Funky IR Artefact

On 2018-04-30 10:24:21 +0000, Dense Dave, AKA Whisky-dave said:

To me your image doesn't look very IR to me, it needs to be far more
than just red.

The red photo-sites are the only ones involved in true IR. Fake colours
are just so 2005...
--
teleportation kills

On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Saturday, 28 April 2018 00:05:38 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 27, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 27 April 2018 16:27:29 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

Snip


or dumb users or those that don;t care.
would you say IR focussing matters on a lens of focal lenght 22mmm on a
APSC sensor I wouldn't worry until I was apporaching 100mm then someone that
knew what they wwre doing might notice.

Sigh...

To illustrate my point, here is a shot taken a few minutes ago with my
X-T2 + XF35mm f/1.4 and a Hoya Infrared [R72] filter. ISO200, 1.9sec @ f/5.8. No
calibration involved, scene was visible (though very red) in EVF and on
LCD, focusing was not a problem.

Processed quite quickly in LR Classic CC.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb80vab1s6ptbqx/screenshot_301.png

Here is the shot without the comparison:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ravrkd3sg9mcsp/_DSF6260.jpg

Pity there's no real information there, AP Tv ISO

Did you not read above, f/5.8, 1.9sec, and ISO200?

and I say the camera is focusing on visable lght anyway.

You say. However, the purpose of the 720nm filter (Hoya [R72]) is to exclude
all but IR there is no visible light available to use for focussing, only IR
is falling on the sensor. There is a reason why the IR filter appears to be
black.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Apr 30, 2018, android wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-04-30 10:24:21 +0000, Dense Dave, AKA Whisky dave said:

To me your image doesn't look very IR to me, it needs to be far morethan just red.

The red photo-sites are the only ones involved in true IR.

Yup!

Fake colours are just so 2005...

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 27 April 2018 23:46:17 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 27 April 2018 16:27:29 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

Snip


or dumb users or those that don;t care. would you say IR focussing matters on a lens of focal lenght 22mmm on a
APSC sensor I wouldn't worry until I was apporaching 100mm then someone that
knew what they wwre doing might notice.

Sigh...

To illustrate my point, here is a shot taken a few minutes ago with my X-T2
+ XF35mm f/1.4 and a Hoya Infrared [R72] filter. ISO200, 1.9sec @ f/5.8. No
calibration involved, scene was visible (though very red) in EVF and on LCD,
focusing was not a problem.

Putting an IR filter over your lens does not turn the picture into an
ifra-red image.

Well, a little more work, other than adding an IR filter is involved.


Processed quite quickly in LR Classic CC.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb80vab1s6ptbqx/screenshot_301.png

Yes processed so means little when it comnes to try infra red.

If you want to get a result beyond the red photo-sites you cannot avoid
processing, and that can be done quite quickly if you know what you are
doing.

How do you create your IR images?

DO you not understand the very basics of IR obvioualy not.
You were a detective IIRC try thinking about it.

Strange I was about to say that you do not understand the basics of IR
photography.

What was the exposure time/details for your image above ?

Try reading what I wrote.

To me your image doesn't look very IR to me, it needs to be far more than
just red.

Do you even understand how to deal with IR imaging?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:13:44 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote

Processed quite quickly in LR Classic CC.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb80vab1s6ptbqx/screenshot_301.png

Here is the shot without the comparison:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ravrkd3sg9mcsp/_DSF6260.jpg

Pity there's no real information there, AP Tv ISO

Did you not read above, f/5.8, 1.9sec, and ISO200?

NO I saw nothing, the EXIF data showed NOTHING.

....and now you have snipped what I originally posted, so here it is again.
Try reading it:

"To illustrate my point, here is a shot taken a few minutes ago with my X-T2
+ XF35mm f/1.4 and a Hoya Infrared [R72] filter. ISO200, 1.9sec @ f/5.8. No
calibration involved, scene was visible (though very red) in EVF and on LCD,
focusing was not a problem."

As far as EXIF data is concerned, none of it was stripped and it is complete.
All you have to do is look.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/je8zd5py0sfh4y0/screenshot_303.png


and I say the camera is focusing on visable lght anyway.

