Jump to content
IGNORED

Ir Photography


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

I'm just about to try my hand at some IR photography using a Nikon D80. I appreciate this isn't the ideal camera to use as it's quite efficent at filtering IR light therefore longer exposures are required. Having said that from having a quick gander around the web others seem to have succeeded quite well. I just wondered whether anyone here has any first hand knowledge and maybe a couple of tips.I'll be using an 18-135 lens although this isn't a problem as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 12
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted
  • Location: NH7256
  • Weather Preferences: where's my vote?
  • Location: NH7256

Thought I'd pop in here as I've just started to dip my toe into IR photography too. I happen to have an old Minolta Dimage 7 which for some unknown reason Minolta didn't fit with a very effective IR filter in front of the sensor. So I've got hold of Hoya R72 filter and spent today snapping away - well as much as this dinosaur of a digicam will let me (it's main failing and the reason it quickly got ditched by me is that it gobbles batteries).

My interest is in how different types of vegetation have different levels of IR reflectivity that are not the same as in visible light, and so far I've kind of confirmed what I've read; that is that conifers are less relective in IR than deciduous trees - but more work is needed, and mountain habitats look promising.

WS, did you get any further with your D80? Looks like tripod work perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chichester, West Sussex
  • Location: Chichester, West Sussex

IR photography in theory is better/easier with digital cameras than film cameras. A digital sensor can see well into the true IR range but all digital cameras have and need an IR filters over the sensor. We used to have get the filters removed from our digital cameras for surveillance photography but then they can only be used for IR photography. There is a company in the States that sale cameras with the IR filter removed but if you ask your local independent camera repair man he may remove the filter without asking too many questions.

IR photography is a great art medium but it is poor for detailed recognition shots. Even in the Brixmis days running around East Germany gathering intel photos of new Russian military kit we rarely used IR photography, it was often too grainy to get detailed information of the kit we were photographing. We would risk detention and use flash photography or take the shots in day light.

This is an example of the quality we got from IR photography. The first ever photograph of a Russian BTR 70, until the photo was taken they were not known about in the west. This was the first knowledge of this piece of kit, photographed deep inside East Germany, photographed by a British soldier who was working on tour with Brixmis. Not one of my photos.

stationpic931.jpg

I know you guys are not intending to use IR photography for the same purpose but you may find the information interesting.

My interest is in how different types of vegetation have different levels of IR reflectivity that are not the same as in visible light, and so far I've kind of confirmed what I've read; that is that conifers are less relective in IR than deciduous trees - but more work is needed, and mountain habitats look promising.

An interesting subject to study, it is probably out of you capabilities but I would suggest you take a look at UV photography too, it is amazing how plants absorb or reflect IR and UV. This is how they attract the correct insect species for pollination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Thought I'd pop in here as I've just started to dip my toe into IR photography too. I happen to have an old Minolta Dimage 7 which for some unknown reason Minolta didn't fit with a very effective IR filter in front of the sensor. So I've got hold of Hoya R72 filter and spent today snapping away - well as much as this dinosaur of a digicam will let me (it's main failing and the reason it quickly got ditched by me is that it gobbles batteries).

My interest is in how different types of vegetation have different levels of IR reflectivity that are not the same as in visible light, and so far I've kind of confirmed what I've read; that is that conifers are less relective in IR than deciduous trees - but more work is needed, and mountain habitats look promising.

WS, did you get any further with your D80? Looks like tripod work perhaps?

Interesting comments Hairy. I agree with your observations regarding vegetation. One of my interests is old mine engine houses and some of them are being reclaimed by nature. I recently saw some IR photos of these and I was quite impressed.

The D80 is not the ideal camera for IR photography because of the excellent IR filter. In my limited experience you need exposure times of 20-30 seconds so obviously requires a tripod. There are two ways of getting around this. Use a second cheaper camera and get the IR filter removed so it can just be used for IR photography. You can now get this done quickly and professionally in Britain with a Norfolk based company www.advancedcamerasevices.co.uk or you can use Tiffen’s Dfx software www.tiffen.com. It’s quite complicated software but gives various IR settings. I’ll attach a couple of images of a Gothic potting shed with one using the software. Don’t be afraid to say it’s a load of rubbish.smile.png

Adi F- thanks for the comments, very interesting and really ties in with my impression. I don’t think grain is a problem in normal light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL

Interesting project. It's been years since I played with IR. I used Ilford film and had some really good results.

Nice photo WS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: NH7256
  • Weather Preferences: where's my vote?
  • Location: NH7256

Yes, I'd seen http://www.advancedcamerasevices.co.uk/ and thought £250 for an uncertain return, hmmm, perhaps if I was feeling flush... Not now!

