Sandymount Strand Infrared

alexlyons

Was out on Sandymount strand earlier today with Fenster. He taught me a huge amount about IR photography. this was one of my measly atempts to do what he does. Let me know what you think. I'm really horrible at the post processing and I know I din't spend as long as I should have on it, but I'm a little lost as to what to do to it.

Let me know!

edit: it was shot with an IR filter but I went down the B&W IR route, rather than crazy colours as it wouldn't work with this. still not nothing near what fenster can do!

dazftw

Its more B&W than infrared really..

Didn't fenster let you in on his PP secrets?

alexlyons

dazftw wrote: »

Its more B&W than infrared really..

Didn't fenster let you in on his PP secrets?

I did a black and White one as well and it does look a bit different tbh. He didn't share any major secrets! Still haven't really got a clue about it, just lookin for feedback on how bad it is!!

Fenster

Alex. Cheers for taking me out there and reminding me that I can bleach bypass infrared photos.

alexlyons

that's incredible! is that a few stitched? I just can't get mine looking like that :mad:

Fenster

dazftw wrote: »

Its more B&W than infrared really..

Didn't fenster let you in on his PP secrets?

Secrets? What secrets? I just drag the contrast slider all the way to the right and get mad at anyone who questions my masterworks.

alexlyons

Fenster wrote: »

Secrets? What secrets? I just drag the contrast slider all the way to the right and get mad at anyone who questions my masterworks.

woah, contrast to the right, that was my problem! do you wanna post (or email!) any adjustments you made to that in lightroom from the history section? obviously straightening wont matter and they'd vary for mine, but an idea would be so handy right now! if you don't, don't worry about it

Fenster

I'd upload master images for everyone to play with, but I'm stuck on a public network that has blocked everything but ports 80 and 443.

alexlyons

so that's what you were at when you were taking the sand! the blue tint looks cool. mine all still look B&W, heres another just to get an idea

Fenster

Cracking shot!

alexlyons

ah now, its not bad, but lets not exaggerate! i'm slowly figuring out all the different bits in lightroom, find it hard to stray away from the "natural" look, to the "cool" look! Can't find which image has the ghost in it though :mad: may have to call it a night soon enough ad get ready for tomorrow!

Fenster

Bookmark this image: I have a tar archive with the raw master, master PSD and Lightroom xmp ready to upload, once I have FTP access.

alexlyons

got that bookmarked, i'll keep an eye out! Forgive me for this next one, it is pretty much a poor(ish!) copy of your last one. As I said, I'm slowly learning and just want to get an idea how i'm getting on!

thedarkroom

They're all great shot but unfortunately beach scenes are not the best for IR shots. Certainly, the sky will be more dramatic and will show the effects but everything else will be rather bland due to the level of IR absorbtion and reflection. I don't know a whole lot about it but have done a bit using Kodak HIE IR a few years back. Inanimate objects such as buildings and roads, sand, etc. etc. tend to show little effect but organic subjects such as trees, grass, skin and so on jump at you. The IR effect of the above photos reflect the nature of the subjects rather then your photographic skills.
Were these done on a digital camera or did you use IR film? Kodak has been discontinued but there are still others such as Ilford, Rollei and Efke available. Gunn's of Wexford Street usually have some available or the can be bought online quite easily.
If you are doing it digitally, check out this crowd - http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/digital-infrared-photography-instructions.html
They also do camera conversions to give true Infra Red photos digitally but they're not cheap and once done the camera is permanently set to IR. It's worth it though if you intend doing a lot and the results are spectacular
http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/faq.html#Whichdigitalcamerasdoyoumodifytoinfrared

alexlyons

thanks for that. Shooting digital and have no intention of getting the camera changed! here what your saying about organic subjects. I'm not sure I like the colour in them, but the B&W shots really appeal to me. Ill have to keep trying stuff!

