Does /p/ approve of IR / full spectrum photography? Is it legit or a meme? It seems it is mostly used for landscapes, but I'm wondering what else you could explore with it, outside of forensics and other nerd shit.
>>4429552I'm the ceo of /p and I'll answer both:1- it's a gimmick. Only changes colors in an unusual way. Sadly it doesn't do anything that interesting. Just a complex filter. Since humans can't see that way it just looks off and alien. Any full spectrum photography will take center of attention away from the picture and towards it's weird color palette.2- It's legit. Filters are part of photography, and showing something new can always be interesting. Photography is about showing reality in a different way that we usually see it, making the viewer feel a certain way about something that can be very common. And colors play a role in creating emotion. If used correctly full spectrum photography can be used to create an atmosphere and emotions you wouldn't have through a visible spectrum photo.
>>4429583>>4429552I am one of the few on /p/ who has actually done IR and posted here with it so I'll break it down for you.IR lets you get away with shit that normal cameras can't do. In color the moon on this shot was not very visible and had a fair amount of haze in front of it. IR doesn't care about that. There are a few caveats. When you are shooting at large apertures and close distances, your camera will autofocus on something but it will appear out of focus on the image, that's because of how light travels on the IR spectrum. I can't remember the exact physics but it's kind of the same reason shit underwater doesn't focus the same as it does on the surface, visible light and IR are different wavelengths and camera's AF system only sees visible light.When you are shooting at large apertures and at things far away, this effect isn't really noticeable, which is why it's great for landscape. If you are working with older lenses or anything manual focus they usually have IR marks you can focus through the viewfinder and then adjust using the IR mark on the distance scale.Avoid shooting through car windows, most modern cars have IR coating on the windows and you won't get much of an image because the glass is filtering out the UV spectrum, or most of it. It's mostly a gimmick, but a really cool looking one. You can do some really neat shit with infrared but you have to train yourself to be able to "see" in IR, so that you're shooting things like trees that contrast with the background, although on digital it's easy because you can see the result right there.
this is now an IR thread.
These were all done on a D300 converted to IR and either a 200-500/5.6 Nikkor VR for the long stuff with the moon and an 18-200 VR or Tokina 11-20/2.8
The other neat thing about IR is it's an easy BW conversion if you're looking for that really dark sky to contrast with clouds
I should try IR again since it's so HOT out
Thanks for sharing those photos, anon. It reminds me of like the Skesis fortress from The Dark Crystal (compliment) or as if it was taken on another planet. Does IR still require modifying an entire camera just to be solely for IR?
Bought a full spectrum modded Nikon D70s a few months ago. I'm currently using it with the 18-55 kit lens and a 550nm filter from Aliexpress. I learned it the hard way that I should've done a bit more research before hand, IR/FS modded DSLRs need to be calibrated or something for every lens. Now the kit lens seems to shoot the sharpest photos w/autofocus on about 38mm and 55m focal length. How much of a pain in the ass is it to calibrate the camera? Is it trial and error?
>>4430060About AF, would this work better with mirrorless cameras, which use the actual image for determining focus?
I really like the look of superpanchromatic film with no filter. I think this would be roughly equivalent to a full spectrum camera but you'd always convert to b&w. False color usually looks like shit anyway.>>4430098Yes mirrorless is way better for IR conversion. It's just even the crappy old ones are still expensive and people don't want to spend that on a gimmick so they convert dslrs and cope with the consequences.
>>4430100Early sony aps-c ones are dirt cheap now though, they might be garbage, I wouldn't know.
>>4430063So for this, you would need to install a filter, or is full spectrum conversion enough?
>>4430103Mine just has a filter in front of the sensor. That's how they get converted. The spectrum of light captured depends on the filter placed in front of the sensor. If you're using DSLR and slap an IR filter in front of the lens you won't see anything in the finder, that's why people convert them.It depends on what you want the output to look like, most places that do the IR conversion explain this in much greater detail than I could on here, honestly this is one of those things I know how it works and what needs to be done to get there but I can't exactly explain the different spectrums and what they do.>>4430100>>4430098absolutely. Early Sony A7's are cheap, hell I paid less for my A7S three years ago than I paid for my D4 in December of 2024. There's nothing wrong with older DSLRs for conversion, most of them are only good for that these days. I do quite love my D300 IR and all of my lenses already work on it, that's something to think about for choosing a body for conversion. >>4430087I never had these problems? I mean, I did cal my body to the lenses I have but only to correct for the lens itself and I did that in the menu, Nikon has a lens calibration menu I believe under Shooting or maybe Setup. Its been a minute.
i've shot IR (850nm sensor mod) exclusively for the past 3 years. axe me anything.
