Lord Fluff
Established
Guys, I have to say, I don't get it.
I keep seeing stuff posted here in colour which clearly wasn't shot using an IR cut filter. Sometimes I like the shot, but I for one just immediately see the IR problem.
I don't wish to sound like I'm attacking anyone, I'm just intrigued - do you not look at the results and think 'oh, that would have been a nice shot, but the colours are terrible' ?
I'm a couple of filters short as I only just got an M8 and I'm enjoying having a play, but there's no way I'd post pics that are clearly suffering from 'magenta madness'......
I keep seeing stuff posted here in colour which clearly wasn't shot using an IR cut filter. Sometimes I like the shot, but I for one just immediately see the IR problem.
I don't wish to sound like I'm attacking anyone, I'm just intrigued - do you not look at the results and think 'oh, that would have been a nice shot, but the colours are terrible' ?
I'm a couple of filters short as I only just got an M8 and I'm enjoying having a play, but there's no way I'd post pics that are clearly suffering from 'magenta madness'......
willie_901
Veteran
LF,
I agree with you completely. IR contamination artifacts are distracting. The magenta problem is the most obvious, but there are significant issues with any subject where an IR light source is present.
I agree with you completely. IR contamination artifacts are distracting. The magenta problem is the most obvious, but there are significant issues with any subject where an IR light source is present.
ampguy
Veteran
examples??
Sometimes I really like shooting without an IR filter for color.
Magenta Cast? What's That?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
:angel:Get cured now, I have a 62mm IR-cut filter for sale, PM me if interested. Fits the M-Hex 50/1.2 and the Nocti with a step-up ring!:angel:
ampguy
Veteran
Lord Fluff
Established
Take a stroll through any of the image thread stickies and you'll find plenty of purple flavoured pics.
RichC
Well-known
And of course it depends what you shoot. The Leica M8 has been my only camera for the past two and a half years, yet I've used IR filters only about a dozen times.
If you click on the "Tempus fugit" link in my signature, you'll see my last exhibition - most of the photos were taken with my M8 without a filter, and none suffer from IR colour contamination.
That said, I do carry my filters with me just in case, e.g. I may need them to fix skin tones in portraits taken indoors in tungsten lighting.
And even if there is IR contamination, it may not matter: unless it detracts from the photograph in some way, does it matter if a dark-red jacket was black in reality?
If you click on the "Tempus fugit" link in my signature, you'll see my last exhibition - most of the photos were taken with my M8 without a filter, and none suffer from IR colour contamination.
That said, I do carry my filters with me just in case, e.g. I may need them to fix skin tones in portraits taken indoors in tungsten lighting.
And even if there is IR contamination, it may not matter: unless it detracts from the photograph in some way, does it matter if a dark-red jacket was black in reality?
Tom Niblick
Well-known
I use IR blocking filters 99% of the time but, since I only have one 46 mm filter and two lenses that use 46 mm filters, once in a while I'll switch lenses and accidentally shoot without a filter. Unless the subject is wearing black polyester clothing, I'm hard pressed to see the difference most of the time.
This is especially true with my 21 mm lens which I shot unfiltered and uncoded for the first 6 months. Perhaps the greens in foliage may have been truer but they sure looked good. However, shooting with my 90 Elmarit M occasionally made skin tones seem ruddier when I went filterless.
Over all, I think if you look for a difference, you will find it but in the grand scheme of things, other than purplish blacks, its not that big of a deal.
Here's a early M8/90 shot without a filter. The skirt was black.
Tom
This is especially true with my 21 mm lens which I shot unfiltered and uncoded for the first 6 months. Perhaps the greens in foliage may have been truer but they sure looked good. However, shooting with my 90 Elmarit M occasionally made skin tones seem ruddier when I went filterless.
Over all, I think if you look for a difference, you will find it but in the grand scheme of things, other than purplish blacks, its not that big of a deal.
Here's a early M8/90 shot without a filter. The skirt was black.
Tom
Just set your tricorders to scan for Infrared and use the filters when you see an anomaly.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84825&highlight=infrared
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84825&highlight=infrared
I'm a believer now, but I went on a guided tour taking no IR filters for the M8. Mostly, there was no visible effect, sometimes that magenta fabric issue, sometimes foliage a bit brighter and yellower. But the worst was indoors in incandescent light. Here's a sample of the JPG straight from the camera, and the same shot with white point set on the white paper on the first table.
Attachments
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
I'm confused
I'm confused
Is one photo without the filter, and one with?
I'm confused
Is one photo without the filter, and one with?
I'm a believer now, but I went on a guided tour taking no IR filters for the M8. Mostly, there was no visible effect, sometimes that magenta fabric issue, sometimes foliage a bit brighter and yellower. But the worst was indoors in incandescent light. Here's a sample of the JPG straight from the camera, and the same shot with white point set on the white paper on the first table.
ampguy
Veteran
maggieo
More Deadly
I shoot my 35/3.5 Summaron sans IR filter (no threads on the lens) and have found Jamie Roberts' color profiles for Capture One to work quite well in taming the IR beast, while still delivering gorgeous colors.
Here's a shot from this weekend, of my pal Nick, inspecting a restored Gibson Firebird that belongs to one of his co-workers:
Here's a shot from this weekend, of my pal Nick, inspecting a restored Gibson Firebird that belongs to one of his co-workers:
The secondary reason for using an IR filter is to produce a sharper image. The Infrared "sub-image" is not as well corrected. It's the counterpart to UV in the film world. Film is sensitive to UV light, it contaminates the image, changes colors, and is not as well defined. It blurs the image.
Think I'll open a thread "Film Users: No UV Filter? Really?"
Think I'll open a thread "Film Users: No UV Filter? Really?"
RichC
Well-known
True, but the Leica M8 even without an IR filter produces images that match or exceed any dSLR, even current models, and the extra minor increase in resolution gained by using an IR filter isn't evident in prints - or in greatly enlarged images. Also, my photo agency requires 50 MB files, equivalent to an 18 MP image with a long edge of over 5000 pixels, and despite the Leica M8 being only 10 MP, the agency is more than happy with the resampled files (they will usually only accept resampled files from cameras of 12 MP or higher).
The reason I avoid IR filters - or any filter come to that - unless I specifically need it for a particular situation is that I always seem to be shooting in awkward lighting, and when using a filter I end up with horrible reflections in my images caused by reflections off the filter.
IR filters are especially prone to reflections, as the IR coating is not anti-reflective.
Lord Fluff
Established
Maybe it's because people are in 95% of my pics that I notice the colours are screwy - varying between slightly and very dependent on lighting, but screwy never the less...
Lord Fluff
Established
An interesting claim which I'd love to see substantiated. I'm not saying it's incorrect, though I imagine it would come with a lot of strings attached.
Put an equivalent piece of Leica glass on a Canon 1DsIII and I'd love to see how it can even be possible for the M8 to match or exceed it.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Problem is - you would not see it. In the high end, the differences are so small that you need extreme pixelpeeping to get a demonstrable effect - and in print - never.