Fenster

thedarkroom wrote: »

They're all great shot but unfortunately beach scenes are not the best for IR shots. Certainly, the sky will be more dramatic and will show the effects but everything else will be rather bland due to the level of IR absorbtion and reflection. I don't know a whole lot about it but have done a bit using Kodak HIE IR a few years back. Inanimate objects such as buildings and roads, sand, etc. etc. tend to show little effect but organic subjects such as trees, grass, skin and so on jump at you. The IR effect of the above photos reflect the nature of the subjects rather then your photographic skills.
Were these done on a digital camera or did you use IR film? Kodak has been discontinued but there are still others such as Ilford, Rollei and Efke available. Gunn's of Wexford Street usually have some available or the can be bought online quite easily.
If you are doing it digitally, check out this crowd - http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/digital-infrared-photography-instructions.html
They also do camera conversions to give true Infra Red photos digitally but they're not cheap and once done the camera is permanently set to IR. It's worth it though if you intend doing a lot and the results are spectacular
http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/faq.html#Whichdigitalcamerasdoyoumodifytoinfrared

I will accept almost any criticism of my photographs, technical or creative.

To come here, admit you don't know a single thing about infrared photography, link me to a beginners guide to it and suggest that I modify my camera, all simply because what I produce doesn't fit with what your idea of an infrared photograph is just plain wrong. Infrared is like HDR, a flash, studio lighting or a tripod: A means to an end. It should not be an end in and of itself.

alexlyons

Fenster wrote: »

To come here, admit you don't know a single thing about infrared photography

to be fair Fenster, he did say

thedarkroom wrote:

I don't know a whole lot about it but have done a bit using Kodak HIE IR a few years back.

so that might be a little harsh. no?

Fenster

Maybe a little harsh, but it is precisely how I feel. I'll come crawling back with apologies later.

You still in Dublin? Heading out around city centre?

Fenster

I invalided myself back to Galway as I've been sick on and off since yesterday.

Buckz

I joined in the location debate on Friday and am really impressed by the results. (can't do the thanks thing Haven't 25 posts yet....)BUT!What did ye do? When you said you used an IR filter- Is that a red or Wratten on the lens- or is it a photoshop thing?

Visuelle

As one of the above posters said IR is not really suitable for buildings etc but the images are still nice. IR takes a lot of practice and it is really hit and miss depending on the light from the sun.

Trees, grass and rivers all combined in one image make great infrared shots and post processing can be done in a few different ways, sometimes the images are just better to convert to B+W infrared if the light is not perfect, that's only my opinion though.

Buckz

Brilliant picture {does the thanx thing!} same question as above- IR Film & filters, digital & filters or just post process?

melekalikimaka

Fenster wrote: »

I will accept almost any criticism of my photographs, technical or creative.

To come here, admit you don't know a single thing about infrared photography, link me to a beginners guide to it and suggest that I modify my camera, all simply because what I produce doesn't fit with what your idea of an infrared photograph is just plain wrong. Infrared is like HDR, a flash, studio lighting or a tripod: A means to an end. It should not be an end in and of itself.

I think he is talking bout 'proper' ir, as in using film and filter, of removing the pass on the sensor to produce 'authentic' ir images with out using lightroom or presets. It did imo come across a tad condescending to me but his argument is fair enough, i've always wanted to get into it, got ilford dfx filters/film but its not the same as true ir film and i like the photoshopped effect, but at the end of the day photoshop vs out of camera, i'd always prefer out of camera.

my 2 cent

Fenster

Whether I have a 720nm filter fitted directly onto my sensor or screwed onto my lens is moot; you get the same result either way. I'm sorry to my victim for coming across as snappish.

SubLuminal

I was down there recently to take some IR shots, started up by the hapenny bridge and walked down the liffey all the way past the docks to the beach, took a while and by the time I got there the light was too faded for IR really - but I did get some decent snaps, as included below..(not all are IR)









looks like the majority of the IR ones still reside on my HD, I'll get them uploaded and report back..

fenster I like shooting IR stuff aswell, maybe we could/should meetup one day for an IR photowalk? Maybe others would be interested too?

thedarkroom

Apology accepted and no hard feelings. While my knowledge of IR photography is not at expert level, I would consider it certainly more than beginner. I have been involved in photography for over 30 years and have been teaching it for over twenty. I don't criticize people's photographs, I prefer to more constructive than that. I will give an honest opinion and if I don't like a photo on the Boards website then I will usually say nothing rather than offend. I praised the photograph you posted and then went on to talk about IR photography in general and ask a couple of questions about how you got your photograph. I certainly didn't mean to offend and would only wish to be constructive and helpful.
I know how things go here on the Boards website and I've done it myself so end of story as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding what you said below, actually there is a differences as most camera sensors are masked to reduce Infra Red sensitivity/interferences so to get a true Infra Red photo, the sensor pass filter needs to be removed to allow the full effect of Infra Red on a digital camera, so it's not purely down to a choice of filters on your camera.
I have the Hoya R72 filter and various other variations of red, yellow, orange, etc. etc. and have learned this through experience and reading various books/literature/websites. I have done it on proper IR film with these filters, on a D70s, a D300, a D90, a Canon G11, and several other digital SLR's and compacts. The only time that I have seen a true IR effect is on a colleagues converted D70s and the differences is significant.

