Digital BW, The Print

I'm considering getting my Canon adapted by Lifepixel to be infrared
sensitive.
They remove the factory filter in front of the sensor which stops IR
getting through.
  This allows the full spectrum of to be read by the sensor.
  My question is -  could I do the filtering in photoshop afterwards to
achieve the effect of an opaque IR filter or would I need to use an
opaque IR filter in the field. (This would make shooting much easier as
I wouldn't have to use a tripod and shoot 'blind')
This is probably not the best forum to ask this question, but it's
certainly a black and white question -- ( even if the answer may not be
b and w...)
BTW -- is there another forum that would suit this question better?
Many thanks to all in advance
Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Visit my website <http://seasonsofthemoon.com>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good question. I've been thinking about doing this also. I'll be  
interested in the replies.

James

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:48 PM, "yaakovsinclair" <sinclair@...>  
wrote:

If you convert your camera by lifepixel then no filter is need and you can
shoot at normal ISO etc.  Just like you are shooting now.
This assumes that you are having lifepixel remove the IR blocking filter and
adding the IR PASS filter to your camera.
 
Once that is done there will be learning curve to exposure and white balance
but I am sure you will enjoy it.
 
Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
yaakovsinclair
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:48 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Creating infrared with a converted camera





I'm considering getting my Canon adapted by Lifepixel to be infrared
sensitive.
They remove the factory filter in front of the sensor which stops IR
getting through.
This allows the full spectrum of to be read by the sensor.
My question is - could I do the filtering in photoshop afterwards to
achieve the effect of an opaque IR filter or would I need to use an
opaque IR filter in the field. (This would make shooting much easier as
I wouldn't have to use a tripod and shoot 'blind')
This is probably not the best forum to ask this question, but it's
certainly a black and white question -- ( even if the answer may not be
b and w...)
BTW -- is there another forum that would suit this question better?
Many thanks to all in advance
Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Visit my website <http://seasonsofthe <http://seasonsofthemoon.com>
moon.com>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

i have a converted fuji and have to use a filter ; however, it allows me to handhold and see what is in the viewfinder, vs my d100 with filters which needs to be put on a tripod and the filter added after focusing.
 
you might try this site for more specific help, or talk to the folks your working with to convert your present camera,
ann
 
http://irphotocom.proboards.com/index.cgi?

--- On Thu, 4/23/09, yaakovsinclair <sinclair@actcom.co.il> wrote:

From: yaakovsinclair <sinclair@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] Creating infrared with a converted camera
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009, 1:48 PM








I'm considering getting my Canon adapted by Lifepixel to be infrared
sensitive.
They remove the factory filter in front of the sensor which stops IR
getting through.
This allows the full spectrum of to be read by the sensor.
My question is - could I do the filtering in photoshop afterwards to
achieve the effect of an opaque IR filter or would I need to use an
opaque IR filter in the field. (This would make shooting much easier as
I wouldn't have to use a tripod and shoot 'blind')
This is probably not the best forum to ask this question, but it's
certainly a black and white question -- ( even if the answer may not be
b and w...)
BTW -- is there another forum that would suit this question better?
Many thanks to all in advance
Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Visit my website <http://seasonsofthe moon.com>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

















      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "yaakovsinclair" <sinclair@...> wrote:
>
> I'm considering getting my Canon adapted by Lifepixel to be infrared
> sensitive.
> They remove the factory filter in front of the sensor which stops IR
> getting through.
>   This allows the full spectrum of to be read by the sensor.

As Paul mentioned in an earlier post Lifepixel (and others) will add an IR Pass filter in place of the one that is removed.  You can choose the pass level from one that renders very close to IR films up to ones that allow some color to pass through as well.

>   My question is -  could I do the filtering in photoshop afterwards to
> achieve the effect of an opaque IR filter or would I need to use an
> opaque IR filter in the field. (This would make shooting much easier as
> I wouldn't have to use a tripod and shoot 'blind')

That is the purpose of adding the IR Pass filter.  However, all sensors and lenses will respond differently to IR so there is wide variance in response.  I personally use a Lifepixel converted Nikon D50.  With that camera there are a couple of caveats.  Since the meter is measuring visible light the IR images can be off anywhere from a half to two and a half stops in exposure.  It will take some time to get a feel for this but fortunately DSLRs have histograms to work with.  The other caveat is IR focal length.  Each lens will respond differently and you will either need to stop down a lot or work out manual corrections.  Unfotunately I found that the correction factor built in by Lifepixel did not correspond to the IR marks on my Nikkors so I had to calibrate them individually.  The Canon sensors and lens will I'm sure respond differently but along the same lines.
 
