I don't exactly have a few hundred sitting around to send off with a body and have it IR converted. Are the filters available any good? Has anyone used one? Tips? Examples?
many thanks
ClickClick Senior Member 801 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jan 2006 More info | May 28, 2008 10:46 | #1 I don't exactly have a few hundred sitting around to send off with a body and have it IR converted. Are the filters available any good? Has anyone used one? Tips? Examples? A camera.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SamHunter Senior Member 960 posts Likes: 2 Joined Apr 2008 Location: Louisville, KY More info | May 28, 2008 12:18 | #2 I know plenty of people use the Hoya R72 and get good results, the only issue is that you need like a 30 second shutter speed Louisville, Kentucky Wedding and Portrait Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
argyle Cream of the Crop 8,187 posts Likes: 24 Joined Apr 2007 Location: DFW, Texas More info | May 28, 2008 12:18 | #3 Yes and no. If you're taking pictures of static objects, then they'll suffice. If the subject has any movement whatsoever, then no. Because of the fairly long exposure times that are needed, foliage and clouds will appear OOF in the image, even in the slightest breeze. Also, a tripod is pretty much mandatory. I tried using a Hoya R72 IR filter, didn't like the shortcomings, and finally gave in and had a spare body converted. At the time, the conversion cost was just a little bit more than the price of the filter (77mm). "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Well I was hoping to use it for something like a beach scene... but the water moves. Unless it can become that "creamy" like texture you usually see with long exposures. A camera.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Although looking at the site most people use, it says that the camera would be calibrated for the 50 1.8 lens. Or we have to send our prefered choice of lens in with it. A camera.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
argyle Cream of the Crop 8,187 posts Likes: 24 Joined Apr 2007 Location: DFW, Texas More info | No...I wouldn't be too worried about that (although ultrawide lenses may perform differently). There was a list posted on here a while back that listed a while slew of lenses that are compatible with a converted body (by compatible, I mean that they were tested to show that they do not yield a hot spot on the image). I sent in an older 10D body for conversion (no lens), and everything worked out fine. The following test picture was taken with the 10D and the 17-40L lens. EXIF was f/11 at 1/180 sec, 35mm focal length. The same shot, if taken with an R72 filter, probably would have been closer to 15 or 20 seconds (which would have blurred the pond reeds and the clouds). "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
May 28, 2008 18:17 | #7 ClickClick, argyle, You keep showing that one photo, please show some others you have taken ![]() Sony A6400, A6500, Apeman A80, & a bunch of Lenses.............
LOG IN TO REPLY |
argyle Cream of the Crop 8,187 posts Likes: 24 Joined Apr 2007 Location: DFW, Texas More info | May 28, 2008 19:24 | #8 John_B wrote in post #5614109 argyle, You keep showing that one photo, please show some others you have taken ![]() You keeping track, John? "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
May 28, 2008 20:17 | #9 argyle wrote in post #5614506 You keeping track, John? argyle, Sony A6400, A6500, Apeman A80, & a bunch of Lenses.............
LOG IN TO REPLY |
May 29, 2008 12:06 | #10 argyle wrote in post #5613564 No...I wouldn't be too worried about that (although ultrawide lenses may perform differently). There was a list posted on here a while back that listed a while slew of lenses that are compatible with a converted body (by compatible, I mean that they were tested to show that they do not yield a hot spot on the image). I sent in an older 10D body for conversion (no lens), and everything worked out fine. The following test picture was taken with the 10D and the 17-40L lens. EXIF was f/11 at 1/180 sec, 35mm focal length. The same shot, if taken with an R72 filter, probably would have been closer to 15 or 20 seconds (which would have blurred the pond reeds and the clouds). ![]() OMG. What was your PP workflow like. A camera.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
argyle Cream of the Crop 8,187 posts Likes: 24 Joined Apr 2007 Location: DFW, Texas More info | Actually, nothing that complicated. First, you need to set a custom white balance in your camera. You do this by taking a picture of something that's green (I used my front lawn), then set this as the CWB. The result is that anything green will be rendered as white. I just shot in RAW, did a few basic tweaks and a bit of sharpening. I adjusted the sky color by playing with the blue and red channels. BTW...I went with the standard (basic) conversion by Lifepixel. "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JDubya Goldmember 1,034 posts Joined Jul 2006 More info | This was taken with a HOYA R72 and the kit lens. It's a fun filter. I'd love to have a body converted but for now I'll stick to a filter and long exposures.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BlueS2 Goldmember 1,352 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2004 Location: US More info | May 29, 2008 23:28 | #13 Filters drove me crazy after a while. I just bought a factory refurbished XT on ebay for like $200 and sent it to LifePixel for conversion. It's the best option if you are serious about IR. Composing normally, using normal exposure values, shooting moving objects, etc... is such a creative force with IR. The filter really hampered things. Filters work great...but a converted camera is IR freedom! Canon 5DmkII / Canon 5D / LifePixel IR 350D / L-glass
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jon Cream of the Crop 69,628 posts Likes: 227 Joined Jun 2004 Location: Bethesda, MD USA More info | May 30, 2008 08:35 | #14 argyle wrote in post #5618777 Actually, nothing that complicated. First, you need to set a custom white balance in your camera. You do this by taking a picture of something that's green (I used my front lawn), then set this as the CWB. The result is that anything green will be rendered as white. I just shot in RAW, did a few basic tweaks and a bit of sharpening. I adjusted the sky color by playing with the blue and red channels. BTW...I went with the standard (basic) conversion by Lifepixel. A lawn's good, but not just because it's green. You want to set your WB on healthy vegetation, since in addition to green, healthy vegetation reflects strongly in the IR band. That's one reason IR is used in crop assessment; ailing or stressed crops won't have as strong an IR signature. Jon
LOG IN TO REPLY |
May 30, 2008 11:17 | #15 JDubya wrote in post #5622830 This was taken with a HOYA R72 and the kit lens. ![]() It's a fun filter. I'd love to have a body converted but for now I'll stick to a filter and long exposures. how long was your exposure time for that shot? A camera.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is AlainPre 1253 guests, 143 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||