ernesto
Well-known
Hello,
I am trying to understand Digital Infra Red Photography with an M8, and I have read this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57158&highlight=infra+reda couple of questions:
And I still have a question:
Is the M8 specially good for this purpose, or there are better choises for IR photography?
Thanks in advance for any help!
Ernesto
I am trying to understand Digital Infra Red Photography with an M8, and I have read this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57158&highlight=infra+reda couple of questions:
And I still have a question:
Is the M8 specially good for this purpose, or there are better choises for IR photography?
Thanks in advance for any help!
Ernesto
Last edited:
benmacphoto
Well-known
The M8 has a higher sensitivity to IR light due to the fact that there is not a IR blocking filter on the sensor. Other cameras need to be modified sometimes in order to get good IR images, though using a Nikon D50 and an IR filter a few years ago I made some great images.
Chris101
summicronia
In short, there are probably better choices for infrared photography.
However (beginning of the long answer) the M8 (I don't have one, but I know about them) is very sensitive to infrared as digital cameras go. All CCD based digital cameras are sensitive to IR light - it's just the nature of a CCD sensor. Most digital cameras (including the M8) put a bluish piece of glass, called a "hot mirror" in front of the sensor to exclude infrared light, as it can effect the color of various objects, notably cotton cloth and foliage. These "hot mirror" filters vary in strength. The one incorporated in the M8 is particularly weak - that is, it doesn't exclude a lot of the IR. This is the reason that Leica sends IR cut filters (external "hot mirrors") to those customers who want to exclude more IR. So, as digital cameras go, the M8 is very sensitive to IR light.
An IR filter is an opaque (or nearly so) filter that lets IR light through, but blocks visible light. By placing one of these over the lens of an M8 camera, only IR light reaches the sensor. This is what gives the IR effect (light foliage and clothing, dark skies and water) that you see in these pictures. Some other cameras that also have weak internal IR filters so that IR pictures (with an IR filter) can be taken hand held are Nikon's D100, CP950 and the Sony 717. The M8 has better specs that any of these and has excellent lenses available, so it DOES make a good IR camera - if you want to shoot IR only occasionally.
However, the BEST way to shoot digital IR is with an IR converted camera. IR conversion involves removing the internal "hot mirror" filter and replacing it with an IR filter. That way the sensor will see only IR light. Unfortunately, a converted camera will no longer be able to take regular color pictures. (Replacing the internal filter IS reversible, but it is an expensive, and time consuming operation.) Converted cameras are easily hand-held, often more sensitive than the original visible light incarnation.
I have a Nikon D70 that was converted for IR use. I shoot it as I would any normal camera, and usually the picture turns out fine. But the IR content of light is not always obvious. So with the IR camera, I pay close attention to the histogram of the picture, and adjust the exposure accordingly. Strong sunlight, tungsten light and flash has a lot of IR and makes good illumination. Golden hour light, although rich in red, can be weak in IR, as are CFL bulbs and regular fluorescents. Computer screens (and TVs) have almost no IR at all.
My preferred IR medium is film, however the BEST IR film, Kodak's HIE is no longer made, and my refrigerated supply is dwindling. This film was so sensitive to IR, and insensitive to green (and other visible) light, that it only required a red filter, not the usual opaque IR (Wratten 89B, or 87) filters. The best current IR film is Fotokemica's (Efke, Mako, etc.) Aura. It has many of the same characteristics as HIE, but lacks it's insensitivity to green, and it's speed.
So, back to the short answer, the M8 is not the best camera for full time IR photography, a converted camera is, but for occasional IR with the majority of photos taken in visible light, it's a good one.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The M8 is the best digital option for IR photography. The advantage over a converted DSLR with just the hot filter removed is that one can actually use the viewfinder and focus when the IR filter is mounted on the lens. Only a dedicated IR camera is more practical, as the previous poster mentions. But then you are into serious money and a camera that is not suited to normal photography.
Last edited:
sunsworth
Well-known
The M8 is an excellent IR camera. A couple of examples I took the other week...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39877124@N05/3694909059/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39877124@N05/3667843111/sizes/o/
The images from the camera have a magenta caste, so need to be desaturated to give b&w. Also the focussing on the lens needs to be adjusted as IR light doesn't focus to the same distance as visible light. Both those shots were taken with a Voigtlander 25mm lens set to 2 metres. These were taken with a B+W 093 filter which is opaque to visible light.