I'll be out on the hills with the D7 this week (soddn weather permitting) and will post some garbage up here if I get some interesting ones.

How does what we're doing relate to night-sights? My son assumed that the D7 would give me night vision capability so we tried last night and disappointingly got nothing. Are night-sights tuned to different wavelengths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chichester, West Sussex
  • Location: Chichester, West Sussex

Night vision come in two sorts, Image intensifying and IR. IR is poor because you need an IR illuminator to see where as image intensifiers use available light and there is always enough light for them to work outdoors even on overcast nights.

IR night sights work in the real IR range but your filtered cameras only work in the near IR range.

The easiest way to explain it is to look at IR illuminator. Have you seen security cameras with what look like red head lights mounted next to them? At night you can see the red light out of the head light. Well they are near IR lights.The cameras sensor in the cctv system has an IR filter over it. the reason is so the camera can be used for both day time and night time use.

Real IR illuminators are pure black filters that allow no visual light through so when you look at them they you see no light at all. The way to see if they are turned on is to put you hand in the filter and feel if they are hot.

Military IR work of two different frequency's one developed by the west and the other by the Russians and was used as markers. This was so that when using image intensifiers you could tell who side was who. This can be seen in the military photo above, the head lights show up bright because they give off light right across the whole light spectrum range. And there is a lighter patch on the side of the vehicle this is IR reflective paint. It was from photos like this with IR reflective paint on them that told the west the Russians had night vision technology. And by scraping some of the paint off and sending it back to the boffins back in the UK they were able to work out how their light vision kit worked and at what frequency. Once we know that we could see what they could see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Yes, I'd seen http://www.advancedc...asevices.co.uk/ and thought £250 for an uncertain return, hmmm, perhaps if I was feeling flush... Not now!

I'll be out on the hills with the D7 this week (soddn weather permitting) and will post some garbage up here if I get some interesting ones.

How does what we're doing relate to night-sights? My son assumed that the D7 would give me night vision capability so we tried last night and disappointingly got nothing. Are night-sights tuned to different wavelengths?

If you get the time might be interesting to compare with the filters in the Tippen software. You can get a 15 day free trial.

Night vision come in two sorts, Image intensifying and IR. IR is poor because you need an IR illuminator to see where as image intensifiers use available light and there is always enough light for them to work outdoors even on overcast nights.

IR night sights work in the real IR range but your filtered cameras only work in the near IR range.

The easiest way to explain it is to look at IR illuminator. Have you seen security cameras with what look like red head lights mounted next to them? At night you can see the red light out of the head light. Well they are near IR lights.The cameras sensor in the cctv system has an IR filter over it. the reason is so the camera can be used for both day time and night time use.

Real IR illuminators are pure black filters that allow no visual light through so when you look at them they you see no light at all. The way to see if they are turned on is to put you hand in the filter and feel if they are hot.

Military IR work of two different frequency's one developed by the west and the other by the Russians and was used as markers. This was so that when using image intensifiers you could tell who side was who. This can be seen in the military photo above, the head lights show up bright because they give off light right across the whole light spectrum range. And there is a lighter patch on the side of the vehicle this is IR reflective paint. It was from photos like this with IR reflective paint on them that told the west the Russians had night vision technology. And by scraping some of the paint off and sending it back to the boffins back in the UK they were able to work out how their light vision kit worked and at what frequency. Once we know that we could see what they could see.

I wasn't plannning night shots but thanks for the explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: NH7256
  • Weather Preferences: where's my vote?
  • Location: NH7256

Really poor weather has hindered me this week. Then one day I forgot the D7, and today I forgot the IR filter.

I did however get a few long exposures of a river in spate and was going to post one here but:

Error No file was selected for upload

says the little message so you can't see it. Cool. I'll get back in my cave then. Jesus. How flaming difficult can it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Really poor weather has hindered me this week. Then one day I forgot the D7, and today I forgot the IR filter.

I did however get a few long exposures of a river in spate and was going to post one here but:

Error No file was selected for upload

says the little message so you can't see it. Cool. I'll get back in my cave then. Jesus. How flaming difficult can it be.

I have had that error message on occasion but seemed to clear itself on reloading the page. I did upload a couple of mining heritage photos using one of the software IR filters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: NH7256
  • Weather Preferences: where's my vote?
  • Location: NH7256

No, still won't upload. Tried 'advanced uploader (requires Flash 8 (sic))' too and all that happens is that you get pushed to the top of the page! What an amazing bit of webcrappiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...