Fun with Infrared

Discussion in 'Nature' started by BigSky1, Apr 9, 2013.

  1. BigSky1

    BigSky1 Mu-43 Regular

    47
    Dec 5, 2012
    Helena, Montana
    Todd
    I had my old Oly EPL-2 converted to IR (830nm filter). Just started using it. The pics below are with my pany 14mm lens. Lots of fun. Lets see your IR u4/3 photos. Todd

    8636671752_af19b08e3b.
    test6 by tsharwell, on Flickr

    8636669132_b1c9a6d79b.
    fool3 by tsharwell, on Flickr

    8636685124_6d9dfcc3a2.
    fool1 by tsharwell, on Flickr
     
  2. slothead

    slothead Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 14, 2012
    Frederick, MD
    Good shots Todd. I don't know if you had seen it or not, but there is a thread in the Black and White Forum that deals with IR too. The thread title is "IR Interests?" or something like that.

    Most of my successful IR has been done with my converted Nikon, but I am slowly equipping my Olys to do the job too.

    Personally, I'd like to see enough traffic that it motivated a new forum on IR or UV or both.
     
  3. BigSky1

    BigSky1 Mu-43 Regular

    47
    Dec 5, 2012
    Helena, Montana
    Todd
    Thanks for that - I will check out that forum. I am really liking IR!!
     
  4. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Great stuff here - you've shown exactly why I want to do an IR conversion also! :smile:
     
  5. Crdome

    Crdome Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 11, 2011
    West Central Indiana
    Chrome
    IR has always fascinated me. When I was in highschool in the early 1960 I used to play with night shots on a Twin Lens Reflex using "black" IR flashbulbs.

    How much is a conversion?
     
  6. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    Nice stuff. Makes me a little homesick for Montana.
     
  7. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    I really like the first shot, but the other two seem a bit dark.
     
  8. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 21, 2013
    N Essex, UK
    Mike
    Exactly what I was thinking. Even though it's dark I like the second as well, with the third I think I'd prefer it without the foreground.
     
  9. slothead

    slothead Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 14, 2012
    Frederick, MD
    A conversion usually runs anywhere for $200 - $300 (not including the camera).
     
  10. fsuscotphoto

    fsuscotphoto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    819
    Feb 15, 2013
    St. Cloud, FL
    Ron
    Is it really necessary to convert? And really what does that do to the camera?
     
  11. Crdome

    Crdome Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 11, 2011
    West Central Indiana
    Chrome
    Here is my understand: Digital sensors can record all light wave band widths. Filters are placed over sensors to remove those bands not visible to the human eye. Otherwise the image would represent what you saw when shooting.

    To convert a camera the IR filter must be removed, and the camera becomes a dedicated IR camera. I believe the same is true with UV too.


     
  12. slothead

    slothead Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 14, 2012
    Frederick, MD
    No, it is not necessary to convert, but unless you do so, you will need much longer exposures to capture the IR. I don't have a time comparison to offer you, but someone here may. If you do convert, it Wil restrict that camera to IR since it will now have a permanently affixed IR filter.
     
  13. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 21, 2013
    N Essex, UK
    Mike
    Without the 'hot mirror' (the built in IR/UV filter) CMOS & CCD sensors as used in digital cameras are relatively sensitive to both UV & IR but only within limited wavelengths. The actual response to any wavelength will vary depending on the sensor design. Likewise the choise of hot mirror will effect how sensitive an unmodified camera is.
    Neither sensor will respond to mid infrared (2500-50000nm) let alone far infrared as needed for thermal imaging. I don't think either respond much below 300nm in the UV (below ~200nm air absorbs UV).
    To further complicate things the lenses used will vary considerably in their transmission of the non visible radiation - special quartz lenses are sold for UV work and many quality optical lenses produce hot spots when used for IR.

    As I mentioned in another of the IR threads, yesterday I had a bit on sun at lunchtime (seems like only the third time I 've seen it since september) so had a quick play with my unmodified G1 with IR. Using a 720nm filter the exposure was about 2000 longer than with visible, this is very roughly similar to my K100d - just about handholdable at moderate ISO. When I tried with my Pentax K7 I think the exposures needed to be at least 200 times longer still, certainly no option but a tripod & long exposures even at its highest ISO (~1s at ISO 6400 wide open).
    [update] I've just tried editing the IR images from the G1, & I'm not convinced they're showing proper IR characteristics. Simply desaturating has not produced the pale foliage I'm used to. It could be just leakage of visible light, or perhaps its just showing the extreme edge of the IR..

    It is possible to have a camera converted to 'full spectrum' making it sensitive to UV, visible & IR. If you do this you can use filters in front of the lens to select which you want to use - a bit of a pain but the ultimate in flexibility.
     
  14. fsuscotphoto

    fsuscotphoto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    819
    Feb 15, 2013
    St. Cloud, FL
    Ron
    Thanks, but that seems to be a very expensive way to take just one type of picture. I'll go the filter and tripod route I think and see what I get.