Infrared (IR) Image gallery

A couple recent ones.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

I dont think I've ever uttered these words......but that is an awesome tree!

garys1 wrote in post #13108327

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

It is huge! The people under it gives you a sense as to how large it is. Hitachi Corp pays for the rights to use it in their advertising--thats why it's been named the Hitachi Tree. It's on the grounds of Moanalua Gardens, Oahu, Hawaii...

Garys1, that is a crazy huge tree!!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …gicusaeturnus/6​158168288/

Nice to see this thread still going very well with great images.....some from last week, this unusual structure is just off the highway in a town called Collector, on the road from Melbourne to Sydney.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

bikerider wrote in post #13144219
Nice to see this thread still going very well with great images.....some from last week, this unusual structure is just off the highway in a town called Collector, on the road from Melbourne to Sydney.

I'm gonna say...I totally love infrared. I've sort of backed off of it for a little while (I sort of thought I was getting too comfortable and it was time to take a break from it, though I'm totally not done exploring it). And I guess that some people see IR photgraphy as sort of gimmicky, but I love it. And one of the things that I love about it is the way that it makes things just seem a little bit...off. Whether or not that evokes discomfort or just looks sort of "dreamy", I find IR photography to look just a tad bit unreal. A little bit off. And I find that extremely interesting.

Now, how does that relate to your pictures? Well, I think that you did a very nice job of combining that aspect of IR photography with the subject matter. The subject itself is a little bit off. A little bit unreal. And I think that it being in infrared only enhances that. I think that this is a case in which IR works very well for the actual subject matter.

Clean Gene wrote in post #13147899
I'm gonna say...I totally love infrared. I've sort of backed off of it for a little while (I sort of thought I was getting too comfortable and it was time to take a break from it, though I'm totally not done exploring it). And I guess that some people see IR photgraphy as sort of gimmicky, but I love it. And one of the things that I love about it is the way that it makes things just seem a little bit...off. Whether or not that evokes discomfort or just looks sort of "dreamy", I find IR photography to look just a tad bit unreal. A little bit off. And I find that extremely interesting.

I often get the feeling that others kind of think IR is a bit gimmicky too. However I prefer the images that come from the camera, especially when I can do false colour and put my interpretation on it. The shots are generally clearer (especially landscape) because there is no haze (IR cuts through it) and the colours are so contrasty, it gives an extra edge.
When I do landscape shots the last thing I want to put in my final image is what I saw. Everybody sees the natural world with its colours everyday, my aim is to change what I saw (and what the camera saved) into a more appealing version. I can do this to a certain extent with normal landscape photography but IR lets me go that bit further.

I suppose its because its closer to digital-art than a photograph is. I like my images perfect just like fantasy digital landscapes and thats what I love about IR as it lets me get closer to that "ideal" (in my mind anyway). But we all have our tastes else the world would be boring....

EDIT: just before someone jumps in and says "why dont you learn how to draw digital art then" - the simple answer is I dont have the imagination for it or the inclination at the moment to put that much effort in. Capturing the landscape around me gets me out of the house and gives me the raw foundation I can build from with less effort. That and the fact that doing it properly in Photoshop appears to be 50x more work than enhancing/merging photos...

I tend to agree... the first time someone sees infrared they think it's cool, and want to try it. Especially the false color. I have been shooting IR for a few years now, and I shoot false color less and less. My favorite application of IR now is high contrast IR. In fact, some of my shots cannot even really be identified as IR. If it wasn't for the fact that I identify it as such, it would easily pass as a really high contrast B&W. In this way, some of the 'gimmicky' feel is gone. I still do an occasional false color shot, but it's the exception, rather than the rule.

Example:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

rusty.jg wrote in post #13150727
I often get the feeling that others kind of think IR is a bit gimmicky too. However I prefer the images that come from the camera, especially when I can do false colour and put my interpretation on it. The shots are generally clearer (especially landscape) because there is no haze (IR cuts through it) and the colours are so contrasty, it gives an extra edge.
When I do landscape shots the last thing I want to put in my final image is what I saw. Everybody sees the natural world with its colours everyday, my aim is to change what I saw (and what the camera saved) into a more appealing version. I can do this to a certain extent with normal landscape photography but IR lets me go that bit further.

I suppose its because its closer to digital-art than a photograph is. I like my images perfect just like fantasy digital landscapes and thats what I love about IR as it lets me get closer to that "ideal" (in my mind anyway). But we all have our tastes else the world would be boring....

EDIT: just before someone jumps in and says "why dont you learn how to draw digital art then" - the simple answer is I dont have the imagination for it or the inclination at the moment to put that much effort in. Capturing the landscape around me gets me out of the house and gives me the raw foundation I can build from with less effort. That and the fact that doing it properly in Photoshop appears to be 50x more work than enhancing/merging photos...

jwkramer wrote in post #13156543
I tend to agree... the first time someone sees infrared they think it's cool, and want to try it. Especially the false color. I have been shooting IR for a few years now, and I shoot false color less and less. My favorite application of IR now is high contrast IR. In fact, some of my shots cannot even really be identified as IR. If it wasn't for the fact that I identify it as such, it would easily pass as a really high contrast B&W. In this way, some of the 'gimmicky' feel is gone. I still do an occasional false color shot, but it's the exception, rather than the rule.

Example:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

I agree with everything I've read in the past couple of pages... I only started to mess around with IR a couple of months ago, picking up a cheap 720 filter. I like the false color, and I really like the IR B&W... but then I started experimenting, ringing IR images through HDR software with regularly shot shots and shots taken with different WB temps, etc.. Got some cool results tweaking colors, etc.. .in PS as well...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …gicusaeturnus/5​847185633/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …gicusaeturnus/5​865891090/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …gicusaeturnus/5​865377495/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …gicusaeturnus/5​865892240/

bikerider wrote in post #13144219
Nice to see this thread still going very well with great images.....some from last week, this unusual structure is just off the highway in a town called Collector, on the road from Melbourne to Sydney.

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

These are all great! Love the setting. And the IR works very well with it.

Clean Gene wrote in post #13147899
Now, how does that relate to your pictures? Well, I think that you did a very nice job of combining that aspect of IR photography with the subject matter. The subject itself is a little bit off. A little bit unreal. And I think that it being in infrared only enhances that. I think that this is a case in which IR works very well for the actual subject matter.

Thanks...it's this aspect that attracts me to IR, the unreality of it. Also the available depth in the images, particularly when I use a light tonemapping on them, an almost 3D image emerges. I've been shooting IR now for about four years and find I shoot mostly for b&w....I've had some very nice results in false colour, but seem to prefer the tones of b&w.

I agree with other comments here that some people judge IR as gimicky, quite frankly I couldn't care less. I think it takes an artists eye, to see the possibilities in a chosen subject for IR.

Thanks Logicus, glad you like them.

Love the shots Logicus - I must admit thats one area where using filters is more advantageous over a dedicated camera - you can just take the filter off and take a normal photograph to merge with the IR. I suppose you could do it with two cameras but lining them up properly would be a nightmare as far as I can see. Absolutely love the black and yellow of the first image - really stands out.

@bikerider: I have definitely adopted the same attitude to what others think of IR. A few people like it, others not so much.
Generally though (and this is *very* general) it seems that the people I know who dont think much of IR tend to also be photographers themselves whereas I have yet to come across a non-photographer who didnt say "wow, what did you do to that photo?" or something to that effect.

40D ...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

A false-color infrared portrait of the lovely Ashley. I'll confess to playing with the color of her eyes in layers.