Infrared flash

[SwissJon]

I'm still interested in infrared photography, but don't want to shell out on it just yet.. I was reading an Article about night vision goggles getting strapped to ordinary cameras resulting in extreme low light photographs.

A Night-Vision Lens Used by US Military Photographers

It occurred to me that if you could produce a flash in infrared only, then you could use an infrared adapted camera in a similar way, to produce night shots without disturbing the subject. Has anyone tried this? Do infrared flashed exist?

I know, I know, use google.. But I wanted to start a discussion.

[Biomech]

You can certainly get Infrared continuous lights which might do the job, they use them a lot over here on CCTV setups now. Assuming deer or whatever you're shooting doesn't have IR goggles it would probably work quite well.

[SwissJon]

Hmm... I found instructions involving a Lee IR filter and a plastic flash diffuser cap.. Some interesting photos.. Most of them seem over exposed, I guess It's quite difficult to judge..

Nobody ever tried this??

[metallion58]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Nobody ever tried this??

The way I see it, a photographer follows 4 steps.

1. Start to develop a vision. (ongoing lifelong process)
2. Master your gears. (ongoing process with each additional gear)
3. Master available light (whatever light's available)
4. Push your envelope and go beyond (IR, HDR and such)

I'm still at the beginning of #2.
Sorry, can't help.

I would guess that a normal flash actually bleeds into the IR spectrum quite a bit, but have never really researched it.

But otherwise, I'm sure you could build a low-power, low-output flash with some LEDs, similar to those use on cell phones...only use IR LEDs instead of white ones.

[FDCPR]

Nikon: Nikon SB-900
Canon: Canon 580EX

These are just the ones I know about I'm sure there are others. Yes, they work.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Nobody ever tried this??

Yes, Weegee is the first that comes to mind. The big advantage is that the infrared flash is invisible to the naked eye so you can take indoor and night flash photos without blinding people. The only real issue (aside from creating the rig) is filtering the flash to infrared drastically cuts down output, so you have less working distance and will eat through batteries.

Search for Weegee infrared and you'll find plenty, IIRC one of the more famous photos is in a theater, of a 3D movie audience.

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

Yes, Weegee is the first that comes to mind. The big advantage is that the infrared flash is invisible to the naked eye so you can take indoor and night flash photos without blinding people.

This is why I was interested.. It dawned on me that with an infrared flash you could photograph animals in the dark and stuff.. Leaving you with the possibility of shooting owls and so on.

The only real issue (aside from creating the rig) is filtering the flash to infrared drastically cuts down output, so you have less working distance and will eat through batteries.

The photos I've seen using this technique tend to be over exposed.. Shooting at 1/8th power seems to be about right.. Anyway, I use rechargeables in my flashes, they don't last so long, but they're better for the environment and the pocket over the long run.

Search for Weegee infrared and you'll find plenty, IIRC one of the more famous photos is in a theater, of a 3D movie audience.

Yeah, I saw his stuff.. Couple kissing.. Feels a bit voyeuristic to be honest... But afaik, he doesn't post on here, and I wanted to start a conversation.

[inkista]

Snicker. Remember, though, that Weegee was shooting film which was just as sensitive to IR as it was to visible light. If you're going to do this, you're also going to have to get a converted camera, since the IR blocker on the sensor is really going to hamper getting this kind of shot, even with flash.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

The photos I've seen using this technique tend to be over exposed.. Shooting at 1/8th power seems to be about right.. Anyway, I use rechargeables in my flashes, they don't last so long, but they're better for the environment and the pocket over the long run.

No, as I understand you will be firing the flash at full power and still not getting much out of it. The "overexposed" look you're seeing has more to do with how UV photography works, it is not reflected and registered on a sensor/film the same way visible light is. But, that is all "to my knowledge", I have not experimented with this (would be a good use of an old 300D). Just wanted to chime in with a lead for examples.

For practical reasons I don't think handheld night UV nature photography would work too well but I'd love to hear otherwise. That's typically the realm of dedicated units with motion triggers, I guess you're already familiar with those. I'm still waiting for someone to catch a bigfoot on one.