infrared photography questions

A friend of mine wrote and asked:

I have recently become interested in infrared photography. I'm using
a Sony Cybershot DSC-H5 with a Hoya R72 IR lens filter (I've attached
a couple of shots just taken in Charlotte).

I am considering buying a dedicated IR digital camera (professionally
converted) in the near future....which would mean no need for tripods
or, I assume, R72 lens filters. Just point and shoot with fast
shutter speeds. I would also think that this means having the
ability of shooting in lower light scenarios since there is no need
for a dark IR lens filter.

My question is: Are you aware of any photographers or artists who
are 'painting with light'...but in the infrared as opposed to the
visible light spectrum? I'm interested in exploring this as a
creative means.
__________________

If anyone could help answer his question as well as dispel any
misconceptions he may be having (about the filter, etc.), I'd be most
appreciative, and I'd forward your responses on to him.

Thanks, and have a fine day.

Matt

--
www.mattclara.com

In article
,
Matt Clara wrote:

A friend of mine wrote and asked:

I have recently become interested in infrared photography. I'm using
a Sony Cybershot DSC-H5 with a Hoya R72 IR lens filter (I've attached
a couple of shots just taken in Charlotte).

I am considering buying a dedicated IR digital camera (professionally
converted) in the near future....which would mean no need for tripods
or, I assume, R72 lens filters. Just point and shoot with fast
shutter speeds. I would also think that this means having the
ability of shooting in lower light scenarios since there is no need
for a dark IR lens filter.

My question is: Are you aware of any photographers or artists who
are 'painting with light'...but in the infrared as opposed to the
visible light spectrum? I'm interested in exploring this as a
creative means.
__________________

If anyone could help answer his question as well as dispel any
misconceptions he may be having (about the filter, etc.), I'd be most
appreciative, and I'd forward your responses on to him.

well his question is if i'm aware of photographers who do infrared
photography. yes, i'm aware of some.

as for the filter, removing the infrared cut filter will dramatically
reduce the exposure for infrared images (by about 5-10 stops, depending
on camera). the sensor still sees visible light, so he'll need an r72
(or even higher) cutoff filter for some of the more interesting
effects. with an slr, this makes composing images a bit tough, since
an r72 blocks all visible light. with cameras that have live view,
it's not much of a problem. and if he wants to use the camera for
normal photography, a hot mirror filter can be placed in front of the
lens to cut out infrared light.

if i'm not mistaken, an r72 equivalent filter can be placed on the
sensor when the cut filter is removed. then the slr can be used
normally, but the sensor only sees infrared. however, doing it this
way precludes using the camera for anything but infrared.

On Mar 31, 1:28*pm, Matt Clara wrote:
A friend of mine wrote and asked:

I have recently become interested in infrared photography. * I'm using
a Sony Cybershot DSC-H5 with a Hoya R72 IR lens filter (I've attached
a couple of shots just taken in Charlotte).

I am considering buying a dedicated IR digital camera (professionally
converted) in the near future....which would mean no need for tripods
or, I assume, R72 lens filters. * *Just point and shoot with fast
shutter speeds. * I would also think that this means having the
ability of shooting in lower light scenarios since there is no need
for a dark IR lens filter.

My question is: * Are you aware of any photographers or artists who
are 'painting with light'...but in the infrared as opposed to the
visible light spectrum? * I'm interested in exploring this as a
creative means.
__________________

If anyone could help answer his question as well as dispel any
misconceptions he may be having (about the filter, etc.), I'd be most
appreciative, and I'd forward your responses on to him.

Thanks, and have a fine day.

Matt

--www.mattclara.com

First have a look at
http://www.lifepixel.com/index.html
They do the conversion and explain it well on the website.

I was shooing some IR with a Sony 828 and a filter
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/IR/...a_sony_828.htm

I had a 20D converted
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/IR/...tonVillage.htm
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Eno/Eno.htm
http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/ghost.htm

It is faster and you can shoot handheld. You need to be very aware of
ghosting from lens flare. You need to play with the exposure because
they do not add a filter to the metering system so that it is still
trying to expose for visible light, which might be close to the IR
exposure or it might not. They adjust the focus so that it will focus
near the IR wavelength. Pick a focal length you want to use tell them
to adjust it to that focal length. Makes a big difference it using it
to auto focus. Mine is adjusted to 50mm and works well form 15 to
about 100 but beyond that the AF is way off.

