infrared filter

gc4170 · 8 May 2009 at 14:12

does anybody know if the mikon d300 is any good for IR work - I havent used it since i had a sony f828 and that was pretty good, mainly due to the nightshot feature...a few old pics here...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guscammish/sets/72157600115246502/

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 8 May 2009 at 14:22

The D300 will be about as good as current Canons at infrared. Its gonna incure over 10 seconds of exposure but it'll still leak through.

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 8 May 2009 at 14:23

robertgilbert86 said:
It's due to the camera. Just compare Gex's 2nd photo with the EXIF info he posted, the Nikon D50 looks about 6 times more sensitive than the 400D.

I've already stated that the early nikons are leagues more sensitive than Canons.

gc4170 · 8 May 2009 at 14:31

thanks fstop11 - just got a cheapish £20 from the bay via china - hope its acceptable quality !

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 8 May 2009 at 14:50

gc4170 said:
thanks fstop11 - just got a cheapish £20 from the bay via china - hope its acceptable quality !

What was the brand?

gc4170 · 8 May 2009 at 15:01

twas this one....

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110386030042

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 8 May 2009 at 15:03

should be fine mate. Just have to see. Mine was £40 back in 2005 from jessops when they were very expensive.
was also a Hoya

gc4170 · 8 May 2009 at 15:22

cheers ! will post some pics if i get some semi decent shots !

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 8 May 2009 at 17:16

post whatever you get mate and I'll only be happy to assist further.

ajf · 8 May 2009 at 23:43

Fstop11 - looking at your photos above.
I assume the colours (particularly the deep blue sky) have been edited after the ir image was taken?
What is a general workflow for getting a similar colour?

Andrew

Phate · 9 May 2009 at 00:58

I love IR work...

Looking to convert my old 350D into a high speed IR camera when I get a job again

greedy123 · 9 May 2009 at 20:16

My second attempt:

ajf · 9 May 2009 at 21:37

Is this literally as it came from the camera or slightly edited?
If edited would you mind posting the original?
Inspired by this post I also got a cheap filter and think I am getting some strange results!
I have a 350d so would expect to get a similar output to your 400d I would think?

Andrew

greedy123 · 9 May 2009 at 21:46

that was with a bit of editing. here is original, unprocessed image:

ajf · 9 May 2009 at 21:59

Thank you.
Closer to what I get but still something out I think. I cannot seem to draw out any false colour:

'cheap' r72 filter
canon 17-40mm
ISO 200
F4
3.2 seconds

greedy123 · 9 May 2009 at 22:57

You need to set the white balance primarily. I'm assuming its in raw?

ajf · 9 May 2009 at 23:34

Yes, it is a raw file.
How did you set the wb? With or without filter attached?
I guess should change to jpg for this.
I also noticed (having now read previous posts thoroughly - doh!) I should set it against green?
Will give it another shot tomorrow -although presumably you SHOULD be able to do IRat night?!

Andrew

greedy123 · 10 May 2009 at 09:18

IR won't work at night unless you have a strong IR source or do ridiculous exposure times. It isn't the same as thermal imaging.

To set white balance open the raw image in any raw image editor and select the trees as the white balance source (lightroom/photoshop do it).

ajf · 10 May 2009 at 14:04

Wierd.
If I set the white balance against the leaves, either in lightroom for raw, or on the camera to shoot jpeg, the images are effectively monochrome instead of the magenta!
I can only think that maybe the filter is not properly filtering?

greedy123 · 10 May 2009 at 16:23

yeh it should be basically monochrome