Infrared (IR) Image gallery

GlimmerMan wrote in post #19440515
Covered Bridge in Western PA:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nVy​yFa (2022-0929)-CoveredBridge-X100T-IR-0061 by S. Nobody, on Flickr

Wow! Crack'n shot! I went to Google map the Hughes Bridge. Looks like "you're outstanding in your field."

DavidWatts wrote in post #19440772
Wow! Crack'n shot! I went to Google map the Hughes Bridge. Looks like "you're outstanding in your field."

Thanks mate! A lot of the bridges have been moved or bypassed for protection and preservation.

DavidWatts wrote in post #19440447
Looks like you got the same near end-of-day two main shots I got of those falls (I didn't shoot them in IR like you did). Sure need to watch your step up there! Nice hike to that second straight-on shot. The geological history of the area is interesting. The canyon and all surrounding lands were carved out in single day megafloods tens of thousands of years ago. The waterfall is about all that remains of those events locally plus some scattered lakes in several surrounding states.

Source: Glacial Lake Missoula Megafloods https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Missoula_flood​s

Yeah and those people that hike to the ledge above and to the left of the falls are insane. It seems they have at least 1 death a year there and no matter how many signs they put up people are still stupid.

I photographed this scene with both an IRChrome filter and a Nikon R60 (25A - 590nm) red filter. Personally, I like the 590nm image better.

HaroldC3 wrote in post #19442895
I photographed this scene with both an IRChrome filter and a Nikon R60 (25A - 590nm) red filter. Personally, I like the 590nm image better.

I really dig both shots, such an awesome scene and you captured it beautifully. I still have a soft spot for that IR Chrome filter though, it makes shots look near real/normal whereas other color IR shots are almost always uncanny (not that that's a bad thing).

A couple 590nm images converted to B&W. I was testing out the Fuji 18-135mm lens and concluded the image quality for IR is not good, not good at all. Also, I found the 16-80mm does indeed have a diffused hotspot and is the worst at 16mm. So I'm going to give the 23mm f2 lens a shot.

It was a frigid and foggy morning this morning. (Not too foggy though). I went to the same park as the other day as I've always wanted to shoot foggy images with an IRChrome filter. The images coming out of my camera are orange and I'm leaving them that color. In most cases I like that color rather than a red color from adjusting the hue.

We had another round of fog this morning. I shot mostly normal color but towards the end, I shot IRChrome. I'm not sure the second one really showcases IRChrome since I converted it to B&W but I still included it here.

HaroldC3 wrote in post #19450523
We had another round of fog this morning. I shot mostly normal color but towards the end, I shot IRChrome. I'm not sure the second one really showcases IRChrome since I converted it to B&W but I still included it here.

Hosted photo: posted by HaroldC3 in
./showthread.php?p=194​50523&i=i165812797
forum: Still Life, B/W & Experimental

I like the echo in the composition!

DavidWatts wrote in post #19433038
^ Yes it does, which is why I avoid IR portraiture. People in scenes far enough away from the main subject come out OK. But if IR people close-up isn't scary looking enough, you might not ever want to try UV portraits.

IR portraiture doesn't have to be scary (I'm suspect UV does from what I've seen) here are a few of mine:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/25BA​uJQ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rngF​en

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rFuQ​Pp

It's been a bit since I've been able to go out shooting. I went to an abandoned park this day and wasn't thrilled with much that I came away with. At least the sun did come out, which I was hoping it would. The second image is some extreme internal lens element reflections when I used my B+W 090 filter pointed at the sun.

I have read that some people think you can get the Aerochrome / IRChrome look by using an orange filter. I put that to a test today under some foggy conditions. I have a Nikon #056 orange filter (top) vs a Kolari IRChrome filter (bottom). The top photo is after a RGB channel swap while the bottom one you get the colors straight out of camera. I did do an Auto-Color and Auto-Tone adjustment on both of these in PS. As you can see, with the orange filter, it seems like a brighter orange and I got a teal color from the fog. With the IRChrome filter, I got a pure white sky and a dark orange color. I imagine with more manipulation of the orange filter image I could get closer to the IRChome image, assuming that's the result I wanted. Anyways, I just thought it was interesting, I hope you did as well.

This first image might look familar. I took this same comp about 1.5 months ago. I didn't like that I cut off the top of the tree and it wasn't tack sharp, si I went back yesterday while it was foggy and shot it again. It doesn't have the same feel but I still like it.

We had another foggy day today and the second one is from this morning.

Both were taken with my full spectrum Fuji X-T3 and IRChrome filter.

HaroldC3 wrote in post #19468298
This first image might look familar. I took this same comp about 1.5 months ago. I didn't like that I cut off the top of the tree and it wasn't tack sharp, si I went back yesterday while it was foggy and shot it again. It doesn't have the same feel but I still like it.

We had another foggy day today and the second one is from this morning.

Both were taken with my full spectrum Fuji X-T3 and IRChrome filter.

Hosted photo: posted by HaroldC3 in
./showthread.php?p=194​68298&i=i151503835
forum: Still Life, B/W & Experimental

Hosted photo: posted by HaroldC3 in
./showthread.php?p=194​68298&i=i75222947
forum: Still Life, B/W & Experimental

Really like the first one . . .

I was able to get out, enjoy the beautiful weather today and shoot some 850nm. I'm just using a cheap Chinese filter and it works just fine for me.