Playing with near IR

On 8/31/2014 6:05 AM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

On 8/29/2014 6:11 PM, M-M wrote:


Here is a page I made using this technique:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html

\

We were at the sculpture garden several years ago. It's a fantastic
place. We got there around lunch time, and decided to eatr first. After
we ate, we learned that if you have lunch there is no charge for
admission to the gardens.

Back to the topic, my problem with the R72 filter is that one must take
long exposures, and it is suitable only for still life and landscape.
The advantage of course is that one can use the better lenses.

If your camera does not have an IR filter, like the Olympus C2020, or
if you have had it removed, you will not need long exposures. All my
shots were hand-held and shutter speeds were up to 1/125 sec.


I know. That's exactly why I did the conversion.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

only on a *non* modified camera will exposures will be long
because the r72 cuts visible light and the remaining infrared
light is cut by the infrared cut filter in the camera. that's why
people modify the camera, so that exposures are *not* long.

Prove it.

Look at the EXIF. 1/100 sec:
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/cltr/P1010015w.jpg

Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

then you ought to learn something about infrared photography so you
won't have that problem.

you'll still have other problems, but there are things even miracles
cannot fix.

In article , PeterN
wrote:


Back to the topic, my problem with the R72 filter is that one must take
long exposures, and it is suitable only for still life and landscape.
The advantage of course is that one can use the better lenses.

If your camera does not have an IR filter, like the Olympus C2020, or
if you have had it removed, you will not need long exposures. All my
shots were hand-held and shutter speeds were up to 1/125 sec.

I know. That's exactly why I did the conversion.

no you don't know because you're contradicting yourself again.

if you consider 1/125 to be a 'long exposure', then you have a very
different definition than the rest of the world.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

On 8/31/2014 6:12 AM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

only on a *non* modified camera will exposures will be long
because the r72 cuts visible light and the remaining infrared
light is cut by the infrared cut filter in the camera. that's why
people modify the camera, so that exposures are *not* long.

Prove it.

Look at the EXIF. 1/100 sec:
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/cltr/P1010015w.jpg


Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Yes, of course there was an R72 screwed onto the front. How else can
you get IR? The photo was then converted to grayscale to get the pink
out.

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

On 2014-08-31 16:08:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 6:12 AM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

only on a *non* modified camera will exposures will be long
because the r72 cuts visible light and the remaining infrared
light is cut by the infrared cut filter in the camera. that's why
people modify the camera, so that exposures are *not* long.

Prove it.

Look at the EXIF. 1/100 sec:
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/cltr/P1010015w.jpg


Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Oh! Hell!
Go back to the source:
http://www.lifepixel.com
http://www.infraredphoto.eu/gentleintro1/
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub3.html


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/31/2014 2:29 PM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

On 8/31/2014 6:12 AM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

only on a *non* modified camera will exposures will be long
because the r72 cuts visible light and the remaining infrared
light is cut by the infrared cut filter in the camera. that's why
people modify the camera, so that exposures are *not* long.

Prove it.

Look at the EXIF. 1/100 sec:
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/cltr/P1010015w.jpg


Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Yes, of course there was an R72 screwed onto the front. How else can
you get IR? The photo was then converted to grayscale to get the pink
out.


All they did with my conversion is remove the IR blocking filter.
It is possible they put in an E72, without telling me.
When I do my post, I do not always convert to monochrome. I sometimes
switch the red & blue chanels, so I get a blue sky. Though my post
depends on the image, and the look I want.
--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:



Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Yes, of course there was an R72 screwed onto the front. How else can
you get IR? The photo was then converted to grayscale to get the pink
out.


All they did with my conversion is remove the IR blocking filter.
It is possible they put in an E72, without telling me.

that's what i asked originally.

you need to find out the answer to that question.

When I do my post, I do not always convert to monochrome. I sometimes
switch the red & blue chanels, so I get a blue sky. Though my post
depends on the image, and the look I want.

that is a separate issue.

On 8/31/2014 2:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-31 16:08:57 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/31/2014 6:12 AM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

only on a *non* modified camera will exposures will be long
because the r72 cuts visible light and the remaining infrared
light is cut by the infrared cut filter in the camera. that's why
people modify the camera, so that exposures are *not* long.

Prove it.

Look at the EXIF. 1/100 sec:
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/cltr/P1010015w.jpg


Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Oh! Hell!
Go back to the source:
http://www.lifepixel.com
http://www.infraredphoto.eu/gentleintro1/
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub3.html



So if I read your links correctly, my modification must have included
placement of an R72 filter in front of the sensor.


--
PeterN

On 8/31/2014 3:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:



Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Yes, of course there was an R72 screwed onto the front. How else can
you get IR? The photo was then converted to grayscale to get the pink
out.


All they did with my conversion is remove the IR blocking filter.
It is possible they put in an E72, without telling me.

that's what i asked originally.

you need to find out the answer to that question.


Why? The camera is doing exactly what I anticipated it would do.


When I do my post, I do not always convert to monochrome. I sometimes
switch the red & blue chanels, so I get a blue sky. Though my post
depends on the image, and the look I want.

that is a separate issue.


Nope it is the issue, because I wanted the ability to use faux color.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Was there any filter on the camera?
I have a problem with the claim is that a converted camera with an R72
filter does not require a long exosure.

Oh! Hell!
Go back to the source:
http://www.lifepixel.com
http://www.infraredphoto.eu/gentleintro1/
http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared-conversion-services_sub3.html


So if I read your links correctly, my modification must have included
placement of an R72 filter in front of the sensor.

you're not paying any attention to what you've been told (no surprise
there).

first of all, r72 is what hoya calls a 720nm filter. other companies
might call it something else.

second, your camera could have a filter (not necessarily 720nm)
installed in place of the original infrared cut filter, or it could
have a clear piece of glass. you need to ask the company that modified
it what they did. maybe it's even on the receipt.

third, using a filter on a modified camera does not cause overly long
exposures, and if they installed a filter, then you're *using* an r72
equivalent already and you don't even know it.

you could also test it by taking photos but you'd need to know what to
look for and it's clear you do not.