Here's another one that should appear inline...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39877124@N05/3694909059/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39877124@N05/3667843111/sizes/o/
The images from the camera have a magenta caste, so need to be desaturated to give b&w. Also the focussing on the lens needs to be adjusted as IR light doesn't focus to the same distance as visible light. Both those shots were taken with a Voigtlander 25mm lens set to 2 metres. These were taken with a B+W 093 filter which is opaque to visible light.
Here's another one that should appear inline...
Last edited:
I guess it depends on what you are after.
I've converted a Nikon Coolpix to Infrared. The electronic viewfinder allows you to see the infrared image.
I've converted a Nikon Coolpix to Infrared. The electronic viewfinder allows you to see the infrared image.
sunsworth
Well-known
The advantage the M8 has is that you get true IR photography for the price of a filter. No need to modify the camera, and it can continue to be used as a 'normal' camera as required.
If I pick up an M8, I'll be shooting IR with it. Use a Collapsible Summicron as the IR index is within the F2 DOF marks. I have a full set of Kodak Wratten filters for IR.
The Nikon Coolpix conversion was a 30 minute job. Parts available from Anchor Optical. The cost of the Nikon was about that of a filter. It also has the advantage of shooting visible+infrared, like Infrared Ektachrome. With the proper set of wratten filters, you can get an Infrared Ektachrome E4 look.
Again, "Best Camera" for Infrared is a wide-term. "Best for What Type of Infrared". My first Digital Infrared Sensor went out to 9um. That was in 1981. It was big. The first store-bought Digital Infrared Camera was a 1992 Kodak DCS200ir. I called Kodak to have them leave the IR cut filter off of the CCD. They had not made one like that, and joked they spent all there time trying to get rid of IR to make it look like a visible photograph. They called back later to tell me they would do it. Extra $4000.
Now, if Leica would leave the IR cut filter off of the M8, THAT would be a really good V-NIR camera.
The Nikon Coolpix conversion was a 30 minute job. Parts available from Anchor Optical. The cost of the Nikon was about that of a filter. It also has the advantage of shooting visible+infrared, like Infrared Ektachrome. With the proper set of wratten filters, you can get an Infrared Ektachrome E4 look.
Again, "Best Camera" for Infrared is a wide-term. "Best for What Type of Infrared". My first Digital Infrared Sensor went out to 9um. That was in 1981. It was big. The first store-bought Digital Infrared Camera was a 1992 Kodak DCS200ir. I called Kodak to have them leave the IR cut filter off of the CCD. They had not made one like that, and joked they spent all there time trying to get rid of IR to make it look like a visible photograph. They called back later to tell me they would do it. Extra $4000.
Now, if Leica would leave the IR cut filter off of the M8, THAT would be a really good V-NIR camera.
Just an example of some experimentation with the Converted camera. I used a Kodak Wratten series filter to notch out Green from the image. I've got the old databooks from the 1960s that show the bandpass for the Wratten series.
Not for everyone, but a lot of fun for a $100 camera.
Nikki likes "The Martian Camera".
Much more interesting than flying an Infrared Sensor on a P3 Orion looking at jet aircraft.
Not for everyone, but a lot of fun for a $100 camera.
Nikki likes "The Martian Camera".
Much more interesting than flying an Infrared Sensor on a P3 Orion looking at jet aircraft.
Last edited:
Tom Niblick
Well-known
I find the M8 IR capture to be conservative, which I think is a good thing. Skies are darker, foliage and skin is lighter, but not exceptionally so. Certainly not as extreme as the old Kodak film - which gave you 36 shots per body since you had to load and unload in the dark (okay, okay, you could bring along a changing bag). Overall, I like the IR images the M8 produces and the ease of use.
Tom
Tom
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The M8 is an excellent IR camera. A couple of examples I took the other week...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39877124@N05/3694909059/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39877124@N05/3667843111/sizes/o/
The images from the camera have a magenta caste, so need to be desaturated to give b&w. Also the focussing on the lens needs to be adjusted as IR light doesn't focus to the same distance as visible light. Both those shots were taken with a Voigtlander 25mm lens set to 2 metres. These were taken with a B+W 093 filter which is opaque to visible light.
Here's another one that should appear inline...
Very nice Steve, but might I suggest converting to B&W in C1 instead of simply desaturating. The "yellow Filter" profile gives spectacular results.
ernesto
Well-known
Thank You all for such a feed back!