You say. However, the purpose of the 720nm filter (Hoya [R72]) is to exclude
all but IR there is no visible light available to use for focussing,

Thre are many IR filters with differning densities.

Yup! I used a 720nm filter, does that mean anything to you?

only IR is falling on the sensor. There is a reason why the IR filter appears to be
black.

appears, but have you removed the IR filter from your sensor ?

You just don’t get it. Let’s see your IR imagery.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:27:46 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):
On Friday, 27 April 2018 23:46:17 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):
On Friday, 27 April 2018 16:27:29 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

Snip
or dumb users or those that don;t care. would you say IR focussing
matters on a lens of focal lenght 22mmm on a
APSC sensor I wouldn't worry until I was apporaching 100mm then someone
that knew what they wwre doing might notice.

Sigh...

To illustrate my point, here is a shot taken a few minutes ago with my
X-T2 + XF35mm f/1.4 and a Hoya Infrared [R72] filter. ISO200, 1.9sec @ f/5.8.
No calibration involved, scene was visible (though very red) in EVF and on
LCD, focusing was not a problem.

Putting an IR filter over your lens does not turn the picture into an
ifra-red image.

Well, a little more work, other than adding an IR filter is involved.

Yep.

Processed quite quickly in LR Classic CC.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb80vab1s6ptbqx/screenshot_301.png

Yes processed so means little when it comnes to try infra red.

If you want to get a result beyond the red photo-sites you cannot avoid
processing, and that can be done quite quickly if you know what you are
doing.

How do you create your IR images?

Practika L2 50mm lens most likely around f2.8 at about 1/15 to 1/125
Sec, the IR rating of the 35mm Kodak FILM about 25-50 ASA (at the time)

What type of Kodak film?

guestimate. A range of filters from yellow through orange to red
then trying Kodak gelatine IR filters wratten IIRC No 68, 69 maybe 72 can't
remeber I might even have them still.

IR on film is quite different to IR on a digital mirrorless camera. You
should try it sometime.

I did even more with B&W IR for a school physics lab (where we had scientific
IR filters) but photographically they were boring so never really kept any of
the results.
In physics I learned that IR does focus at a differnt point to 'visable
light' and that IS a fact for light traveling through a lens or prism even if
you don't believe it.

So? Where have I said that I didn’t believe that different wave lengths of
light focus at different points?

If you don't believe mne check out newtons light defraction of even pink
floyds dark side of the moon album cover. Light gets deflected when going
from one medium to another.

Try refracted.

What was the exposure time/details for your image above ?

Try reading what I wrote.

I go by the data I see not what someone says, as I still havent.

WTF is your problem? I told you what the exposure data was, and if you
didn’t believe me, all the EXIF data is intact, and available to examine.
All you have to do is make the effort to read it.

see andriod artifact.

Then download my shot and examine the EXIF data. It is all there.

http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi


To me your image doesn't look very IR to me, it needs to be far more than
just red.

Do you even understand how to deal with IR imaging?

Yes.
You filter out what type/amount of visable light you don't want falling on
your sensor, if you just want just IR you pick the darkest IR filter, they
came in various wavelenghs that were blocked. When I say blocked this isn't a
digital block were everything stops at 720nm you still get reminants of
visable light getting through. Try holding it up to the light and see.

I found just IR photogrphy boring from a pictural point of view so never
realy liked just the red images and the monochrome film ones were intresting
but they all looked pretty much the same.

Now back to andriod IR photo it looks like an open woindow with curtains in
daylight.

That is what it looked like to me.

Now while we can;t directly compare it to mine or your IR images
why do you think you could expose ISO200, 1.9sec @ f/5.8.
Mine at 25/50 1/60 F2.8

Correct, you were shooting on film, I was shooting my X-T2.

Why did andriod need ISO 12800, 1sec @ f/2 ?

Perhaps he really likes noise.

what does that tell you about the final image ?

It was really noisy.

Do you really think there was so little IR around when andriod took his photo
that 12800 was needed. ?

Beats me. You would have to check with android on his intentions, not me. I
have no idea what he was thinking.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58565979

IR photography - built-in IR filter in Fuji XT-2

....and?

