Came across 3 interesting links dealing with IR photography

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

This one covers all sorts of info on photography
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm
This guy brings up the fact that even though most digital camera makers don't talk about IR photography with their cameras most will take IR shots of varing interest.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev00.html#top_page
He has some very interesting photos and has some rather interesting tips. One being suntan lotion and how it relates to IR light.

This guy has some interesting IR photos in his Pbase album http://www.pbase.com/alans220/infrared&page=1

I really wonder how shots in the Big Bend would look using IR filters?

One of the photographers above says that different models in one manufacturers line of cameras can come up with major differences in results.

Now if the filters were not so expensive. :(

[rose]

Thanks this is a great resource for me.

[jerrykr]

Unless you mod the camera to remove the internal IR blocker, you will be passing IR light thru the screw-on filter, which will have to then go thru the internal IR blocker to reach the sensor and be recorded.

This does work, and virtually all digital cameras can get an IR image thru the blocker. The exposure times can vary greatly between cameras, however.

The early digital cameras had internal IR blockers which were not as aggressive and efficent as the filters in the latest models. So they are considered more "IR sensitive" than the newer cameras.

Also, the blockers vary by manufacturer quite a bit.

I have seen a number of images posted from the Nikon D70, that were good exposures, shot with shutter speeds less than a second, where the unmodded Canons usually take 2 seconds or more. A matter of the internal IR blocker variations most likely.

edited to add: forgot to comment on your question about Big Bend. My experience in shooting rocky environments has been that there is little contrast between the reflectivity of IR light between the rocks and the plant life that usually grows there. So it, can become kind of a jumble in the image. As always, the image is totally dependent on the reflectivity of the objects in the scene.

heres an image I shot at Wichita Wildlife Refuge in Okla., where the granite and the plant life kind of all look the same. A lot of this is rocks, as lot is trees and grasses. I still like the image, but show it to you as an example of what I'm saying.



Thanks for the links.

-=- Jerry -=-
/*

[xseption]

Thanks DEM for the Links!

I like your picture Jerry just because of the sky vs land vs lake (or river) contrasts ... almost an abstract piece

[PeteQ]

Great links! I am really interested in doing some of this type photography.

[jerrykr]

If you want to play with IR without buying a filter there are a couple of things that you could do cheaply.

If you can find an old floppy diskette, you can take it apart and cut a circle of the recording surface big enough to make a "filter" for your lens. You can rig it onto the lens with tape. I do not know which magnetic media type is best, you would just have to give what you have a try. You also might need to find an old 5.25 or 8 inch to get a piece big enough.

You can also do the same thing with a piece of B&W negative film that has been exposed and developed. Maybe your favorite film lab could give you a piece to play with.

Both of these will do as a fairly acceptable IR Pass filter. Your images will be a bit soft, as normally you would only use optical quality glass for a filter, but since you are just playing around, you can accept the degradation.

There is one other thing that I know of that works, but with a DSLR might be a real problem to adjust. You can get a fairly acceptable IR Pass effect from 2 polerizers. A linear and a CP can be stacked, and if you turn them to where the polerization "crosses" between the 2 filters, you get mostly IR light thru the filters, and block color. I think this really would only work on a camera with a realtime LCD, where you could see to fine adjust the two filters.

Just a couple of ideas, without sepnding a lot of money initially.

-=- Jerry -=-
/*

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

One of the links talks about ways to take IR shots without a filter and the author talks about using 120 or medium format exposed film stock for that purpose-gives you a big enough piece of film to use. Also talks about the 2 polarizer filters-with a SLR you pretty much turn the two filters to where they cross each other out or the image is as black as possible in the viewfinder.

One thing that they do bring up is that you need to focus in advance before putting the filters on since they tend to block so much light.

Also came across a brand of filters that I had not heard of before from Germany they are the B+W line which is manufactured by the same people who make Schnieder lenses.
http://www.schneideroptics.com/filte...l_photography/
Knowing the quality of their lenses is extremely high this would indicate that their filters probably are also. (B+W does not stand for Balck and White).

I wonder what layering a desaturated pic with an IR pic could do? (just need to shoot both with a solid tripod set up over a short time period-do the non-IR bracketed shots and then the IR shots also possibley bracketed.)

What about using a heat lamp as a light source in studio for a different kind of portrait?
What about shooting by campfire?
There are all sorts of possibilities!