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 » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

street infra red



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 25th 17, 03:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default street infra red

On 6/24/2017 6:38 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 15:53:47 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/24/2017 1:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to
understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go
about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my
taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost,
mostly due to a poor choice in camera.


As I stated earlier, the object of the shoot, which had ben planned a
few weeks earlier, was to shoot IR. I used what I have. Whatever
happened, we would shoot it. Yes we did have a model, but I was not at
all happy with our model shoots.


Was this a Deb Sandidge outing?


No. But had she been available, it might have been.

--
PeterN
  #22  
Old June 25th 17, 04:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default street infra red

On 6/25/2017 3:57 AM, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 24 June 2017 12:30:57 UTC-4, PeterN wrote:
On 6/24/2017 1:58 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:14:34 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:21:37 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:58:43 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Jun 23, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

I sometimes play with infrared, on my converted Coolpix.
Got this street shot in the rain.

Yes, I know it's grainy, but the rain, plus the IR color add interest.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue0v5o2oeniyu01/20170617_1923.jpg?dl=0

Taste is an odd thing. I like the concept of the image, the rain, the
subject the pose, capturing the moment, all well done. However, when I look at
the image I am disappointed with the execution, especially the noise, no
matter how much you call it grain that isn’t grain.

It could have been a great image with a different camera, rather than an
old Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3 CCD with a max ISO of 400. That was a camera with
questionable performance in 2004, and it remains so. The IR makes no real
difference. A great opportunity wasted.

It would have been so much better if you had made that capture with your
FF Nikon, or even the old D300. In that light, with the E8800, at ISO 400
there was no way you were ever going to avoid noise (it isn’t grain.)

BTW: Just dealing with the noise can make a big difference.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptdjn8duazng4v8/20170617_1923DN.jpeg

You actually feel that's an improvement? The original had interest,
but your version adds nothing of interest. The noise doesn't detract,
in my opinion.

Actually the noise does detract for me. It’s that taste, and opinion thing
again.
Why would I have to add something?

A change in what was done adds a new view of the original. Not an
object.

The subject, and the capture of the moment speak for themselves, all that is
needed is some denoising.

A little - just a little - dodging of the face might have improved the
shot since her face seems to be a hidden asset in the shot. I'd like
to see more of her expression.

I suppose a few tweaks would be in order.

You would prefer something such as this?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e8urdthvbsgr3tm/20170617_1923LE.jpeg

No, that's over-done, it shows what there but makes it too noticeable.
Maybe that's because I knew what was there before. I might not have
noticed it as much if this had been the first version.

Oh well...

Personally, I prefer letting the photographer present *his* image as
he sees it. I've never viewed photography as a group effort.

That’s Tony. However, if I see an image which to my eye is wrong, I try to
understand what it is about the image that I can’t accept, and how to go
about preventing that problem in the first place, or to adjust correct to my
taste. As I have said somewhere above, this image was an opportunity lost,
mostly due to a poor choice in camera.

It seems that what you are saying is that any image that does not meet
with your approval is a "problem" image. I think there's a word for
that.

I don't know what Peter was up to that day, but I can understand going
out with one camera and seeing what can be done with that camera that
day. That's a rather good self-imposed challenge to any photographer.

Years ago I went on a field trip with a pro photographer who made us
use only a 50mm lens or, if we had only a zoom lens, we had to tape
the lens at that setting. His instructions were to get the best
photos possible with that lens. We probably had some lost
opportunities because of lack of lens choice, but it was a good
exercise in finding what would work under those conditions. I think
Peter did exactly that.

Peter could have carried the Coolpix, his Nikon, three lenses, his
extension set, and still have "lost opportunities" in street shooting.
The subjects don't tend to wait around in good poses while the
photographer changes lenses or switches cameras.

You hit the nail on the head. The plan that day was to shoot nothing but
IR, and seeing what we would get. From a personal shooting point, I am
thinking of converting my D300 to IR, and if so which near IR do I like
best. When i put up the original image, I of course knew what the Duck's
comment would be.

--
PeterN


It's a tough choice here.
-Convert to an over-sensor IR filter, you can use a DSLR viewfinder still, but are restricted to black and white IR and only at the bandpass that particular filter allows.
-Convert to a transparent over-sensor filter and use on-lens IR filters, you need a hotshoe viewfinder to "aim" the camera since you can't see through the filter to aim or focus. But at least you can vary the wavelenghts of the IR filters (750-1000+ nm). Also, you can shoot colour IR by leaving a lens filter off. Also, old manual lenses tend to work best with IR owing to their passing more IR light than new lenses, so "zone" focusing using the lens distance scale becomes important.


Indeed there are a lot of considerations in doing an IR conversion. You
have mentioned just some of them. The least expensive way would be to
buy a filter, compose and focus then mount it in front of the lens for
shooting. But that is not what I want to do.


--
PeterN
 




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
Infra Red & Focusing Bernard Rother[_2_] Digital Photography 3 January 11th 08 12:05 PM
Infra Red with an SLR Dennis Frampton Digital SLR Cameras 9 August 12th 07 08:02 PM
Infra-red D.M. Procida Digital SLR Cameras 25 April 7th 07 04:51 PM
Using Infra red as an internet [email protected] Digital Photography 4 April 16th 06 02:08 AM
B+W 093 Infra Red Filter in UK? Robert Austin Digital SLR Cameras 7 February 12th 05 03:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:13 AM.


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.