Specially to Cris101 for your detailed analisis!
Anyway I have one more question, regardind IR sensitivity:
I liked the idea of a converted camera, mainly because it could increase light sensitivity as result of removing the build in filter that covers the CCD sensor, and I will probably do that in the future, anyway as a first step, I will go with an unmodified camera with IR filter.
I am specially interested in hand held shots, so I wouldn´t be able to use long exposures, and I am also interested in using the deep IR filters that block out all visible light, letting in only true IR rays. (the one that blocks all rays under 830)
I am aware that this last requirement would reduce the amount of light that reaches the sensor.
So here comes the question:
Will I be able to shot hand held IR photographs (at daylight) using such an IR filter, on an unmodified camera?
Ernesto
Specially to Cris101 for your detailed analisis!
Anyway I have one more question, regardind IR sensitivity:
I liked the idea of a converted camera, mainly because it could increase light sensitivity as result of removing the build in filter that covers the CCD sensor, and I will probably do that in the future, anyway as a first step, I will go with an unmodified camera with IR filter.
I am specially interested in hand held shots, so I wouldn´t be able to use long exposures, and I am also interested in using the deep IR filters that block out all visible light, letting in only true IR rays. (the one that blocks all rays under 830)
I am aware that this last requirement would reduce the amount of light that reaches the sensor.
So here comes the question:
Will I be able to shot hand held IR photographs (at daylight) using such an IR filter, on an unmodified camera?
Ernesto
Chris101
summicronia
I do not know of a filter that cuts that deep. An 87C is probably the deepest filter available commercially. Most of my work has been done with 25, 29 and 89B filters, all of which go into the visible red (89B only slightly - many people cannot see through it at all.)
By 750nm, all of the dyes used for Bayer filters incorporated into sensors become transparent, so images shot through 87 and 87C filters are monochromatic. 89B filters yield false color digital IR, as do the red filters when used with film (but not digital.)
On my Coolpix, an 89B would let me shoot up to 1/30th of a second in sunlight, but only 1/8 of a second with the D100. As I am not a 'sharpness freak' I consider this hand-holdable, but barely.
Examples of CP950 with 89B.
Examples of D100 with 89B.
By 750nm, all of the dyes used for Bayer filters incorporated into sensors become transparent, so images shot through 87 and 87C filters are monochromatic. 89B filters yield false color digital IR, as do the red filters when used with film (but not digital.)
On my Coolpix, an 89B would let me shoot up to 1/30th of a second in sunlight, but only 1/8 of a second with the D100. As I am not a 'sharpness freak' I consider this hand-holdable, but barely.
Examples of CP950 with 89B.
Examples of D100 with 89B.
Last edited:
ernesto
Well-known
I see...
So I must expect long exposures if I am going to use the 87c or BLACK FILTER, on a non converted camera.
Here I am pasting the filter chart as well as the link in order to clarify the filter names.
(I get prety confused with so many diferent brand names or specs, so I have to look at the chart to be sure of what we are talking about) Just in case the red line is the filter I am interested to use.
Filter info from http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/
Wratten / Schott / B+W / Hoya / Tiffen 0% 50% Remarks
#25 OG590 090 25A 25 580 nm 600 nm Really a red filter
#29 RG630 091 - 29 600 nm 620 nm Dark red
#70 RG665 - - - 640 nm 680 nm Very dark red
#89B RG695 092 R72 - 680 nm 720 nm Almost "black", but not quite
#88A RG715 - - - 720 nm 750 nm I've never seen this one
#87 RG780 - - 87 740 nm 795 nm Cuts off all visible light
#87C RG830 093 - - 790 nm 850 nm Usually called "black"
#87B RG850 - RM90 - 820 nm 930 nm Expensive! $250 & up!
#87A RG1000 094 RM100 - 880 nm 1050nm Blocks even some of infrared
So I must expect long exposures if I am going to use the 87c or BLACK FILTER, on a non converted camera.
Here I am pasting the filter chart as well as the link in order to clarify the filter names.
(I get prety confused with so many diferent brand names or specs, so I have to look at the chart to be sure of what we are talking about) Just in case the red line is the filter I am interested to use.
