infared photography

[ollie007]

just wondering if any one knows if you can use a nikon d40 for infared . i am asking because i read on the net that it is something to do with the cameras on board ir sensor.
im going to get a hoya r72 filter as i have heard they are good.
any help appreciated , also on the subject of ir

[FoG]

TO do this means the sensor is adjusted and therefore can only be used for IR photography tyou can however emulate the effect in PP

[Bluenoser]

It's "Infrared",

[kencaleno]

Photoshop Infra red:

1. Ctrl+j
2. New adjustment layer-Channel mixer
Check "monochrome"
3. Set Red to +100
Green to +200
Blue to -200
Set constant to between 27 and 32
Click “ok”
Flatten and save.

[BadAssFraggle]

I have the Nikon D40 and I've been inspired by the 20 top Infrared photos on this website too. I have just purchased the same filter with a decent tripod and remote. I'm expecting to get this for the weekend so i can give it a go. Look out for my first attempt.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by kencaleno

Photoshop Infra red:

1. Ctrl+j
2. New adjustment layer-Channel mixer
Check "monochrome"
3. Set Red to +100
Green to +200
Blue to -200
Set constant to between 27 and 32
Click “ok”
Flatten and save.

This gives an IR-esque look, but is not IR.

True IR means either converting the sensor for IR (useless for anything else), using the camera as-is with an R72 or similar filter (and using a tripod for the super long shutterspeeds) or using IR film with an R72 filter.

[inkista]

Yes, you can do infrared with your dSLR, but there's a stumbling block, which is that the sensor of your camera is so sensitive to infrared that Nikon put an infrared-blocker over the sensor to make sure visible light colors weren't thrown off-kilter.

When you put an IR-pass filter (like the Hoya R72) in front of your lens, between it and the IR blocker, you're probably going to lose more than 10 stops of light, and composing through the lens becomes...er... challenging.

Practical upshot? You're not doing IR without at least a 30s exposure in broad daylight and a tripod. If you wanted to shoot infrared handheld, then you'll need to modify your camera by having the IR blocker removed and replaced with plain glass (or something else that lets the wavelengths through that you want). And that modified camera will then need an IR-blocker filter on the front of a lens in order to do regular visible light photography.

With infrared, the two main differences from visible light that you can take advantage of with photography is that chlorophyll (the green stuff in plants) reflects a ton of infrared, so plants generally turn white in IR photography, and water tends to absorb infrared, so you get black water. Plants near water is always trés cool in infrared.


Canon XT. adapted Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2.8+Hoya R72. Tripod, cable release, MLU.
iso 400, f/8ish, 2 minute exposure. Custom white balance, blue/red channel-swapped.

Be aware, that you will have to dink like the dickens in post production. Straight from camera, without using a custom white balance, it's very difficult to get false colors. Just the Hoya R72 will get you this:

[BadAssFraggle]

inkista you sound like you really know what your talking about, thi was really easy to understand. Thank you. I will set up tomorrow and give it a go.

Badassfraggle

[spencer28n]

Great tutorial inkista.
I was just wondering why IR light is better quality than daytime noon. I'm definitely tempted to buy a R72 for my Canon 50mm 1.8.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by BadAssFraggle

inkista you sound like you really know what your talking about, thi was really easy to understand. Thank you. I will set up tomorrow and give it a go.

Good luck. I hate to tellya, but sadly, I sound like that even when I have no idea what I'm talking about. It's one of the hazards of being a professional technical writer. We're too use to writing everything in an authoritative voice.

Originally Posted by spencer28n

Great tutorial inkista.
I was just wondering why IR light is better quality than daytime noon. I'm definitely tempted to buy a R72 for my Canon 50mm 1.8.

Um. The 50/1.8 can do this, don't get me wrong. But it's much more of a pain, since, as I mentioned, when you look through the viewfinder, you're pretty much just going to be seeing really dark red/black through the viewfinder. You and the camera won't have enough light to see by to focus. So, you have to focus before you put the filter on, and hopefully you won't move the lens out of focus when you do so (that idiotic tiny manual focus ring on the front of the lens is a serious pain on both the 50/1.8 and the 18-55 kit). The fact that you have no distance scale (let alone one marked for infrared) on either of those two lenses (and that the 18-55 kit has an IR hotspot), makes it tough to do this on the cheap on a Canon dRebel.

Add in the fact that because infrared light is at different wavelengths, focusing accurately for visible light means being slightly off for infrared, and you'll get the feeling that focusing for infrared is a serious pain. But I got around the issue mostly by stopping down to f/8-f/16 to maximize my depth of field and aiming for things that are far away. Trying to get that same kind of accuracy with a large aperture and nearby subject is more hit and miss.

Ironically using an R72 on my G9 wasactually easier than using it on my XT, since the G9's liveview does exposure simulation, and I can see what I'm getting.