Many old film lenses are also good for IR and usually have DoF and distance
scales which is helpful for hyperfocal shooting. You will need to use a
tripod since lens fitted with IR filters will block most visible light and
the camera's in-built (actually anti IR) filter will reduce increase exposure
time even more.

So? Why do you think I didn’t use a tripod?

did you not know that you had an anti-IR filter in your camera ?

So? The IR filter covering the sensor is not particularly strong. It
certainly isn’t 720nm.

(I didn't in mine) blocking some of the IR which is likey why you needed 1.9
seconds exposure.

You were shooting to film. I needed 1.9 seconds because that was what was
required to make that exposure with my set up.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:47:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:13:44 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote

Processed quite quickly in LR Classic CC.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb80vab1s6ptbqx/screenshot_301.png

Here is the shot without the comparison:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ravrkd3sg9mcsp/_DSF6260.jpg

Pity there's no real information there, AP Tv ISO

Did you not read above, f/5.8, 1.9sec, and ISO200?

NO I saw nothing, the EXIF data showed NOTHING.

...and now you have snipped what I originally posted, so here it is again.
Try reading it:

"To illustrate my point, here is a shot taken a few minutes ago with my X-T2
+ XF35mm f/1.4 and a Hoya Infrared [R72] filter. ISO200, 1.9sec @ f/5.8. No
calibration involved, scene was visible (though very red) in EVF and on LCD,
focusing was not a problem."

As far as EXIF data is concerned, none of it was stripped and it is
complete.
All you have to do is look.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/je8zd5py0sfh4y0/screenshot_303.png

This did NOT appear when I download you image.
In fact there was very little info

For https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ravrkd3sg9mcsp/_DSF6260.jpg all the EXIF
data is intact. What are you using to examine the EXIF?

VyTM_EwJZHqExjT2BiERP26trs1k0QOuMmGyceNJrr4.jpg
for whatever reason the filename came out as above.
This did NOT happen with andriods image which is why I was able to get the
info I couldn't get from your image.

I've cop[ied it to my dropbox if you want to see if theexif is still there.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3liks4xksb...6trs1k0QOuMmGy
ceNJrr4.jpg?dl=0

and I say the camera is focusing on visable lght anyway.

You say. However, the purpose of the 720nm filter (Hoya [R72]) is to
exclude all but IR there is no visible light available to use for focussing,

Thre are many IR filters with differning densities.

Yup! I used a 720nm filter, does that mean anything to you?

Of course it means yuor not blocking all of teh visable light.
If yuo want to do that you need a 87, 88 or higher IIRC the number represents
the wavelengh in nm.

only IR is falling on the sensor. There is a reason why the IR filter
appears to be black.

appears, but have you removed the IR filter from your sensor ?

You just don’t get it. Let’s see your IR imagery.

All taken at Kew Gardens with 1 roll of IR film with a prackica L2 IIRC,
except the graveyard one which is st marys in walthamstow and taken in the
mid 90s with a canon A1.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...57659321053068

Nice IR false color images which are dependant on the filters used. In the
case of mine where I used a 720nm filter the simplest rendition is B&W. For a
false color rendition I would not convert to B&W and swap Red & Blue
channels. However, for that sort of thing I would prefer to use a full
spectrum IR converted camera.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 2018-04-30 11:32:38 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Monday, 30 April 2018 11:43:52 UTC+1, android wrote:
On 2018-04-30 10:24:21 +0000, Dense Dave, AKA Whisky-dave said:

To me your image doesn't look very IR to me, it needs to be far more
than just red.

The red photo-sites are the only ones involved in true IR. Fake colours
are just so 2005...

you get a colour shift because colour isn't real it's created by
lifeforms in order to tell things apart in fact most animals don;t see
the full colour spectrum while some animals see more of the spectrum
than humans.

If the the sensor is exclusively hit by IR light then it is IR
photography. Conversions there you remove all pixel filters create
false colors since the firmware of camera think of that as of the IR is
not red but blue or green.

Any fool can put a infra red filer over the front of their lens and
claim it;s an infra-red photograph and the bigger fools leave a
infra-red blocking filter over their sensor.