> This is probably not the best forum to ask this question, but it's
> certainly a black and white question -- ( even if the answer may not be
> b and w...)
> BTW -- is there another forum that would suit this question better?

I personally am comfortable with it as I shoot IR for b&w output.  I'm not a fan of altered foilage and most of my IR images are simply seen as b&w.  My favorite image from this past winter was immediately after a heavy snowfall had just stopped and there was a glow coming through the still heavily overcast sky that I was able to get with IR that I just don't think I could get with visible.  There is no other telltale IR qualities in the image and it just views as a b&w.

I saw that aspect of your images some time back when you announced your recent book.  There is a Digital IR group in Yahoo but it seems to focus on the false color type images that are popular with the sensors that allow some colors to pass as well.

Just to get it out there.  Noise with digital IR is quite ugly, nothing like IR film.  I find myself still using a tripod and often a monopod especially when I want to keep the ISO down and I need two or more stops of exposure correction and I need to shoot around F8-11 for focus.  If you have an extra body the conversion is great, no more fumbling in the dark trying to load IR film!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "yaakovsinclair" <sinclair@...> wrote:
>
> I'm considering getting my Canon adapted by Lifepixel to be infrared
> sensitive.
> They remove the factory filter in front of the sensor which stops IR
> getting through.
>   This allows the full spectrum of to be read by the sensor.
>   My question is -  could I do the filtering in photoshop afterwards to
> achieve the effect of an opaque IR filter or would I need to use an
> opaque IR filter in the field. (This would make shooting much easier as
> I wouldn't have to use a tripod and shoot 'blind')
> This is probably not the best forum to ask this question, but it's
> certainly a black and white question -- ( even if the answer may not be
> b and w...)
> BTW -- is there another forum that would suit this question better?
> Many thanks to all in advance
> Yaakov Asher Sinclair
> Visit my website <http://seasonsofthemoon.com>


Yaakov,

I converted a Canon 20D to dedicated IR using LifePixel.  They do remove the standard IR blocking filter and replace it with one of three filters....the "Standard IR filer" (which I selected, equivalent to a Hoya R72), a filter that allows more visible color wavelengths pass and is suitable for more vibrant color work, and one that is exclusively B/W.  

With the standard filter, I can do both B/W and color, but the color is limited, at least straight out of the box.  If color is your main concern, then the color IR filter might be a better choice.  If you do exclusively B&W, then the B&W IR filter gives a more dramatic look (darker skies, etc).  However, in Photoshop, you can achieve the effect of the B&W filter with a little post processing.  

For my needs, the standard filter does the trick.  You can begin to approach an "IR look" using Lightroom or ACR and a standard camera, but you probably won't be able to get there, since the IR filter allows a completely different spectrum of wavelengths to reach the sensor.  Once captured, you can do the normal edits in Photoshop, or lightroom.  One suggestion is to take a custom white balance on greenery before shooting, so natural greenery is close to neutral.  Greenery emits a LOT of IR, and blue skies and water tend to emit very little.  

I have been very satisfied with LifePixel's service and the quality of my conversion.  They not only replace the filter, they readjust the auto focus, which is slightly different for IR light.  You can view a few samples in my IR gallery if you wish.  www.DinaGraphics.com/photos.php.  

Hope this helps.  

Lou Dina
www.DinaGraphics.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "yaakovsinclair" <sinclair@...> wrote:
>
> I'm considering getting my Canon adapted by Lifepixel to be infrared
> sensitive.
> They remove the factory filter in front of the sensor which stops IR
> getting through.
>   This allows the full spectrum of to be read by the sensor.
>   My question is -  could I do the filtering in photoshop afterwards to
> achieve the effect of an opaque IR filter or would I need to use an
> opaque IR filter in the field. (This would make shooting much easier as
> I wouldn't have to use a tripod and shoot 'blind')
> This is probably not the best forum to ask this question, but it's
> certainly a black and white question -- ( even if the answer may not be
> b and w...)
> BTW -- is there another forum that would suit this question better?
> Many thanks to all in advance
> Yaakov Asher Sinclair
> Visit my website <http://seasonsofthemoon.com>
> 
Yaakov,

I have my Canon 20D converted to dedicated IR by LifePixel.  No complaints.  They also adjust the focus, since IR focuses differently than visible light.  

