense IR effect but also longer exposure times. I'd


What kind of exposure times are we looking at?



Depends on the camera but most recent dSLRs I have tested seem to need
around 15-30 seconds at 100ISO and f2.8 with the R72

Cheers,

Wayne

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
  #16  
Old November 28th 06, 08:38 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.technique.art
Bob Milutinovic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default First images with my infrared converted 350D

"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
...
Hi All,

I received my 350D back which was being converted to IR only
shooting by LDP. My first shots with it are up at:
http://experimentaldigitalphotograph...ed-to-ir-only/


Should make for some interesting midsummer shooting of female subjects ;-)

Hey, don't laugh; I know that's the first thing you all thought about!

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom - "Australia's Web Presence Specialists"
http://www.cognicom.tk/
telephone (0417) 45-77-66
facsimile (02) 4727-1898
-------------------------------------------------------
To respond by e-mail: myname@mydomain (work it out)


  #17  
Old November 28th 06, 08:46 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.technique.art
Mr.T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 889
Default First images with my infrared converted 350D


"Bob Milutinovic" wrote in message
...
Should make for some interesting midsummer shooting of female subjects ;-)

Hey, don't laugh; I know that's the first thing you all thought about!


Expensive way to find out if a girl has had a "Brazilian" or not IMO :-)

MrT.


  #18  
Old November 28th 06, 09:19 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.technique.art
MMnospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default First images with my infrared converted 350D


"Bob Milutinovic" wrote in message
...
"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
...
Hi All,

I received my 350D back which was being converted to IR only
shooting by LDP. My first shots with it are up at:
http://experimentaldigitalphotograph...ed-to-ir-only/


Should make for some interesting midsummer shooting of female subjects ;-)

Hey, don't laugh; I know that's the first thing you all thought about!


Infrared seems to effect greens more dramatically than human skin tones.
Are you referring to female frogs?

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom - "Australia's Web Presence Specialists"
http://www.cognicom.tk/
telephone (0417) 45-77-66
facsimile (02) 4727-1898
-------------------------------------------------------
To respond by e-mail: myname@mydomain (work it out)




  #19  
Old November 28th 06, 10:07 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.technique.art
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default First images with my infrared converted 350D

In article . com,
says...
Hi Wayne,

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

Yes, the R72 and RM72 are the same filter. The R72 still lets in a
little red light, whilst the RM90 completely cuts off the visible. This
gives a more intense IR effect but also longer exposure times. I'd


What kind of exposure times are we looking at?


Don't yet own an IR-modified digital camera myself, but from the reading
I've done, if the internal IR-blocking filter is removed, IR exposure is
on a par with visible-light exposure.

If you just use an IR-pass filter with the internal IR-blocking filter
still in place, you'll see a light loss of anywhere from 6 to 15 EV
depending on how strong the internal IR-blocking filter is. There are
good exposure comparisons for a wide range of cameras at
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/photo/index...mparisons.html

Personally, I'm waiting to hear people's experience with the Pentax K10D
in infrared. The *ist and K100D seem to be more IR-sensitive than most
dSLRs, which appeals to me since I like hand-held IR action photography,
not just landscapes. e.g. http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ladywa03.jpg
with sailors aloft in the rigging of a tall ship. Not something that
would work too well with multi-second exposures, but if the examples at
http://upload.pbase.com/jl2/k100d_test are any indication, a K100D
should be carefully hand-holdable for IR with an R72. Just waiting to
see if that performance continues with the K10D.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html
  #20  
Old November 28th 06, 10:10 AM posted to alt.photography,aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.technique.art
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default First images with my infrared converted 350D

In article ,
says...

"Bob Milutinovic" wrote in message
...
"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
...
Hi All,

I received my 350D back which was being converted to IR only
shooting by LDP. My first shots with it are up at:
http://experimentaldigitalphotograph...ed-to-ir-only/

Should make for some interesting midsummer shooting of female subjects ;-)

Hey, don't laugh; I know that's the first thing you all thought about!


Infrared seems to effect greens more dramatically than human skin tones.
Are you referring to female frogs?


I assume he's referring to the voyeuristic use of IR -- some clothing is
relatively IR-transparent, especially in bright sun. (Then again, so is
some skin -- not everyone is thrilled when the camera sees through their
perfect complexion to reveal a web of dark veins -- veinous blood
reflects much less IR than arterial blood. Kodak's old _Medical
Infrared Photography_ had some interesting examples.)

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First images with my infrared converted 350D Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 57 January 20th 07 06:05 PM
More test results of Canon 350D for Infrared photography wayne Digital Photography 0 February 14th 06 08:28 AM
More test results of Canon 350D for Infrared photography wayne Digital SLR Cameras 0 February 14th 06 08:26 AM
Infrared tests of Canon 350D, Sony DSC-R1 and others wayne Digital SLR Cameras 4 February 9th 06 04:03 AM
Infrared tests of Canon 350D, Sony DSC-R1 and others wayne Digital Photography 0 February 7th 06 05:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.