>>4430129That's fuckin cool
>>4430129>axe me anything.let's see some more
>>4430178this is a normal kfc bucket.except in IR ... red ink is transparent.
>>4430180I dig it.What's your equipment btw?
>>4430181fujifilm xt1 with kolari sensor mod. various old/new lenses (some hotspot more than others)capture one for RAW processing.<< modern cash has IR reflective ink that is invisible to the eye.
IS this a good deal? It's kinda tempting because you normally pay more than that for the conversion. For the sake of argument let's assume m43 is good enough for me ;).In the actual text it becomes clear that it is actually a full spectrum conversion with a clear replacement filter, so for IR a lens filter is required.
Erdogan strijder op de draad.
>>4430182How do i get around hotspot? I've noticed a few of mine bloom in the middle
>>4430238depends on the lens, but i've found the smaller the aperture, the more hotspot you'll see. f/1.2 to f/5.6 is better than f/8+also, i'll negate the effect in cap one with creative adj layer. not perfect, but it works OK.<< color fuckery of IR trees/clouds
>>4430198looks like a good deal to me if four turds is your thingThere's not much reason to do anything other than full spectrum for mirrorless unless you're very sure what filter you want. With DSLR the downside is you can't see through the viewfinder but with EVF that problem goes away entirely. >>4430238kolari did a pretty thorough investigation https://kolarivision.com/the-science-of-infrared-hotspotsThe main thing is choosing the right lens. They also have a table of good and bad lenses for various mounts.
>>4430060>>4429552wtf this shit is kino, give me the rundown on IRtography
>>4430450>reject dslr, retrvn to mirrorless>full spectrum mod + filters you like>take photos, edit in lightroom or whatevercheck some videos/writeups on the whole process before going for it
>>4430293thank you, seems I have a few winners on that Nikon list there. I have a Tamron 16-300 that does fairly well at all apertures, nice walkaround lens great for IR
>>4430060This man knowsI shoot a lot of IR too, i use a Tamron lens from the 80s and shoot hand held. I try to be an IR chad
>>4429583I knew Americans were dumb but this is on another level! It only changes the colors he says! HAHAHAHAH
>>4430451DSLRs have nothing to do with it, if anythig I would recommend anyone get a used DSLR to convert it, if you're a useless idiot then maybe spending 10x the price to get a mirrorless would be justified, but mailing it to some faggot to "convert" it is unjustifiable, might as well ask chatgpt to fake the photos for you since you're such a little bitch
>>4430060>>4430129I have a spare body I want to convert and the service I'm gonna use offers a bunch of options, I'm leaning towards getting a red foliage (550nm) instead of full spectrum since I know for a fact I'm not gonna buy filters for all my lensesanybody got experience with that or what would it take to make the most of such conversion?
>>4430608There are clip in/magnetic filters for certain cameras that give you the versatility of full spectrum without the misery of screw in filters. But the same DSLR vs mirrorless tradeoff applies since it goes in front of the mirror box.If you're set on a permanent conversion, download the sample RAWs from lifepixel and play around with them. That should give you an idea of what's involved on the processing side.
>>4430608are you actually paying for a conversion to be done when it takes like 3 hours to do it yourself for freeall you need is a piece of glass to replace the IR filter
>>4430450it's how the world looks to a tesla.
<< ir can see thru materials.... like skin.
>>4430771This is why camera companies don't sell their IR camera at consumer level.Fuji sells GFX IR version but only for researchers or organizations. When you shoot it under 1/8000 level sunny day you can easily take see through pussies of women on street and athletes on track
>>4429552Flesh Simulator detected, glad to see you're hiding in /p/
>>4431821IR Haiku: god bless yogapants unless they hide a secret i dont like sausage
Any camera that happens to be piss easy to convert?
>>4430631yeah I wanna convert older Pentax dslr and use my old pentax glass and soviet m42 lenses, clip in filters aren't an option for me I'm afraid
low-budget jwst
>>4431947sony F707 and 828 can shoot IR by just putting a magnet in a certain spot
>>4430063This looks like the sorta shot you'd have in a music video.