Regards,

TheDarkroom

Fenster wrote: »

Whether I have a 720nm filter fitted directly onto my sensor or screwed onto my lens is moot; you get the same result either way. I'm sorry to my victim for coming across as snappish.

thedarkroom

SubLuminal wrote: »

What did you use to take this photo?

(Edit) I like the other two as well, particularly the first one. Coastal landscapes tend to be my favourites.

Fenster

Behold! Workflow goodness: http://bit.ly/dniCPM

CR2 raw + XMP (Lightroom) changes + PSD file.

DaireQuinlan

Fenster wrote: »

Behold! Workflow goodness: http://bit.ly/dniCPM

CR2 raw + XMP (Lightroom) changes + PSD file.

Dude ! I know that URL shorteners are all well and good and neccessary for twitter and what have you, but they really are an affront to decent thinking people so if there's no reason to use them then don't !

jpb1974

Whether I have a 720nm filter fitted directly onto my sensor or screwed onto my lens is moot; you get the same result either way.

Not entirely true... depending on your camera and the strength of the IR filter that sits on top of your sensor you could find yourself doing both IR and Long Exposure photography... which, depending on the scene, might not be a good thing. Exposure times can vary greatly from camera to camera.

Using the screw on filter can result in fairly long exposure times and if there is even the slightest of breezes then things like grass and tree branches/leaves can end up blurred and without detail in the final image.

I've seen a Sony A100 take an exposure in 2 seconds whereas a Canon 40D took 30 seconds.

Fenster

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Dude ! I know that URL shorteners are all well and good and neccessary for twitter and what have you, but they really are an affront to decent thinking people so if there's no reason to use them then don't !

Monitoring click-through and sources: http://bit.ly/dniCPM+

alexlyons

Fenster wrote: »

Behold! Workflow goodness: http://bit.ly/dniCPM

CR2 raw + XMP (Lightroom) changes + PSD file.

you seriously need to clean your lens, filter, sensor and other gear, those sort of blemishes shouldn't be there and can be got rid of pretty easily

Fenster

thedarkroom wrote: »

Apology accepted and no hard feelings. While my knowledge of IR photography is not at expert level, I would consider it certainly more than beginner. I have been involved in photography for over 30 years and have been teaching it for over twenty. I don't criticize people's photographs, I prefer to more constructive than that. I will give an honest opinion and if I don't like a photo on the Boards website then I will usually say nothing rather than offend. I praised the photograph you posted and then went on to talk about IR photography in general and ask a couple of questions about how you got your photograph. I certainly didn't mean to offend and would only wish to be constructive and helpful.
I know how things go here on the Boards website and I've done it myself so end of story as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding what you said below, actually there is a differences as most camera sensors are masked to reduce Infra Red sensitivity/interferences so to get a true Infra Red photo, the sensor pass filter needs to be removed to allow the full effect of Infra Red on a digital camera, so it's not purely down to a choice of filters on your camera.
I have the Hoya R72 filter and various other variations of red, yellow, orange, etc. etc. and have learned this through experience and reading various books/literature/websites. I have done it on proper IR film with these filters, on a D70s, a D300, a D90, a Canon G11, and several other digital SLR's and compacts. The only time that I have seen a true IR effect is on a colleagues converted D70s and the differences is significant.

Regards,

TheDarkroom

Those methods are all means to an end, and not necessarily ends that I want. I know full well that I am not working with full infrared light - 720 nanometers is on the straddling line between deep red visible light and the true infrared light that picks up at slightly longer wavelengths.

My own "end" was chosen deliberately. I want dramatically different black-and-white landscape and architectural photography of sites around Co. Galway and beyond to Ireland as a whole, as part of my efforts to build a dedicated portfolio (and, honestly, a marketable print base). In looking at my past photography I detected a distinct scattiness in the themes of my work; I've hopped about from subject to subject and from one method to the next like a weasel on crack, so I've decided to pick a single method for now and work with that.