They offer 3 different filters in place of the normal IR blocking filter.  The "standard" filter, which I got, is similar to a Hoya R72 IR filter, and blocks most visible light, but allows a little visible color light to pass.  It is a good all around filter.  If you are interested in more colorful IR images, they have a filter that lets more IR pass, and for dedicated B&W, they have a heavier filter that blocks nearly all color, but gives more dramatic B&W results (darker skies and water, more contrast).  All three filters blocks most of the visible spectrum.  

Using an IR filter over the lens of a normal camera (film or digital) extens the exposure dramatically, since one is blocking IR and the other is blocking visible light, thus making exposures very long.  By removing the IR blocking filter that is standard on digital cameras, you end up with exposures that are much closer to normal.  No need to mount on a tripod for daylight exposures.  It is usually advisable to shoot in manual mode and use the histogram to make sure you expose more for the highlights, otherwise you end up with lots of noise.  

Photoshop and LightRoom can mimic IR to some extent, but in my experience, they cannot really replicate IR effects, since they are starting with normal wavelengths, not IR.  Natural greenery emits a lot of IR and blue skies and water tend to emit very little.  So, using the color controls in ACR or LR, you can approach this effect, but it isn't the same.  

I am happy with the LifePixel conversion and enjoy shooting IR.  It is a whole new adventure, and it takes some time to get used to what is a good subject, since it is different from what you see.  I find that setting a custom white balance on greenery is very helpful, since LR and ACR have a limited white balance adjustment.  Makes a big difference.  

I have some IR images in one of the galleries on my website at www.DinaGraphics.com/photos.php if you want to check them out.  

I thought I sent a similar message earlier, but for some reason, it didn't post.  If you get a duplicate or similar message, I apologize.  

Regards,,

Lou Dina

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "yaakovsinclair" <sinclair@...> wrote:
>
> I'm considering getting my Canon adapted by Lifepixel to be infrared
> sensitive.
> They remove the factory filter in front of the sensor which stops IR
> getting through.
>   This allows the full spectrum of to be read by the sensor.
>   My question is -  could I do the filtering in photoshop afterwards to
> achieve the effect of an opaque IR filter or would I need to use an
> opaque IR filter in the field. (This would make shooting much easier as
> I wouldn't have to use a tripod and shoot 'blind')
> This is probably not the best forum to ask this question, but it's
> certainly a black and white question -- ( even if the answer may not be
> b and w...)
> BTW -- is there another forum that would suit this question better?
> Many thanks to all in advance
> Yaakov Asher Sinclair
> Visit my website <http://seasonsofthemoon.com>
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


There is an article on Infrared on digital in this months Black and White Photography magazine (UK). If you want and I am allowed I can copy it for you.

David

I had Lifepixel convert a Nikon of mine and it's superb!  I have tried a dozen or more plugins that purport to make a photo look like infrared and they leave much to be desired.  They wouldn't fool anyone into thinking they were infrared photos.

Best bet...  get it down right and have Lifepixel do a conversion for you.

Ron

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "yaakovsinclair" <sinclair@...> wrote:

>
> I'm considering getting my Canon adapted by Lifepixel to be infrared
> sensitive.
> They remove the factory filter in front of the sensor which stops IR
> getting through.
>   This allows the full spectrum of to be read by the sensor.
>   My question is -  could I do the filtering in photoshop afterwards to
> achieve the effect of an opaque IR filter or would I need to use an
> opaque IR filter in the field. (This would make shooting much easier as
> I wouldn't have to use a tripod and shoot 'blind')
> This is probably not the best forum to ask this question, but it's
> certainly a black and white question -- ( even if the answer may not be
> b and w...)
> BTW -- is there another forum that would suit this question better?
> Many thanks to all in advance
> Yaakov Asher Sinclair
> Visit my website <http://seasonsofthemoon.com>
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "yaakovsinclair" <sinclair@...> wrote:
>
> I'm considering getting my Canon adapted by Lifepixel to be infrared
> sensitive.
> They remove the factory filter in front of the sensor which stops IR
> getting through.
>   This allows the full spectrum of to be read by the sensor.
>   My question is -  could I do the filtering in photoshop afterwards to
> achieve the effect of an opaque IR filter or would I need to use an
> opaque IR filter in the field. (This would make shooting much easier as
> I wouldn't have to use a tripod and shoot 'blind')
> This is probably not the best forum to ask this question, but it's
> certainly a black and white question -- ( even if the answer may not be
> b and w...)
> BTW -- is there another forum that would suit this question better?
> Many thanks to all in advance
> Yaakov Asher Sinclair
> Visit my website <http://seasonsofthemoon.com>