Send him my way if he wants to try it out I'm about 2 hours from
Charlotte up I85.

Jim

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
A friend of mine wrote and asked:

I have recently become interested in infrared photography. I'm using
a Sony Cybershot DSC-H5 with a Hoya R72 IR lens filter (I've attached
a couple of shots just taken in Charlotte).

I am considering buying a dedicated IR digital camera (professionally
converted) in the near future....which would mean no need for tripods
or, I assume, R72 lens filters. Just point and shoot with fast
shutter speeds. I would also think that this means having the
ability of shooting in lower light scenarios since there is no need
for a dark IR lens filter.

To your friend:

You'd still need an IR filter like the R72 to do infrared photography.
AFAIK, the professional conversions you're talking consist mainly of
removing the low-pass filter from inside the camera that keeps the IR from
reaching the sensor. They don't add the necessary filtration to hold back
visible light, and without that you'll just be shooting visible light with
considerable IR corruption, probably causing problems with sharp focus --
the reason for the camera having the low-pass filter in the first place.

Something to consider before going the expensive conversion route might be
just getting an older digital camera. Some of the older Olympus and Minolta
models are regarded as ideal for IR work -- a lot of the IR gets through to
the sensor, and the larger pixel size (lower resolution) is said to help
also.

I recently bought a fairly cheap IR 720 filter (same thing as R72, cuts off
most light below 720 nm wavelength) myself, and have found that on some of
my older digital cameras it gives a very good infrared image that's bright
enough to allow hand-held shutter speeds. On my newer cameras results are
much less satisfactory and it does require a tripod, since the low-pass
filters on newer cameras are much more aggressive in cutting out IR.

For example, the original Minolta Dimage 7 is said to be excellent for IR
work, while the later 7i and 7Hi etc. models are not. I have a Dimage 5
which should be good too (same period as the early 7) but haven't tried it
yet. I have found that just holding the IR 720 in front of the lens of some
older Nikon Coolpix models gives a bright image and allows shooting hand
held, while newer Coolpixes don't work well at all.

The old Olympus 2xxx series is also said to be very good for this. I have an
Olympus C2040 around here someplace and will try that when I can find it.

Neil

Neil Harrington wrote:

Something to consider before going the expensive conversion route might be
just getting an older digital camera. Some of the older Olympus and Minolta
models are regarded as ideal for IR work -- a lot of the IR gets through to
the sensor, and the larger pixel size (lower resolution) is said to help
also.

Isn't it possible for someone to just create a filter that gives the
same effect in Photoshop? I've only ever done IR photography with a film
camera but am interested in doing it with digtal too.

"Rat River Cemetary" wrote in message
news:GTQIj.150466$pM4.72569@pd7urf1no...
Neil Harrington wrote:

Something to consider before going the expensive conversion route might
be just getting an older digital camera. Some of the older Olympus and
Minolta models are regarded as ideal for IR work -- a lot of the IR gets
through to the sensor, and the larger pixel size (lower resolution) is
said to help also.

Isn't it possible for someone to just create a filter that gives the same
effect in Photoshop? I've only ever done IR photography with a film camera
but am interested in doing it with digtal too.

Simply put, no. you are capturing light outside of what would normally be
visible to you. The most noticeable effect is that green leafy plants
become milky white. Human skin takes on an odd pallor. The clear blue sky
goes completely black.

Check out
http://www.lifepixel.com/index.html
to see what and how it is done to the camera.

"jimkramer" wrote in message
...
"Rat River Cemetary" wrote in message
news:GTQIj.150466$pM4.72569@pd7urf1no...
Neil Harrington wrote:

Something to consider before going the expensive conversion route might
be just getting an older digital camera. Some of the older Olympus and
Minolta models are regarded as ideal for IR work -- a lot of the IR gets
through to the sensor, and the larger pixel size (lower resolution) is
said to help also.

Isn't it possible for someone to just create a filter that gives the same
effect in Photoshop? I've only ever done IR photography with a film
camera but am interested in doing it with digtal too.