Filter info from http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/
Wratten / Schott / B+W / Hoya / Tiffen 0% 50% Remarks
#25 OG590 090 25A 25 580 nm 600 nm Really a red filter
#29 RG630 091 - 29 600 nm 620 nm Dark red
#70 RG665 - - - 640 nm 680 nm Very dark red
#89B RG695 092 R72 - 680 nm 720 nm Almost "black", but not quite
#88A RG715 - - - 720 nm 750 nm I've never seen this one
#87 RG780 - - 87 740 nm 795 nm Cuts off all visible light
#87C RG830 093 - - 790 nm 850 nm Usually called "black"
#87B RG850 - RM90 - 820 nm 930 nm Expensive! $250 & up!
#87A RG1000 094 RM100 - 880 nm 1050nm Blocks even some of infrared
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
On the M8 emphatically yes. Even AE will work.
For lens compatablity see here:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257
Tom Niblick
Well-known
Using 92 filters on a M8, I get exposures around 2.8/90 to 4/60 at ISO 640. Add a stop or so for bright beach days. Certainly hand holdable.
Tom
Tom
sunsworth
Well-known
The photograph I posted above - which was with a 093 filter - i.e. opaque to visible light - was 1/20th at f5.6 and ISO 640. This is with a 25 mm lens, so there shouldn't be a problem hand holding provided you have a reasonably steady hand.
ernesto
Well-known
ernesto
Well-known
Thanks you all! again, for your valuable feedback!
And thanks Jaap, for your lens recomendation.
I wasn´t aware of the spot effect until now!
E
And thanks Jaap, for your lens recomendation.
I wasn´t aware of the spot effect until now!
E
ernesto
Well-known
Here I have made a list, of lens
No Hotspot:
Leica 21mm 2.8 Pre asph
Leica 21mm Asph
Zeiss 28mm 2.8 Biogon
Leica 50mm 1.4 Summilux preasph
Leica 50mm Summarit
Leica 75mm 1.4 Summilux
Leica 90mm Summarit
Leica 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit "Thin" version
Leica Tri-Elmar 28/35/50
50mm Noctilux
135mm f4 tele-elmarit
CV 35mm 1.4 SC
CV 50mm 1.5 Nokton
Leica 75 2.0 APO Summicron
Tri-Elmar classic
Avenon 21mm f2.8 (Kobalux)
CV 15mm Heliar
24 mm Elmar 3.8
Hotspot:
Zeiss 18mm
Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Biogon
Leica 24mm Asph
Leica 28mm Cron
Leica 35mm 1.4 asph
Zeiss 50mm 1.5 Sonnar
Leica 90mm 2.0 APO
24mm ASPH
35mm Summicron ASPH
Leica 28 2.0 ASPH Summicron
Leica 28mm chron ASPH
12mm Voigtlander
Leica 21mm Elmarit ASPH - NO HOTSPOT (but significant vignetting which is to be expeced)
19mm R (latest version)
Note that this list was made with users reports, in this forum: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257 suggested by Jaap, and the meaning of HotSpot may differ from user to usr, so, you may need to try yourself to make sure it will be usefull for your purpose.
Ernesto
No Hotspot:
Leica 21mm 2.8 Pre asph
Leica 21mm Asph
Zeiss 28mm 2.8 Biogon
Leica 50mm 1.4 Summilux preasph
Leica 50mm Summarit
Leica 75mm 1.4 Summilux
Leica 90mm Summarit
Leica 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit "Thin" version
Leica Tri-Elmar 28/35/50
50mm Noctilux
135mm f4 tele-elmarit
CV 35mm 1.4 SC
CV 50mm 1.5 Nokton
Leica 75 2.0 APO Summicron
Tri-Elmar classic
Avenon 21mm f2.8 (Kobalux)
CV 15mm Heliar
24 mm Elmar 3.8
Hotspot:
Zeiss 18mm
Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Biogon
Leica 24mm Asph
Leica 28mm Cron
Leica 35mm 1.4 asph
Zeiss 50mm 1.5 Sonnar
Leica 90mm 2.0 APO
24mm ASPH
35mm Summicron ASPH
Leica 28 2.0 ASPH Summicron
Leica 28mm chron ASPH
12mm Voigtlander
Leica 21mm Elmarit ASPH - NO HOTSPOT (but significant vignetting which is to be expeced)
19mm R (latest version)
Note that this list was made with users reports, in this forum: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257 suggested by Jaap, and the meaning of HotSpot may differ from user to usr, so, you may need to try yourself to make sure it will be usefull for your purpose.
Ernesto