Black and White Infrared

[MrFotoFool]

Post your black and white images from infrared modified cameras. This is from a modified 50D that I just picked up used.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Giving the thread a bump. No one out there using an infrared modified camera?

 

[Snodge]

Not yet. It's on my todo list, but I keep thinking I want the conversion done on a full frame camera. I have images done with a Hoya R72 though...

 

[fugu82]

This is with an EOS-M modified to 590nm.

 

[4myrrh1]

I do have a 590nm Surer Color modified T31 that I have started to get a grip on using the color channel swap method. I also have a 850nm filter to get out of the camera B&W with but haven't gotten any post-able shots with yet. My Flickr stream has some of my early experiments posted to it so you can look there.
Botany Play IR by Kurt Fanus, on Flickr

 

[Aglet]

test shot from a partially converted Rebel XS. requires longer exposure times, provides a bit more 'color'.
image is OOC jpg, scaled, with slight bump in contrast and sharpening. 20mm lens with 720nm filter.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Thanks for posting. Keep them coming!

 

[kirispupis]

You don't need a modified camera. This was taken in Iceland with a 720nm filter.

JSC_1826-Edit.jpg by Joseph Calev, on Flickr

 

[MrFotoFool]

Very nice. My understanding is that on some early models you could put an IR filter on the lens and just do a long exposure to get infrared, but on recent cameras this does not work. I tried it with my 5D2 and just got black. I could be wrong, but with newer models I think you do need a converted camera.

 

[fugu82]

Very nice. My understanding is that on some early models you could put an IR filter on the lens and just do a long exposure to get infrared, but on recent cameras this does not work. I tried it with my 5D2 and just got black. I could be wrong, but with newer models I think you do need a converted camera.

Yeah, most modern cameras are too efficient at reflecting infrared light to be practical for use with just a IR filter on the lens, with exposure times in minutes, even in good light. Conversions remove the "hot mirror" completely, enabling hand-held use in most conditions.

 

[4myrrh1]

Yes the converted cameras are easy to shoot normally. This was a pano of 9 pictures handheld from this week. I must warn you about lens hot spots in the infrared. This shot had that problem and you really cannot get rid of it in post processing normally.

Richmond James River Infrared Pano-2 by Kurt Fanus, on Flickr

 

[yorgasor]

I've done some IR shooting with my Canon 5D, 5D3, and Nikon D3s. The 5D works best, as it has a lesser IR filter on the sensor. The 5D3 and D3s both require very long exposures (on the order of 4-30 seconds, depending on the aperture).

The nice thing with the old Nikon AIS lenses is that they have a red dot on the focus ring. You focus as normal with the IR filter off, put the filter on, and then turn the focus ring so that the red dot is where the previous focus level was set to. It removes the guessing I had to do with the other lenses I used.

The coolest thing I discovered is that the Voightlander 20mm f/3.5 has super crazy flaring when the IR filter is added. Check out this most spectacular IR photo:

Mars Lake by Ron Yorgason, on Flickr

 

[MrFotoFool]

Another shot with my modified 50D. Taken right after I got it on a trip to Texas (as was my opening shot of the giraffe).

 

[kirispupis]

Very nice. My understanding is that on some early models you could put an IR filter on the lens and just do a long exposure to get infrared, but on recent cameras this does not work. I tried it with my 5D2 and just got black. I could be wrong, but with newer models I think you do need a converted camera.

This is not true. I use an unconverted 5D3 for all of my IR work. The trick is to use the right filter. What you need is 720nm. Anything below that and the visible light let in by the camera overpowers the IR. Anything higher and the exposures will be too long. You do still need a tripod and long exposures, but I find this just makes me take my time.

Here's another, though not B&W.

Lost Days by Joseph Calev, on Flickr

 

[MrFotoFool]

This is not true. I use an unconverted 5D3 for all of my IR work. The trick is to use the right filter. What you need is 720nm. Anything below that and the visible light let in by the camera overpowers the IR. Anything higher and the exposures will be too long. You do still need a tripod and long exposures, but I find this just makes me take my time.

Interesting. I guess when I tried it on my 5D2 I had a stronger filter. I don't have it any more, I used it with the old Kodak HIE infrared film. Anyway, long exposures are fine for static subjects but still would not work with animals like my opening shot of giraffe.

 

[MrFotoFool]

A recent shot with the modified 50D, heavily processed in Nik.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Another recent infrared shot from a trip to the coastal redwoods of northern California.
I just got the EF-S 24mm pancake lens to leave permanently attached to my IR-modified 50D.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Here is one I took yesterday in Sedona, Arizona. I am not completely satisfied with the way I processed it, so I may need to rework the black and white conversion.

 

[robineaton]

Interesting. Black and white photography is very different and unique.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Another shot from my afternoon in Sedona. The initial black and white conversion the buildings and railing were too white and blended into the trees. So I had to do a duplicate layer of the color version, convert the top layer to black and white, then erase the buildings and fence from the top layer. Due to the bushes in front of the building, this was very time consuming. The bottom layer was darkened a bit and desaturated most of the way, but not quite all the way. Compared to the single layer bw version, the buildings and fence show up much better here, even though it is subtle. The first version with the buildings in full sepia color was too stark.