Not really, se the above. You can use your camera as is and get
perfectly valid IR captures.
--
teleportation kills

On 2018-05-01 10:04:10 +0000, Dense Dave AKA Whisky-dave said:

Yes and you get a red picture or a monochrome image of the seen in IR
light but only provided yuor sensor can record that and not just
visable light.
This was NEVER my aim.

Oki... but that is what IR photography really is. Not red of course but
a monochrome representation of that that the eye can't perceive.

My aim was to record as much of teh spectrum as I could with a camera.
if I could have brought a roll of ultraviolet film I would have done that too.
I wanted as much of the spectum as possible, why do people use HDR ?
I wanted to go further.

If want full spectrum then rip out the IR block and don't replace it
with anything. I would go monochrome then since you can't filter out IR
on select photosites and thus will end up toons of fake colors...

Conversions there you remove all pixel filters

what are pixel filters ?

That Bayer matrix plastic sheet that's in front of the sensor and the
true pixels, or photosites....
--
teleportation kills

On May 1, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Monday, 30 April 2018 16:59:36 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:47:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:13:44 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 30, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote

Processed quite quickly in LR Classic CC.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb80vab1s6ptbqx/screenshot_301.png

Here is the shot without the comparison:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ravrkd3sg9mcsp/_DSF6260.jpg

Pity there's no real information there, AP Tv ISO

Did you not read above, f/5.8, 1.9sec, and ISO200?

NO I saw nothing, the EXIF data showed NOTHING.

...and now you have snipped what I originally posted, so here it is again.
Try reading it:

"To illustrate my point, here is a shot taken a few minutes ago with my
X-T2 + XF35mm f/1.4 and a Hoya Infrared [R72] filter. ISO200, 1.9sec @ f/5.8.
No calibration involved, scene was visible (though very red) in EVF and on
LCD, focusing was not a problem."

As far as EXIF data is concerned, none of it was stripped and it is
complete.
All you have to do is look.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/je8zd5py0sfh4y0/screenshot_303.png

This did NOT appear when I download you image.
In fact there was very little info

For https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ravrkd3sg9mcsp/_DSF6260.jpg all the EXIF
data is intact. What are you using to examine the EXIF?

command-i in preview.

That should work.

But I know why.
Normally I just drag an image to desktop I've been doing that to write help
sheets for the students , taking photos of equipment and putting it into word.
I notice that with your image (and others I assume) came out at 310KB.
When I downloaded the image with drop-boxes download button your image is
860KB and contains the exif data.

That issue has been solved.

Andriods i180422#11638.jpg image when dragged to desktop came out at 13.8MB
and contained exif data.

The evidence

andriods 'IR"
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gdrv0ogkja...5-01%20at%2010
.21.43.png?dl=0

yuor IR
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b89o6ppbfh...5-01%20at%2010
.22.16.png?dl=0

All taken at Kew Gardens with 1 roll of IR film with a prackica L2 IIRC,
except the graveyard one which is st marys in walthamstow and taken in the
mid 90s with a canon A1.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...57659321053068

Nice IR false color images which are dependant on the filters used.

everything depends on filters that's why you have them over your sensor,
camera wouldn't work unless other light was filtered out to some extent and I
said I've done 'pure' IR and photographically it's pretty boring.
This is what makes the Hubbles shots seem fake, just because our eyes can't
see IR UV radio waves etc that doesn't mean they aren't there.
Using pure IR will only result in a red image because our eyes can't see
beyond red. When I was at school for an english essay I wrote about a person
that could see beyond the visable spectrum and how he went into a room the
colour he couldn't describe.... the English teach disliked the idea as it
wasn't the fantasy storey he wanted.

In the
case of mine where I used a 720nm filter the simplest rendition is B&W.

and I wanted colour which is why I knew that anything much beyond my Lee
filter No. 85 was a waste of time, I did a few the very red ones.

For a
false color rendition I would not convert to B&W and swap Red& Blue
channels. However, for that sort of thing I would prefer to use a full
spectrum IR converted camera.

me too, but I know it's not realy possible you can get closer to it but yuo
need a filter over your lens that is less than 720nm. Because *i* do not just
want a red image.

Well alright then.

--

Regards,
Savageduck