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
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
Thread started 28 May 2008 (Wednesday) 10:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

infrared filters - worth the purchase?

 
ClickClick
Senior Member
801 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2006
     
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?

many thanks


A camera.
Trinkets galore.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SamHunter
Senior Member
Avatar
960 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
     
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 (external link)
The Blog (external link)
5D - 7D - 35L - 70-200 2.8L IS - Sigma 10-20 UWA - 580EXII - (2) Vivitar 285HV
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
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).

Using a filter may be a relatively inexpensive way to experiment with IR to see if you like it...then you can make a decision if you want to jump in and get a body conversion. TBH, the body is the way to go. You're simply taking a picture the way that you normally would...TTL metering, a wide array of lenses that won't give hot spots, and very little need for a tripod.

From what I found, R72 filters smaller than 77mm are not that expensive. Once you get to 77mm and larger, the cost jumps considerably.


"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ClickClick
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
801 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2006
     
May 28, 2008 15:40 as a reply to  @ argyle's post |  #4

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.

I don't have any extra body laying around, I do have a Powershot A95 but not sure if that is convert-ible.

Maybe I can find a used XT online for a decent price.


A camera.
Trinkets galore.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ClickClick
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
801 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2006
     
May 28, 2008 15:41 as a reply to  @ ClickClick's post |  #5

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.

Is that correct? I can't swap lens out once it has been calibrated?


A camera.
Trinkets galore.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
May 28, 2008 16:34 as a reply to  @ ClickClick's post |  #6

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).

IMAGE: http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/203331061_nWnwi-L.jpg

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John_B
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,355 posts
Gallery: 178 photos
Likes: 2722
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Hawaii
     
May 28, 2008 18:17 |  #7

ClickClick,
I have a Hoya R72 filter and it works great with all my DSLR's (to my eyes). I do like taking IR photos occasionally but not enough to pay and have a camera converted, as I see in true color not false or red and white :) I made an IR photo page that shows the basics of using a Hoya R72 filter with some photos <-- click to see (external link)

Here is the most recent IR photo I took with a Canon 40D, EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 lens with quick color correction in software (to give false colors).

Big Island IR

IMAGE: http://johnbdigital.com/infrared/big_island_ir.jpg
click for specsIMAGE LINK: http://johnbdigital.co​m/infrared/big_island_​ir.htm  (external link)


argyle,
You keep showing that one photo, please show some others you have taken ;)

Sony A6400, A6500, Apeman A80, & a bunch of Lenses.............  (external link)
click to see (external link)
JohnBdigital.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
May 28, 2008 19:24 |  #8

John_B wrote in post #5614109 (external link)
argyle,
You keep showing that one photo, please show some others you have taken ;)

You keeping track, John? :D Actually, I'm embarassed to admit that its the only one that I have loaded onto my smugmug page for easy posting.  :o I'm still going through a ton of pics from Bryce Canyon, Zion NP, Antelope, and Havasu Canyon. Just don't have time to get to other stuff at the moment. But now that everything's green here in TX, I need to find some time to break out the IR camera.

That's a nice shot you posted there, John. Great composition and PP.


"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John_B
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,355 posts
Gallery: 178 photos
Likes: 2722
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Hawaii
     
May 28, 2008 20:17 |  #9

argyle wrote in post #5614506 (external link)
You keeping track, John?

argyle,
Its just good photos easily are remembered :) :lol:
I am looking forward to see more ;)


Sony A6400, A6500, Apeman A80, & a bunch of Lenses.............  (external link)
click to see (external link)
JohnBdigital.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ClickClick
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
801 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2006
     
May 29, 2008 12:06 |  #10

argyle wrote in post #5613564 (external link)
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).

QUOTED IMAGE

OMG. What was your PP workflow like.


A camera.
Trinkets galore.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
May 29, 2008 12:14 as a reply to  @ ClickClick's post |  #11

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

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JDubya
Goldmember
Avatar
1,034 posts
Joined Jul 2006
     
May 29, 2008 23:23 as a reply to  @ argyle's post |  #12

This was taken with a HOYA R72 and the kit lens.

IMAGE: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/SpeakerPhreaker/InfraredClockTower.jpg

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
Blue ­ S2
Goldmember
1,352 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2004
Location: US
     
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
Brightscreen Screens & Mags / ReallyRightStuff gear / Singh-Ray filters
Read My Blog!! (external link) -- Visit My Website! : Ancient City Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
69,628 posts
Likes: 227
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
     
May 30, 2008 08:35 |  #14

argyle wrote in post #5618777 (external link)
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
----------
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
ClickClick
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
801 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2006
     
May 30, 2008 11:17 |  #15

JDubya wrote in post #5622830 (external link)
This was taken with a HOYA R72 and the kit lens.

QUOTED IMAGE

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.
Trinkets galore.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

5,225 views & 0 likes for this thread, 7 members have posted to it.
infrared filters - worth the purchase?
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

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

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 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is AlainPre
1253 guests, 143 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, 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.