Digital BW, The Print

As promised I did some more experimenting with the R-D1 and a R72 (89B) filter.

I have posted seven images all shot at ISO 200 or 400 (to be compared with other shot at ISO 1600).

The noise, as expected, is generally lower but there appears to be horizontal banding in areas of constant gray density (i.e., skies). This seems to be more pronounced at ISO 200 then at ISO 400 but either way is not good. 

I used Photoshop to minimize this banding as best I could but it's not always easy to do.

Next, I will do a series at ISO 800 (always +1 1/3 IE) to see what kind of results I get.

New low ISO images: http://www.leica-gallery.net/dlk/folder-8628.html

Older ISO 1600 images: http://www.leica-gallery.net/dlk/folder-8585.html

Your comment on the images and/or the technique are encouraged.

Dave.
-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 4/16/2006

> From: David Keenan
>
> As promised I did some more experimenting with the R-D1 and a R72
> (89B) filter.
>
> I have posted seven images all shot at ISO 200 or 400 (to be
> compared with other shot at ISO 1600).
>
> The noise, as expected, is generally lower but there appears to
> be horizontal banding in areas of constant gray density (i.e.,
> skies). This seems to be more pronounced at ISO 200 then at ISO
> 400 but either way is not good.
>
> I used Photoshop to minimize this banding as best I could but
> it's not always easy to do.
>
> Next, I will do a series at ISO 800 (always +1 1/3 IE) to see
> what kind of results I get.
>
> New low ISO images: http://www.leica-gallery.net/dlk/folder-8628.html
>
> Older ISO 1600 images: http://www.leica-gallery.net/dlk/folder-8585.html
>
> Your comment on the images and/or the technique are encouraged.

I wish there was EXIF data, since I'm curious what shutter speeds you had to
use.

At web size, I can't tell the difference in noise level, since downsizing
reduces the amount of noise. However, I'm surprised at the amount of visible
noise in the St. Olive Church image.

I'm not sure that pushing the exposure compensation so far is a good idea.
Some highlights look clipped to me.

I think the most effective images are, not surprisingly, the ones that
contain foliage. The point of IR, it seems to me, is to look different from
regular B&W, and if you take a picture of just a building, there's nothing
that jumps out and says "IR". I love the one with the ivy and three
trees--that would be worth seeing at a larger size.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

>At web size, I can't tell the difference in noise level, since downsizing
>reduces the amount of noise. However, I'm surprised at the amount of visible
>noise in the St. Olive Church image.

Yes, I was too. But seconding your point below, it is not a particular effective IR image anyway.

>I'm not sure that pushing the exposure compensation so far is a good idea.
>Some highlights look clipped to me.

Good point. I need to strike a balance between by burning desire to hand-hold and to have the best images possible.

>I think the most effective images are, not surprisingly, the ones that
>contain foliage. The point of IR, it seems to me, is to look different from
>regular B&W, and if you take a picture of just a building, there's nothing
>that jumps out and says "IR".

I completely agree. 

>I love the one with the ivy and three trees--that would be worth seeing at a larger size.

Finally, there is a scan of a silver print of the same "ivy and three trees" scene at the following URL. This is from a Kodak HIE (High Speed Infrared) negative that was printed in the darkroom and then scanned. This is one of my favorites too.

http://www.leica-gallery.net/dlk/folder-8218.html

Dave.
-- 
David Keenan, ausdlk@... on 4/17/2006