Yaakov,

One more thought.  LifePixel also has an option to simply remove the IR blocking filter from your sensor without adding a separate IR pass filter.  This allows ALL wavelengths of light to reach the sensor, which is usually not desired.  But, this option allows you to use any of the IR filters on the market to vary your results.  This offers the maximum flexibility and control, but of course, requires you to purchase filters for your various lenses.  Check the cost of individual filters before going down this road.  Some are rather expensive.  

With this option and an external filter, your exposures will still be pretty fast and you won't generally need a tripod.  Super long exposures are usually due to having an IR blocking filter on you sensor AND an IR Pass filter on the lens, each blocking substantial portions of the visible and IR spectrum.

And don't assume IR capability you will be able to record heat.  The sensors in digital cameras only respond to the "near infrared" spectrum and are nowhere near the heat end of the spectrum.  That requires a special camera and sensor.  

Lou

The following statement is only partially correct. Yes your exposures will be much faster, however a tripod will still be required. You will have to frame the shot, lock-down the camera and then apply an IR filter.  The Hoya IR 72 (which is the most popular) filter is practically opaque to your eye. Full conversion (with the IR filter on the sensor) is by far the best way to go. I use a fully converted 20D and have extensive experience with digital B&W IR. Look at www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown there are several hundred B&W IR images.

Gary

baffin@...
www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Louis Dina 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 8:22 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Creating infrared with a converted camera





   

  With this option and an external filter, your exposures will still be pretty fast and you won't generally need a tripod. Super long exposures are usually due to having an IR blocking filter on you sensor AND an IR Pass filter on the lens, each blocking substantial portions of the visible and IR spectrum.

  And don't assume IR capability you will be able to record heat. The sensors in digital cameras only respond to the "near infrared" spectrum and are nowhere near the heat end of the spectrum. That requires a special camera and sensor. 

  Lou



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Brown" <baffin@...> wrote:
>
> The following statement is only partially correct. Yes your exposures will be much faster, however a tripod will still be required. You will have to frame the shot, lock-down the camera and then apply an IR filter.  The Hoya IR 72 (which is the most popular) filter is practically opaque to your eye. Full conversion (with the IR filter on the sensor) is by far the best way to go. I use a fully converted 20D and have extensive experience with digital B&W IR. Look at www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown there are several hundred B&W IR images.


Thanks for the correction Gary.  

Lou

Actually Gary is wrong, I am afraid, though only partly so. If you  
have a camera converted to have a clear filter, or a relatively weak  
IR filter, like an R72, then you can attach IR filters to the lens to  
limit the spectrum the camera captures. If this is a visible light  
blocking filter then you will not be able to see through the lens. But  
you can get quite good at pointing the camera by eye, especially when  
shooting with a wideangle, or using LiveView on an appropriate camera.  
With the IR blocking filter removed you will get very short,  
handholdable exposures even with stronger IR filters, such as the  
850nm or 1000nm 50% cutoff filters, in full sun.

If you main interest is shooting ir, it is certainly better to have  
the ir filter put in the body so you can use the viewfinder. The  
astrophotographers like the clear filter because it gives them  
extended red sensitivity for the Hydrogen alpha emission line with  
nebula (mainly) and also allows them to capture other parts of the  
spectrum (using filters if necessary).

I had a 715nm 50% cutoff filter put in my 350D (by maxmax.com) and  
love it. I now put stronger IR filters on the lens sometimes for a  
stronger effect.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, Digital ImageMaker for photography, camera and art news,  
reviews and tutorials http://www.dimagemaker.com
Photography, camera, equipment and technique blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com
Personal photography and art site http://www.cosshall.com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]