Simply put, no. you are capturing light outside of what would normally be
visible to you. The most noticeable effect is that green leafy plants
become milky white. Human skin takes on an odd pallor. The clear blue
sky goes completely black.

Check out
http://www.lifepixel.com/index.html
to see what and how it is done to the camera.

I found a halfway believable PS filter at Fred Miranda
http://www.fredmiranda.com/DI/

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:19:18, Neil Harrington wrote:

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
A friend of mine wrote and asked:

I have recently become interested in infrared photography. I'm using
a Sony Cybershot DSC-H5 with a Hoya R72 IR lens filter (I've attached
a couple of shots just taken in Charlotte).

I am considering buying a dedicated IR digital camera (professionally
converted) in the near future....which would mean no need for tripods
or, I assume, R72 lens filters. Just point and shoot with fast
shutter speeds. I would also think that this means having the
ability of shooting in lower light scenarios since there is no need
for a dark IR lens filter.

To your friend:

You'd still need an IR filter like the R72 to do infrared photography.
AFAIK, the professional conversions you're talking consist mainly of
removing the low-pass filter from inside the camera that keeps the IR from
reaching the sensor. They don't add the necessary filtration to hold back
visible light, and without that you'll just be shooting visible light with
considerable IR corruption, probably causing problems with sharp focus --
the reason for the camera having the low-pass filter in the first place.

That is not universally true.

A friend of mine has an Olympus E-500 DSLR that he had professionally
modified. Instead of simply removing IR/UV filter from the sensor,
they replaced it with custom-cut glass that's the functional
equivalent of an R-72. The TTL VF looks normal, but the sensor only
gets IR. He can't use it as a normal visible light camera anymore
though. Since the camera is from the generation before live-view
became standard, he doesn't get a preview of what the actual shot will
look like, but he can hand-hold and take reasonable IR images. The
E-500 also has a useful "focus bracketing" feature, but he also stops
down the aperture to get extra DoF and make focus less important.

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/

Alan Hoyle wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:19:18, Neil Harrington wrote:

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
A friend of mine wrote and asked:

I have recently become interested in infrared photography. I'm using
a Sony Cybershot DSC-H5 with a Hoya R72 IR lens filter (I've attached
a couple of shots just taken in Charlotte).

I am considering buying a dedicated IR digital camera (professionally
converted) in the near future....which would mean no need for tripods
or, I assume, R72 lens filters. Just point and shoot with fast
shutter speeds. I would also think that this means having the
ability of shooting in lower light scenarios since there is no need
for a dark IR lens filter.

To your friend:

You'd still need an IR filter like the R72 to do infrared photography.
AFAIK, the professional conversions you're talking consist mainly of
removing the low-pass filter from inside the camera that keeps the IR from
reaching the sensor. They don't add the necessary filtration to hold back
visible light, and without that you'll just be shooting visible light with
considerable IR corruption, probably causing problems with sharp focus --
the reason for the camera having the low-pass filter in the first place.

That is not universally true.

A friend of mine has an Olympus E-500 DSLR that he had professionally
modified. Instead of simply removing IR/UV filter from the sensor,
they replaced it with custom-cut glass that's the functional
equivalent of an R-72. The TTL VF looks normal, but the sensor only
gets IR. He can't use it as a normal visible light camera anymore
though. Since the camera is from the generation before live-view
became standard, he doesn't get a preview of what the actual shot will
look like, but he can hand-hold and take reasonable IR images. The
E-500 also has a useful "focus bracketing" feature, but he also stops
down the aperture to get extra DoF and make focus less important.

I'm thinking of doing that with my old D70 - looks to be pretty simple
to pull apart and change over the low-pass filter. Given that a D70
body with 15,000 shutter actuations seems to be worth US$300 maximum,
it's hardly worth selling.
The only thing stopping me is the cost (US$145) of the replacement filter.
Does anyone know of a source for replacement R72 filters that are "more
affordable"?
Another alternative is to replace the low-pass filter with plain glass,
and use an R-72 on the lens, but that loses use of the viewfinder.

On 2008-04-02, frederick wrote:
Another alternative is to replace the low-pass filter with plain glass,
and use an R-72 on the lens, but that loses use of the viewfinder.

Not if you put the filter on after composing your shot.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg