Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 04 May 2007 (Friday) 08:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Make Digital Infrared Photos with Canon EOS 350d/400d!

 
Hermeto
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,674 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
May 06, 2007 03:49 |  #46
bannedPermanent ban

Excellent site mammolo, great shots too!
Thanks for sharing..


What we see depends mainly on what we look for.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rogues08
Hatchling
1 post
Joined Sep 2005
     
May 06, 2007 07:13 |  #47

I've found some very interesting pictures!
http://www.dcview.com.​tw …sg.asp?sre=2&ms​gid=640547 (external link)
The first non "landscape" IR shot I've seen. A lot of pp but still impressive.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SlvrScoobie
Member
169 posts
Joined May 2007
     
May 06, 2007 11:59 |  #48

mammolo wrote in post #3158999 (external link)
Let me just shamelessly point to a site of mine where you can find a two part article on IR photography and a few galleries of work I have done in the past two years with a permanently IR-modified Rebel XT and a Canon 1DsMkII with 87C filter doing stitched panoramas anywhere from 100M to 800M pixel. The article goes into many technical details, some of which ---- like the issue of diffraction that gets more severe with IR --- are not often discussed on the net.

Cheers!!

www.infraredphoto.eu (external link)

You seem very knowledgable about IR, and being an optics person myself, I was wondering if you could give me some insight into why you choose the filter you did for the XT mod - I modded a 300D and put a longpass 780nm filter on it, and got GREAT b+w results, but you could do ANYTHING in post proccessing, asides hand color, to get the nice colors like others get (white leaves, blue sky)
So now im going to mod an XT, and im trying to figure out if I want to go back to a higher cutoff (780nm) or if I want to go lower (695/715/720nm) and get more of the red, and deal with more red images out of the box, persay.
This is straight out of the camera, no adjustment (usually ~+2 exp. comp.)

IMAGE: http://www.imagingphototech.com/irWB.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,044 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6770
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 06, 2007 12:05 |  #49

jwkramer wrote in post #3157937 (external link)
I shoot RAW exclusively, so I apply the WB at RAW conversion time. Thus, for me, the images come out of the camera looking very red. My first step of my WF involves applying my custom WB, but that technically happens after the image has been transferred to the PC (at least for my WF).

Are you applying a custom WB inside the camera?

-Jim

The RAW converters are limited as to how far you can push the WB to compensate for the red tones,. they literally "bottom out" on the sliders a while before you actually get the WB you need..

So yes, I set the custom WB in camera and the images come out looking fantastic with no WB adjustment..

To set the custom WB try shooting some grass at Noon on a warm day..
You'll then need to use a RAW converter that sees the Cameras custom setting, like BreezeBrowser.. or probably DPP (though not sure about that one)
You'll be amazed.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mammolo
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
18 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
May 06, 2007 13:06 as a reply to  @ SlvrScoobie's post |  #50

Hi SlvrScoobie,

I would never pretend to be an expert in IR photography! Anyway, there we go:

1. The camera was modified almost 18 months ago, when the landscape (pun intended) of IR filters for DIY mods was quite limited. You did not have a great deal of choices in fact. We chose (brain surgery was carried out by my friend Claudio who co-wrote the article) a filter from Life Pixel that cuts around 730nm (100% trasmittance at 775nm and beyond, 0% at 700nm and below).

2. Your question of what cut-off frequency to use in the filter is an artistic question, and therefore you should answer it. I can only relate my experience, not just with digital IR but more importantly with several years of shooting with the Maco IR 820c that as the name implies stops being sensitive above 820nm.

Either way I would use a gentle approach to IR photography, because (my taste) it can become very tiresome very fast. If you plan on a long and successful marriage with IR I would favor capturing more of the deep red. The IR effect is less stark but of course it is still present and 'false color' techniques benefit a bit more from capturing deep red. All things considered I would stick to 720nm. Less of a wow! effect, but more rewarding in the long run.

Needless to say, these are my two cents ... of euro :-)

Cheers!


Marco :)
http://www.resonantlin​k.com (external link)
http://www.infraredpho​to.eu (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
69,628 posts
Likes: 225
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
     
May 06, 2007 14:33 |  #51

Uhland wrote in post #3156876 (external link)
1st - Dont act like a jerk then hide behind forum rules when you get called out about it.
2nd - Comparing the best you have done with a random sample image on a random how-to tutorial on a random site doesn't prove or disprove a thing.

I stand by my original statement.
IR is a neat effect but the same effect can be photoshopped and look great with no gear or mods needed.

First - acting like a jerk is frowned on here, and you're the one doing so. You're also launching personal attacks when your command of the facts is called into question.

You're also dead wrong in thinking that it's possible to duplicate an IR image with PhotoShop. It's in the same category as duplicating the effect of a polarizer in PhotoShop, i.e. a fantasy. You may be able to produce an image that gives the general impression of an IR image, but the overall effect isn't going to be the same. The "Wood effect", which causes vegetation to look white in BWIR doesn't apply uniformly; it's sensitive to the health of the plant which is why it's used in remote sensing. And a PhotoShop action that whitens all greens is going to whiten more than the vegetation; it's going to whiten any green object in the picture.


Jon
----------
Cocker Spaniels
Maryland and Virginia activities
Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ
Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.
PAYPAL GIFT NO LONGER ALLOWED HERE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fenster
Senior Member
Avatar
500 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2007
Location: Purgatory
     
May 06, 2007 15:27 as a reply to  @ post 3153269 |  #52

I've done a fair bit of IR myself with a 350D, a 400D and most recently my new 30D. The 400D has the friendliest baffles by far (I use an unmodded camera and filters).

My latest (30D):

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR


IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Misadventures at 720nm (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwkramer
Senior Member
959 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Oct 2003
Location: Cincinnati, OH
     
May 06, 2007 19:48 |  #53

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3160512 (external link)
The RAW converters are limited as to how far you can push the WB to compensate for the red tones,. they literally "bottom out" on the sliders a while before you actually get the WB you need..

So yes, I set the custom WB in camera and the images come out looking fantastic with no WB adjustment..

To set the custom WB try shooting some grass at Noon on a warm day..
You'll then need to use a RAW converter that sees the Cameras custom setting, like BreezeBrowser.. or probably DPP (though not sure about that one)
You'll be amazed.

Thanks CDS, I use BreezeBrowser, but I'm pretty sure BB just uses Adobe Camera RAW for it's RAW conversion though. I am still going to give your method a try though... I want to see what it looks like. Can you still do false color using that method?

I would like to see some of your IR work... where can I go to do that?

Thanks!
-Jim


-Jim
Please Visit My Website! (external link)
I'm no Einstein, but I do own 3 of them...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blonde
Buck Naked Floozies
Avatar
8,405 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Boston, MA
     
May 07, 2007 08:51 |  #54

jwkramer wrote in post #3162311 (external link)
I would like to see some of your IR work... where can I go to do that?

Thanks!
-Jim

here is some of his IR work which i think is amazing:

http://jakehegnauer.fo​topic.net/c921836.html (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwkramer
Senior Member
959 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Oct 2003
Location: Cincinnati, OH
     
May 07, 2007 15:44 |  #55

blonde wrote in post #3164995 (external link)
here is some of his IR work which i think is amazing:

http://jakehegnauer.fo​topic.net/c921836.html (external link)

yes, his stuff looks great. I'm going to mess with my 10D when I get home this eve, to see what I can do with a custom WB.

Later!
-Jim


-Jim
Please Visit My Website! (external link)
I'm no Einstein, but I do own 3 of them...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Headcase650
Goldmember
Avatar
1,632 posts
Joined Jun 2004
     
May 07, 2007 17:31 |  #56

For those of you that dont want to convert your cameras and dont like the long exposures that go with an unmodified camera and filter you may look at some old point and shoot digitals. I have a nikon 950 2mp camera and I can get 1/60th f2.6 at ISO 100 on a bright sunny day using a RM72 filter using the LCD to compose. Another good choice is the olympus C-2020, both can be had used for less than $100 and can produce excelent 8x10's anything larger is stretching its limits.