Would a 1Ds mk.2 be a good camera for IR conversion?
>>4430608 Get filters for your largest filter thread diameter lens and down adapters for your other lenses. Chink ones are rather rough but cheap enough you can have one for every lens you have.
It's a gimmick, but I think it's a cool gimmick, especially if you can do it cheap by buying some IR Black and White film or convert some cheap point and shoot.Wanna try both in the near future.
So if I'm just after some dramatic monochrome images, is a full spectrum conversion enough, or do I go for a filter?
>>4434505Full spectrum sometimes includes UV. I'd avoid UV (unless you like it).Never used a lens.filter on my modded XT1. Could be useful, but not my bag.I suspect modding the sensor.glass.filter also removes AA filtering. This is a good thing.
>>4434509Have you ever made a thread and dump all those? If not mind making one? I like em and would like to see the whole work
>>4431947Nikon d70 and cheap too
>>4431947D50 wasn't too bad, but something that should probably be obvious, you really need something with a digital viewfinder if you want to shoot in IR only.
>>4434869>>4434861What wavelength is this?
>>4434544never dumped an organized album, just nuggets in threads.feedback on my ir edits is encouraged. i'm making it up as i go.
>>4430450Been doing this for years and really enjoy IR and other long exposure set ups. I use IR filter, take photo of bright green foliage in daylight with filter on and set that as custom white balance. Then just set to manual mode and shoot. For me with filter on unmodified camera I’m normally shooting 5-30 seconds on tripod
>>4430451This is cool photo. Do you use particular swap presets? I’m in darkroom and don’t automatically get that nice pink after swapping and don’t
so. many. gnats.
>>4436269Interesting to see wildlife infrared, hope you have more. Testing larger file size. I used to get full size images of Flirkr and now it seems terrible and only low resolution crap available for download.
>>4436624Infrared works really well in very green areas. The bleached out plants gives a lot of good contrast you don't get otherwise. Natural camouflage works a little too well sometimes.
>>4433524There’s a list floating around regarding suitability of various cameras for IR. I’m using a 5D and I find it works great for IR. Another compression test.
>>4436624Really like the colors here.Deer visit daily, sometimes bears.Try nighttime long exposure, esp. in light polluted areas. really nice coloring potential.
>>4436698Thank you but I think maybe it’s oversaturated and maybe underexposed as well. This one is dialed back on the saturation and came out well, it’s a forest that burned down a few years back. Do you have any examples of the night IR you’re referring to? I can’t imagine the exposure time with unmodified camera if these are 8 seconds in broad daylight.
>>4436624>>4437173Are these IR or full spectrum?(NTA)
I went with a 830nm IR conversion on my A6000 that blocks pretty much every wavelength except IR. It means I can only do black and white, but I'm OK with that.
>>4437298These are shot on unmodified 5dm4 with IR filter with tripod. Then in post they get RB channel color swap. Out of the camera they have a touch of color and I can try to find an example. Here’s another one from my last shoot about a week ago after processing.
capture one color voodoo from RAW
>>4437969I like some color with infrared, even just a little like here. This is what I get out of the camera prior to RB swap. I generally swap color and adjust to try to get a sky that resembles the tone of an ordinary mid day sky.
>>4436624it looks like a collage. like someone took the background sky from a different image
>>4442284I think that’s from over saturation of the image. I’m working more on controlling the excessive blues while maintaining the reds and pinks. Is there a way to control the hot pixels in dark table without using raw files? I don’t mind them too much but wish they weren’t quite so bright. Here’s another from a new shoot last week.
Does not enjoy fireworks.
Do you think we can ever get contacts to make us see like this
>>4443623Best product would have to be AR device that can see/augment IR into human's range. One BIG roadblock is that it would allow 'x-ray' vision of certain fabrics.
>>4443623Eventually you can just tell your brain's AI subunit to switch your eyes to IR modeIn 2200
>>4443623I think there is a rare condition that allows people to see ir
happy paid holiday, everyone.
>>4443812Human eyes can see a tiny bit in the infrared spectrum, but actually quite a lot in UV, our cornea just filters it out.
I do false color near infrared on a Sigma SD1 Merrill with the hot filter swapped for a Green X1 filter, which ends up pretty aerochrome like. Wouldn’t recommend it unless you like shooting very slow.
>>4430060>camera's AF system only sees visible light.close but wrongyour AF system is calibrated to visible light. IR has a substantial enough difference in refractive index to visible light that it will be out of focus if you're using body AFif your camera has live view AF, it will focus correctly because it uses local contrast points which will focus correctly even with IR>>4430608don't filter in body, it doesn't make sense. There are enough IR filters that you can stick on the lens that anything other than full spectrum doesn't make sense>>4443958this one's really great>>4443812you can see short IR, there are just very few situations where your retina's not getting absolutely assaulted by visible and UV while short IR is plentiful enough to seeYou can even "see" all the way up to X-rays as well. >>4430592is this Aerochrome or just a LUT?
>>4445561
>>4445563
>>4445566
>>4445561Its not a LUT. I have A LOT of it, years worth...
>>4445566FOCUS!!!
>>4445561I’m currently using just AF and having good luck focusing as far as I can tell. On the other hand most of my compositions tend to use mid ground as the focal point so I assume it makes focus more forgiving. Tried to re edit this to bring better unity so sky doesn’t have the copy paste look. As before it’s mostly an issue of correction of blue over saturation on the RB swapped image (too much red in images out of the camera). I took one picture of grass a year ago that I use for my custom white balance
>>4446026Forgot pic
>>4430063This is an excellent shot
>>4430180Looks like the view of "They Live" special sunglasses
Turns out a Handycam with nightshot works pretty well as a IR camera. Tape an IR passthrough to the front of it and it's good to go.
ir + relight fx
ir/rl
>>4430106This thread has me interested in converting my old A7 to full spectrum, then getting filters.Is this a good idea. Can a monkey brain combined with YouTube and google pull it off? Not interested in paying someone to do it. Would experienced IR folks recommend full spectrum?
>>4450268Never mind looked at the life pixel tutorial and I will surely mess this up. Would IR be interesting for street photography if you can shoot at a fast enough shutter speed?
>>4450273Not really. It doesn't really change much unless you're shooting foliage.
>>4450335Wrong, it makes skin look way different, real soft and glowy, smooths out wrinkles and such.>>4450273Do it. Full spectrum will get you +1-2 bonus stops and if you convert to b&w you should get something like rollei retro 80s.
>>4451574Tempted. I don’t use the A7. It looks like a pain in the ass to do yourself any recs for a service? I converted a lil digi shit years ago but it was much less complex than the A7
I took this with the Fuji x100vi handheld with a R72 filter
do you ever look for blur-ghosts? i found god in this one.
eggs are weird in ir.
same egg, more slider.
>>4458036>>4458033Wow. Very cool.
small ir flashlight shines thru weak flesh revealing the bones & blood within.
As a bonus, full-spectrum is great for astrophotography, in fact it is literally called an astro-mod in astronomy circles. Being able to image in UV and IR wavelengths is interesting in its own right, but on top of that, the UV/IR cut filters made for AP are a lot better than stock, and iirc if you're doing narrowband imaging you don't need a UV/IR filter at all since those filters block off-band light anyways, so one less piece of glass in the light-path.
>>4463679As someone who likes doing nightscapes and plans to do some deep space shit eventually, would you recommend an IR full spec modded camera like the Ra, or rather just grab something like a shop converted APS-C/M43?I think I recall someone saying true astro cameras normally have a smaller sensor size.
>>4463688Sensor size varies on astro cams, it depends on what you're imaging. Actual deep sky tends to prefer large sensors and correspondingly large pixels to gather more light for dim targets such as galaxies and especially nebulae, while cameras intended for planetary imaging have smaller sensors to get a smaller field of view (roughly, but not exactly equivalent to magnification). Planets are small but bright so no worries about wasting light.Most of what I know about AP, I know by proxy. I'm ironically a visual astronomer. Since you're approaching from the photography side, I think it would be best to just get a camera that suits your needs off the telescope first. Handheld cameras are already not an optimal tool for AP, it's just one that some astronomers already had and realised they could use and get good enough results. If you end up really getting into AP you will want to get a specialised astro cam anyways.That being said, I'd generally err towards a larger sensor size. You can't move your feet to get closer or farther in AP so the only way to get a (appreciably, focal reducers don't do that much) wider field is to use a shorter telescope. But there are many creative ways to get a narrower field, such as Barlow lenses, eyepiece projection, and afocal projection.I took picrel with a phone camera btw
>>4434921720 NM
wrist innards