So:

I don't need pseudo-coloured images. An all-red white balance setting gives a much easier tone than custom white balance.

A camera modified for 720nm near infrared photography by removing the baffle and fitting a filter produces

exactly the same images as an R72 filter screwed onto my lens. The disadvantage for me is that I lose my flexible control of exposure times. Being able to work with a range of exposure times that literally ranges from 2 seconds up to 3-400 seconds is liberating.

True infrared light, captured with an

960nm filter, similarly restricts the range of exposure times I have to work with by pushing them upwards. A scene looks almost identical at 300 seconds as it does at 600, 900 or 1500 except that I lose some texture out of the sky. Streets will appear similarly empty. Basic reflection and absorption lines don't change dramatically from 720nm.

SubLuminal

thedarkroom wrote: »

What did you use to take this photo?

(Edit) I like the other two as well, particularly the first one. Coastal landscapes tend to be my favourites.

Hi there -

Canon 350d with a Hoya R72 filter - shot in raw mode, was a long exposure, several minutes prolly, then took the resultant raw file into lightroom where a custom camera profile allows me to keep the color temperature really low, then over to potatoshop where I swap the red and blue channels, do channel specific levels adjustments and set new custom black grey and white points.

Phew!

I still don't like how my foliage always comes out pinkish though. I want white! Not quite there yet.. one day, one day! Only found out about the custom camera profile in lightroom the other day, looks like it could be a/the way forward..

(edit - have also found that deliberatly overexposing the image a bit when taking the shot and then turning the exposure down in lightroom gives me a MUCH better image, especially 'noise-wise' than correctly exposing. Weird but true.)


Thanks for the comments! Glad you liked

More of my photos on flickr - www.flickr.com/photos/neilpiersrobinson

thedarkroom

SubLuminal wrote: »

Hi there -

Canon 350d with a Hoya R72 filter - shot in raw mode, was a long exposure, several minutes prolly, then took the resultant raw file into lightroom where a custom camera profile allows me to keep the color temperature really low, then over to potatoshop where I swap the red and blue channels, do channel specific levels adjustments and set new custom black grey and white points.

Phew!

I still don't like how my foliage always comes out pinkish though. I want white! Not quite there yet.. one day, one day! Only found out about the custom camera profile in lightroom the other day, looks like it could be a/the way forward..

(edit - have also found that deliberatly overexposing the image a bit when taking the shot and then turning the exposure down in lightroom gives me a MUCH better image, especially 'noise-wise' than correctly exposing. Weird but true.)


Thanks for the comments! Glad you liked

More of my photos on flickr - www.flickr.com/photos/neilpiersrobinson

Hi Neil, a lot of work but I like it. When I saw it first I thought it looked very like the old IR effect of Kodak's colour Infra Red slide film from years ago. Possibly a slight lifting of the contrast and exposure and adding a halation effect would make it almost identical. I had a look at your image on flickr and viewed the enlarged version. I wonder would your pink cast be coming from a slight fringing of the red layer and that it's showing up where there is a lot of fine detail such as the lines in the blades of grass. If you look at the buildings to the upper left you can see the fringing. Try shifting the red channel and see what happens. It might help or it might just shift the problem to another area of the photo, or might just make a complete mess of your work.
Another option to remove the ink cast without messing about with channels would be to use 'replace colour' in the image adjustment menu. If you tried this you could selectively reduce any colour casts that interfere with what you are after. The selection tool could be used to isolate a specific area for adjusting.
Have you saved the photoshop work as an action? It would be very handy for using on anymore photographs that you want to do and you wouldn't have to go through all that again. It would probably need some tweaking though depending on individual photos.

David

melekalikimaka

thedarkroom wrote: »

I wonder would your pink cast be coming from a slight fringing of the red layer and that it's showing up where there is a lot of fine detail such as the lines in the blades of grass.

or go to lens correction, and adjust chromatic abberation

jpb1974

I still don't like how my foliage always comes out pinkish though. I want white!

The Red/Blue channel swap technique is hard to get right.

Once you've done the channel swap then create a Hue/Saturation layer adjustment and set the saturation of Red and Magenta to 0... this should help... but results can vary.

This is one of my better ones -