60D, Canon 18-135 IS, Sigma 10-20 hsm, 24-70 2.8 hsm, 70-200 2.8 hsm, 430EX II, and all the other stuff that goes along with it.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwkramer
Senior Member
959 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Oct 2003
Location: Cincinnati, OH
     
May 07, 2007 20:43 |  #57

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #3160512 (external link)
The RAW converters are limited as to how far you can push the WB to compensate for the red tones,. they literally "bottom out" on the sliders a while before you actually get the WB you need..

So yes, I set the custom WB in camera and the images come out looking fantastic with no WB adjustment..

To set the custom WB try shooting some grass at Noon on a warm day..
You'll then need to use a RAW converter that sees the Cameras custom setting, like BreezeBrowser.. or probably DPP (though not sure about that one)
You'll be amazed.

CDS -

I did some testing this afternoon. You are correct - setting a custom WB in the camera really makes a BIG difference. The one question I have for you is this - are you bringing the Raw image into Photoshop using the "Edit" option from Breezebrowser, or are you converting the file to a TIFF/JPG first (in BB). The reason I ask is that when I tried to edit the image directly, BB launches Adobe Camera Raw, and the image immediately turns pink (I am assuming because it can't handle the WB set in the camera). Even if I have BB set to "As shot" for the WB, it still changes the color of the image dramatically. If I have BB convert to a TIFF or a JPG, the image looks fantastic.

Thanks for your help!

-Jim


-Jim
Please Visit My Website! (external link)
I'm no Einstein, but I do own 3 of them...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,044 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6770
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 07, 2007 20:52 |  #58

jwkramer wrote in post #3162311 (external link)
Thanks CDS, I use BreezeBrowser, but I'm pretty sure BB just uses Adobe Camera RAW for it's RAW conversion though.

Actually the version of BB I am using uses the Canon converter built into ZoomBrowser etc.. (not the new DPP one)

But yeah give it a try.

Here's some of my stuff,.
http://cyberdynesystem​simaging.fotopic.net/c​593654.html (external link)

Those first two as well as some of the other "near B&W" looking ones were straight out of the camera, no de-saturation done, and obviously no red dominance present.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,044 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6770
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 07, 2007 20:55 |  #59

jwkramer wrote in post #3168719 (external link)
CDS -

I did some testing this afternoon. You are correct - setting a custom WB in the camera really makes a BIG difference. The one question I have for you is this - are you bringing the Raw image into Photoshop using the "Edit" option from Breezebrowser, or are you converting the file to a TIFF/JPG first (in BB). The reason I ask is that when I tried to edit the image directly, BB launches Adobe Camera Raw, and the image immediately turns pink (I am assuming because it can't handle the WB set in the camera). Even if I have BB set to "As shot" for the WB, it still changes the color of the image dramatically. If I have BB convert to a TIFF or a JPG, the image looks fantastic.

Thanks for your help!

-Jim

Ahh now I see why you were thinking that ACR was involved with BB,..
No I use BB to create a Tiff using as shot WB and then if I need to that goes into Photoshop,. I have not used ACR for much of anything in years. (nothing against it, I just use DPP and BB instead ) But ACR I do recall always truncated the WB so everything went all red.

Actually it sounds like you have it all down now with the process,. glad that custom WB worked out!


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Grimm75
blissful obscurity
Avatar
1,784 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Suwanee, GA
     
May 07, 2007 23:47 |  #60

How do you all shoot the WB? I know this may sound like a stupid question but I just ordered the HOYA 58mm IR filter for my XTi and I'm anxious to try it out.

So now for the ignorant stuff: Do you shoot the sunlight grass with the filter on? If so, how long do you set the exposure for?

I guess I better learn to shoot in RAW (need to learn anyway, I suppose) if I'm going to get this down. What else should I use to process the RAW photos other than CS2?

Any help you all can give would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


--Jon
Gear
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

55,950 views & 0 likes for this thread
Make Digital Infrared Photos with Canon EOS 350d/400d!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is KiwiMark
784 guests, 356 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.