jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes, there is a whole list on GetDPI.com. It is indeed well know that aperture is an important factor. I have two question marks by your test:
1.the Summilux you used was uncoded. That means the camera did not correct the natural vigetting of the lens ( about 1 to 1 1/2 stop at medium apertures). Tha makes it hard to judge the hot spot.
2.What filter did you use? It makes a difference in hot spots.
Last edited:
GlennB
Member
Now I'm confused ! I thought it was the 092 that was dark red and the 093 looked completely opaque. Could you check your filter # for me ?
RuedigerMerz
Member
Thanks Barry, but they are just test images.
I saw you web site. I find your occupation very interesting. Although I am not an Instrument maker like you, I love musical instruments. In particular Pianos.
Jaap,
I did use the B+W 092 IR 695 Filter. I just started in IR. It is quite an interesting field of photography. Regarding the focusing; I tried to adjust my lenses to the different focusing of IR. But I found out that this is actually impossible. Different focal point seam to have different adjustments. So, I focus bracket the images, as you do. It's not difficult in digital IR.
Btw, very nice images. I especially like the first one.
Rudy
I saw you web site. I find your occupation very interesting. Although I am not an Instrument maker like you, I love musical instruments. In particular Pianos. Jaap,
I did use the B+W 092 IR 695 Filter. I just started in IR. It is quite an interesting field of photography. Regarding the focusing; I tried to adjust my lenses to the different focusing of IR. But I found out that this is actually impossible. Different focal point seam to have different adjustments. So, I focus bracket the images, as you do. It's not difficult in digital IR.
Btw, very nice images. I especially like the first one.
Rudy
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I may well be mistaken; it has been years since I looked it up. I'll have to dig out the B&W catalogue, there are spectral curves in there.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I may well be mistaken; it has been years since I looked it up. I'll have to dig out the B&W catalogue, there are spectral curves in there. Anyway, the filter I use is the 093.
laptoprob
back to basics
093 blocks out visible light completely, allowing only IR through. 092 is about the same as the R72, these allow deep red as well. Still figuring this IR out myself as well...
GlennB
Member
Jaap, Thanks for checking your filter #.
After researching the web and B&H photo, it seems the 093 is the opaque one, blocking the entire visible spectrum. B&H/B+W states the "093 starts transmission around 800 nm rising to 88% at 900 nm ... causing the dramatic loss of effective ISO"
One website says that the Kodak sensor/cover glass combo used in the M8 was best for IR in the 650-730 nm range.
Looking at your images using the 093 seems to bring that site's info into question.
I guess why a lot of posters are using the 092 is so that a tripod is not required ? Maybe for different tonality ?
I'm still trying to decide which one to order.
Glenn
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
You don't need a tripod with the 093 either....These shots were taken at about 1/20 , f5.6 ,ISO 640. And the amount of IR was not that high, it was at 5 in the afternoon. At midday I would have dropped ISO to 320 or even 160 and shot handheld.
Last edited:
D&A
Well-known
Hi Jaap,
Nice IR Images...especially the first one (windmill)! One question....I didn't see it mentioned, but before you worked on the image by adjusting "tone and curves"...did you shot color with the M8 and then convert the color jpegs into B&W or set the M8 to shoot B&W to begin with? I've been playing around with IR recently and in some instances, taking the image in color first and then converting to B&W seemed to give me more control over tonality. Yet in a few images, shooting in B&W gave what I would term...a better balanced image.
Dave (D&A)
Nice IR Images...especially the first one (windmill)! One question....I didn't see it mentioned, but before you worked on the image by adjusting "tone and curves"...did you shot color with the M8 and then convert the color jpegs into B&W or set the M8 to shoot B&W to begin with? I've been playing around with IR recently and in some instances, taking the image in color first and then converting to B&W seemed to give me more control over tonality. Yet in a few images, shooting in B&W gave what I would term...a better balanced image.
Dave (D&A)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
You cannot set an M8 to shoot B&W if you use RAW (as you should). You can shoot DNG+jpg and use the jpg if you feel like it, but there will always be a full-colour DNG.
D&A
Well-known
Hi Jaap,
Thanks for your response. I think my question might have been misunderstood. I realize to shoot B&W with the M8, one has to shoot jpegs. What I was asking was when you shoot B&W IR with the M8...do you first prefer to shoot a color IR pic and then convert to B&W (and adjust from there)...or set the M8 to shoot a B&W IR pic (jpeg) and work from there. I found each has it's advantage to get to the endpoint of a B&W IR image...depending on subject and lighting. Thanks!
Dave (D&A)
Thanks for your response. I think my question might have been misunderstood. I realize to shoot B&W with the M8, one has to shoot jpegs. What I was asking was when you shoot B&W IR with the M8...do you first prefer to shoot a color IR pic and then convert to B&W (and adjust from there)...or set the M8 to shoot a B&W IR pic (jpeg) and work from there. I found each has it's advantage to get to the endpoint of a B&W IR image...depending on subject and lighting. Thanks!
Dave (D&A)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I agree. So I always, when doing IR, shoot DNG+jpg fine, to have a choice.
D&A
Well-known
Hi Jaap,
Thanks...and your approach makes perfect sense and gives, as you indicated a choice .
Thanks...and your approach makes perfect sense and gives, as you indicated a choice .
Ricko of Fla
Established
I just received a 093 and testing it out. I did a custom white balance, shooting a bright grassy area. Did you use a custom white balance ?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No. White balance is totally irrelevant. You convert to B&W anyway, or do some extremely drastic postprocessing if you want to stay in colour (but you need RAW for that). Try reversing the Magenta-Green curve (A-channel) in LAB.
David Murphy
Veteran
Jaap, those photos are stunning
D&A
Well-known
Hi All,
What I am finding both from my brief experience with the M8 and a Hoya R72 IR filter...is that with the R72 filter specifically, it been near impossible so far to get the "white trees/blue skies" effect thats often seen with color IR images. It seems for false color IR as I just described, the B&W 092 lets in far more visable light (along with UV) than the Hoya R72. With the R72, color images are predominantly red/magenta and no amount of photoshop adjustment so far has been able to give me blue skies ( with white-slightly magenta leaves)...nothing even close. Both filters are excellent for B&W IR, with the R72 having a bit stornger effect.
In contrast B&W's 093 filter lets virtually no visable light in...so almost little or no false color IR images can be achieved with the 093 BUT....but striking black skies with shimmering white follage B&W IR images are obtained (with the 093). Just some observations so far.
If anyone has been able to use a Hoya R72 and been able to achieve nice false color IR images..I'd love to hear of their experiences. Thanks!
Dave (D&A)
What I am finding both from my brief experience with the M8 and a Hoya R72 IR filter...is that with the R72 filter specifically, it been near impossible so far to get the "white trees/blue skies" effect thats often seen with color IR images. It seems for false color IR as I just described, the B&W 092 lets in far more visable light (along with UV) than the Hoya R72. With the R72, color images are predominantly red/magenta and no amount of photoshop adjustment so far has been able to give me blue skies ( with white-slightly magenta leaves)...nothing even close. Both filters are excellent for B&W IR, with the R72 having a bit stornger effect.
In contrast B&W's 093 filter lets virtually no visable light in...so almost little or no false color IR images can be achieved with the 093 BUT....but striking black skies with shimmering white follage B&W IR images are obtained (with the 093). Just some observations so far.
If anyone has been able to use a Hoya R72 and been able to achieve nice false color IR images..I'd love to hear of their experiences. Thanks!
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
GlennB
Member
D&A,
I don't have your answer, But back in the day (college) when I messed around with Ektachrome IR color slide film (also called FALSE color Infrared) I used a medium orange filter on my lenses. (I seem to remember that to achieve True color IR , one would have to keep the film (NOT the Ektachrome slide IR mentioned above) near or at freezing. ) Anyway, If you do find your answer please post it here ! But I bet the answer is going to be a Photoshop app / plug-in or the like.
