1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Infrared with GF1

Discussion in 'Other Genres' started by Janine4d, Jun 21, 2011.

  1. Janine4d

    Janine4d Mu-43 Regular

    I just got my cheap IR filter from ebay and tried it on the GF1 and GF2. I was surprised that the result was different for both cameras, or at least the white balance seems to be different. I can set it to something usable on the GF2 so that the trees are actually white but the GF1 refuses to set a white balance if I point it at the same spot (a tree), it just stays bright orange. But these images were with the GF1 anyway. It managed to autofocus on the trees but that's probably slightly off, should focus with the filter off, I read that it can be inaccurate otherwise. And I didn't use a tripod and just put it on a ledge, probably not 100% stable. But good enough as a first test anyway. :smile: can't wait to test it outdoors with a tripod.

    First without and then with IR filter, with 20mm pancake:

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    There is no white balance with IR--it is a monochrome image. If you want color, you need to add it in processing.

    If you can see a live image, use that for focus. If you focus without the filter, the focus will be slightly off as IR has a longer wavelength than white light so I would stop down to get more depth of field--the lens should never be at the infinity position as that will be past infinity for IR.

    IR will always look a little softer the white light. Partly because you are only using the red pixels of your Bayer sensor, partly because the longer wavelength of IR, and partly because your lens is not designed to focus that wavelength.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Actually you still do need to use the white balance - it should be set off green foliage to achieve the white effect found in B&W IR images. If there is no foliage, I believe tungsten gives the approximate color temperature. You are best off shooting in RAW and then clicking the foliage after the fact so you can further tweak the final B&W product. As Hikari said, color IR photos are achieved through PP via combining images that are channel swapped and other stuff (not to familiar with the techniques myself).
  4. SMaturin

    SMaturin Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 30, 2011
    New York's Backyard
    I love what the IR filter did to the sky and clouds.

    I would be tempted to try merging that with HDR images captured without the filter, just to see what it does to the sky.

    I am going to have to order an IR filter and try that.

    Thanks, Janine, for sharing, and Hikari for explaining the technical stuff.
  5. banana101

    banana101 Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 5, 2011
    Wow the clouds look totally different in each image!
  6. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    This is near IR. You are not getting any wavelength below 750nm or so. How is white balance going to do anything as the green and blue channels are cut? There is no green...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.