I don't have your answer, But back in the day (college) when I messed around with Ektachrome IR color slide film (also called FALSE color Infrared) I used a medium orange filter on my lenses. (I seem to remember that to achieve True color IR , one would have to keep the film (NOT the Ektachrome slide IR mentioned above) near or at freezing. ) Anyway, If you do find your answer please post it here ! But I bet the answer is going to be a Photoshop app / plug-in or the like.
Last edited:
D&A
Well-known
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for your response. Regarding my post directly abouve yours...I would partially agree that phtooshop work or actions will be part of the solution but as I mentioned in the example I gave (in my post directly above yours)...no degree of photoshop manipulation would bring back attractive "false color" IR images with the R72 filter...except maybe a "single toned image". I'd be interested to see what others might say or have experienced themselves with any of these filters....especially the R72.
Dave (D&A)
Thanks for your response. Regarding my post directly abouve yours...I would partially agree that phtooshop work or actions will be part of the solution but as I mentioned in the example I gave (in my post directly above yours)...no degree of photoshop manipulation would bring back attractive "false color" IR images with the R72 filter...except maybe a "single toned image". I'd be interested to see what others might say or have experienced themselves with any of these filters....especially the R72.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
GlennB
Member
D&A,
I'm wondering if the color IR images you've seen are from the Kodak IR color slide film, which would give a blue-green sky and red foliage. If so, here is a link to info for that film.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/ti2323/ti2323.pdf
And a link for digital camera IR info.
http://dpfwiw.com/ir.htm
And a link to a site that i found that shows an image with purple sky and a white tree using a R72 .
http://hownikkiseesit.blogspot.com/2009/05/branches-vs-infrared.html
I'm not sure but I think the IR photos with blue-green skies are the result of the IR sensitive color dye layers Kodak used in their slide film. Kodak assigned colors (dyes) to give color results from the wave lengths they were sensitized for. I think that if they had wanted to, Kodak could have make the resulting images have skies and foliage with ANY colors desired. What I'm trying to say is that IR sensitized film and digital sensors just don't see IR/colors the same way. I believe what we see with our digital sensors is closer to True infrared, sensors with the IR block cover glass/filter removed, closer still. But still dependent on how sensitive to IR the sensor is, and how the in-camera image processing is handled. I believe that TRUE infrared is probably hues of gray (not that we can see it), and closer to B&W IR film results. That's why I think that a plug-in might be needed to produce the look you're after, such as a plug-in that would change green into red, blue into dark blue-green or what ever color change you would want.
Hope the links above get you closer to your answer, and please post your findings !!
Glenn
I'm wondering if the color IR images you've seen are from the Kodak IR color slide film, which would give a blue-green sky and red foliage. If so, here is a link to info for that film.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/ti2323/ti2323.pdf
And a link for digital camera IR info.
http://dpfwiw.com/ir.htm
And a link to a site that i found that shows an image with purple sky and a white tree using a R72 .
http://hownikkiseesit.blogspot.com/2009/05/branches-vs-infrared.html
I'm not sure but I think the IR photos with blue-green skies are the result of the IR sensitive color dye layers Kodak used in their slide film. Kodak assigned colors (dyes) to give color results from the wave lengths they were sensitized for. I think that if they had wanted to, Kodak could have make the resulting images have skies and foliage with ANY colors desired. What I'm trying to say is that IR sensitized film and digital sensors just don't see IR/colors the same way. I believe what we see with our digital sensors is closer to True infrared, sensors with the IR block cover glass/filter removed, closer still. But still dependent on how sensitive to IR the sensor is, and how the in-camera image processing is handled. I believe that TRUE infrared is probably hues of gray (not that we can see it), and closer to B&W IR film results. That's why I think that a plug-in might be needed to produce the look you're after, such as a plug-in that would change green into red, blue into dark blue-green or what ever color change you would want.
Hope the links above get you closer to your answer, and please post your findings !!
Glenn
Last edited: