Shane Noir wrote:
Right now this filter is being sold at $25 instead of $100, so I jumped on it.  I'm not sure how long this sale will last, but I be they are just trying to clear out some of their inventory. 

I've always wanted to try out IR photography, but the filters seem to be pretty expensive-- though at $25, its hard to say no.

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-720nm-Infr … 574&sr=8-4

If you look around the web, this filter normally sells for $25 to $30.   I can't find anybody who sells this filter for $100.   There is no need to rush to get this filter.


If you want to try out Infrared photography, you will need more than just a filter.   Most digital cameras have IR blocking glass bonded to the sensor.   If you want to shoot Digital IR, you need to have your camera modified to have this IR blocker removed.  Once removed, the camera pretty much becomes dedicated to IR.

You could also buy a camera designed for IR photography.  The canon 20Da does not have the internal IR block.


Your other choice for IR is a film camera and IR film.   You may need to do your own developing as most labs aren't used to dealing with IR film.

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
I wonder what happens when you have your digital camera converted for IR use only. Anyone have a sample?

Frank,
Ive heard great things about this company. I'm thinking about having one of mine converted.
http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/samples.html

Shane Noir wrote:
Right now this filter is being sold at $25 instead of $100, so I jumped on it.  I'm not sure how long this sale will last, but I be they are just trying to clear out some of their inventory. 

I've always wanted to try out IR photography, but the filters seem to be pretty expensive-- though at $25, its hard to say no.

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-720nm-Infr … 574&sr=8-4

Took a look at this filter. Honestly, you could probably get the same effect in PhotoShop! I know it's possible with LR!

i c e c o l d wrote:
Frank,
Ive heard great things about this company. I'm thinking about having one of mine converted.
http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/samples.html

As much as I like the IR look....$400 for a Canon converstion is a bit pricey for something I use occasionally. Nice photos though!

***edit***

BTW...did you see the tutorial with instructions on how to do it yourself?....damn....I don't think I'd be doing my own work!! Take apart my 5D!!!!....HOLEEEEE SHITE!!...NEVER HAPPEN!

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
I wonder what happens when you have your digital camera converted for IR use only. Anyone have a sample?

Not converted, but shot with a Sony V3 w/720nm filter.  The V3 has a "night vision" mode that really only swings the internal anti-IR filter out of the way.  Sony had this feature on some video cams and a few P&S still cameras but discontinued it after the "X-ray Vision" internet babble.

Essential Form wrote:



Not converted, but shot with a Sony V3 w/720nm filter.  The V3 has a "night vision" mode that really only swings the internal anti-IR filter out of the way.  Sony had this feature on some video cams and a few P&S still cameras but discontinued it after the "X-ray Vision" internet babble.

I like it! Nice shot!

I wonder how difficult it would be just to include this capabilty in all DSLRs?

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
I like it! Nice shot!

I wonder how difficult it would be just to include this capabilty in all DSLRs?

Pretty difficult, and very unlikely to happen.

A small sampling of my IR work:
http://nudes.stevemelvin.com/index.php? … category=8
(18+)

That's a mix of three cameras: 300D with R72, 400D with 87C, and Bronica SQ with a 25 red and Konica IR film.

I used to shoot IR film. A lot. In b&w, digital has nothing but advantages: cost, sensitivity and image quality are all strongly in digital's favor. In color, digital still has those advantages, but it doesn't have the same look as Ektachrome IR, and film is the only way you're going to get that look, unless you want to go to the trouble to combine IR and RGB exposures and mix them in Photoshop. But b&w looks exactly the same, or better.

When I was shooting Ektachrome IR, I was spending $50 a roll on the film and processing. Eight rolls of that and I've paid for a converted camera. That was a no-brainer for me.

Warren Paul Harris wrote:
You realize, don't you, that this will not do you any good unless you have an infrared camera, right?  There is a piece of cold glass in all standard DSLR cameras that intentionally BLOCKS IR energy.

Therefore, you will not record any IR energy to filter.  If you read the description of the product, it clearly states, it is to be used with an "IR sensitive" camera.

--WPH

There are two things going on, there is a filter that blocks MOST NIR energy reaching the sensor - a little bit gets through, (mostly above 850nm depending on the camera). So you CAN do very poor NIR photography on an unmodified camera by installing a VIS blocking filter and using an enormously long exposure.

The other thing thats occurring is better sensor designs that capture less NIR light to begin with - and allow manufactures to use weaker, less costly NIR blocking filters. Ideally, you could design a sensor that would not capture any NIR light in the first place, but this is really hard to do and would make consumer cameras way too expensive.

Some early digital cameras, like the D70, used weaker NIR blocking filters, and are better unmodified at NIR photography than others.

Most cameras also use NIR light to help focus - and many even have NIR emmiters on them to aid autofocus - giving another reason to block out this light in most applications.

TheScarletLetterSeries wrote:
Precision Camera is a high quality outfit for IR conversions:

http://www.precisioncamera.com/infrared … vices.html

I have an IR converted GF1 coming in Monday....

; )

I can't comment on the quality of their work, but the website is highly annoying. Really, we don't need animated testimonials on the side. You want to pimp yourself, we get it.

I've used Lifepixel twice, and highly recommend them. Very high quality work, and they even adjust the AF for IR wavelengths. It's remarkably accurate, even at wide apertures.

Photography by Daniel wrote:
While we are on the topic of removing the IR glass from the camera, I have a question. Once the glass is removed will the camera become a dedicated infrared camera or will it still be able to shoot standard images?

Yes, it will.
There are several sellers on ebay who sell modified cameras for IR use. I bought one and it works very well. With the blocking filter removed you can take hand held IR shots.

This was shot with an IR modified Canon G3


http://www.pbase.com/jiminchico/image/103959055

This one was taken through the windshield while driving

http://www.pbase.com/jiminchico/image/103959023

Photography by Daniel wrote:
While we are on the topic of removing the IR glass from the camera, I have a question. Once the glass is removed will the camera become a dedicated infrared camera or will it still be able to shoot standard images?

Well, if you JUST remove the IR-blocking filter it will be a full-spectrum camera, and your shots will all have a reddish cast to them unless you screw an IR blocking filter on the front of your lens. If you get the IR glass put in place of the IR-blocking glass on the sensor, yes, it will be an IR only camera.


...And for those that say nothing compares to infrared FILM- get over yourselves. I know most people doing digital infrared today totally suck, but digital has many possibilities that film didn't have. You want that grainy, diffuse look? Yeah, photoshop and a couple nice plug-ins can do that for you.

Dream-foto wrote:

Yes, it will.
There are several sellers on ebay who sell modified cameras for IR use. I bought one and it works very well. With the blocking filter removed you can take hand held IR shots.

Thank you

Mister Graves wrote:

Well, if you JUST remove the IR-blocking filter it will be a full-spectrum camera, and your shots will all have a reddish cast to them unless you screw an IR blocking filter on the front of your lens. If you get the IR glass put in place of the IR-blocking glass on the sensor, yes, it will be an IR only camera.


...And for those that say nothing compares to infrared FILM- get over yourselves. I know most people doing digital infrared today totally suck, but digital has many possibilities that film didn't have. You want that grainy, diffuse look? Yeah, photoshop and a couple nice plug-ins can do that for you.

Thank you too

Jim Green wrote:
ok, not to highjack the thread, but if I screw that IR filter on my Nikon F3, will the F3 metering work for exposure calculation?

No. At least, most likely not. It won't be able to see anything. It's kinda like having a ND1000 filter on. Focus manually, screw the thread on, and then guess at exposure times. Some cameras have stronger internal IR-blockers than others.

Warren Paul Harris wrote:
You realize, don't you, that this will not do you any good unless you have an infrared camera, right?  There is a piece of cold glass in all standard DSLR cameras that intentionally BLOCKS IR energy.

Therefore, you will not record any IR energy to filter.  If you read the description of the product, it clearly states, it is to be used with an "IR sensitive" camera.

Plan on returning it.

For IR photography, you either need to purchase a camera made for this purpose (Fuji makes one and I've had it for years - works great) or have your DSLR modified by removing the cold glass shield and replacing it with an IR-passive piece of optical glass.

I researched all this before I started investing in gear. 

And once you own the camera, THEN you get to invest several hundred $$$ in filters to get the desired effect.

See my website for samples.

Best of luck

--WPH

Sorry dude, but it looks like the IR filter works fine.  I can't shoot as quickly as I could if I had a dedicated DSLR with the IR blocking glass removed... but then again, for $25 compared to $1,000, I'm okay with waiting fifteen seconds for a shot.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

I can't comment on the quality of their work, but the website is highly annoying. Really, we don't need animated testimonials on the side. You want to pimp yourself, we get it. ....

You're kidding, right?  I recommend a respected camera repair facility for IR conversions, and that's pimping?  Huh?

And this from a guy who has this in his MM profile: 

"Photographers: The best models come to Kansas City to shoot with me. I'm compiling a list of photographers in the area who pay models to shoot with them. If you'd like to be added to this list, which I will give to traveling models who would like to come to Kansas City, please send me a message."

Now that sounds more like pimping to me....

SRB Photo wrote:
You do know that your camera has an IR-blocking filter built into it?

I use those on my 5d with no problem. I just need to have very long exposures (several seconds usually). Looks wonderful with landscapes and plants that don't move much, when they do move it gives a nice dream like quality. Not sure what camera they use, but i can use it that way on my 5d and xti without issue. Some lenses have "hot spots", but it lets me play with IR for a fraction of the price of a full conversion.

I'll probably get a conversion whenever i get a new camera, but for play those are fine, just not people and action.

Edit:
Every one of these i took with a similar filter (i know, not the greatest shots, but i'm still learning, even more so with IR):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tfangel/se … 269682677/

Scott Aitken wrote:
Yes, it is possible to shoot IR with a DSLR. I've done it with several. Most modern DSLRs have a bypass filter that block most, BUT NOT ALL, infrared spectrum light.

Here's how it works.

The DSLRs bypass filter cuts out most IR light. Your IR filter on the lens cuts out everything EXCEPT infrared light. So what you have left is a very narrow band of infrared light that actually reaches the sensor.

It is a bit clunky to work with. You can't autofocus, because not enough light reaches the focusing sensor. You can't actually see through the viewfinder with the filter on, so you have to compose your picture with the filter off, manually focus, lock your lens down, and then put the filter on. It takes long exposures, because very little light gets through all the filtering. Your camera meter won't work, so you have to manually expose, and guess, and experiment until you get an exposure you like. All this means you pretty much have to use a tripod. Hand-holding is out of the question. Your actual image is all shades of red, which most people convert to B&W. You can't get color IR this way.

It is a true IR image. But it isn't very easy to do. If I was more interested, and wanted to do serious IR, I would probably convert an older DSLR body, which would be way way easier than this clunky method.

I have successfully shot IR this way with a Canon 20D, 30D, and 5D. I've known other photographers who have done this with other DSLRs too.

That pretty much sums up my experience today.  Its a lot of fun... like long exposures at night-- except at daytime haha.   Eventually I'm going to pick up a 20D and have it converted, but until then... well, I always keep a tripod in my trunk anyway.

Sam Comer Photography wrote:
Got no samples handy at the moment, but I've gotten great results with a Nikon D70 - no IR filter, but two pieces of unexposed, processed E-6 4x5 sheets cut to fit a Cokin filter holder. http://photocritic.org/create-your-own-ir-filter/ Can't see a thing through the lens so you have to focus and compose before you put the filter one, but the final images, plus a very small amount of contrast and levels adjustments in PS, I get very close to what I used to get with the Ilford SFX. Still not quite HIE because of the halation you get with that stuff, but still nice.

FWIW, I've gotten similar results with that filter held over the lens of a Nikon Coolpix.

That's brilliant!!!

Aesthete Studios wrote:


Nikon D80 converted to IR...665nm.

just got it a week ago...loving it; lots of fun!

--Thomas

Wow, that looks amazing.  Great job!

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
A small sampling of my IR work:
http://nudes.stevemelvin.com/index.php? … category=8
(18+)

Are you Leggy Mountbatten in Kansas City or Stephen Melvin in New York?

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
BTW...did you see the tutorial with instructions on how to do it yourself?....damn....I don't think I'd be doing my own work!! Take apart my 5D!!!!....HOLEEEEE SHITE!!...NEVER HAPPEN!

Where is this tutorial?

Scott Aitken wrote:
Yes, it is possible to shoot IR with a DSLR. I've done it with several. Most modern DSLRs have a bypass filter that block most, BUT NOT ALL, infrared spectrum light.

Here's how it works.

The DSLRs bypass filter cuts out most IR light. Your IR filter on the lens cuts out everything EXCEPT infrared light. So what you have left is a very narrow band of infrared light that actually reaches the sensor.

It is a bit clunky to work with. You can't autofocus, because not enough light reaches the focusing sensor. You can't actually see through the viewfinder with the filter on, so you have to compose your picture with the filter off, manually focus, lock your lens down, and then put the filter on. It takes long exposures, because very little light gets through all the filtering. Your camera meter won't work, so you have to manually expose, and guess, and experiment until you get an exposure you like. All this means you pretty much have to use a tripod. Hand-holding is out of the question. Your actual image is all shades of red, which most people convert to B&W. You can't get color IR this way.

It is a true IR image. But it isn't very easy to do. If I was more interested, and wanted to do serious IR, I would probably convert an older DSLR body, which would be way way easier than this clunky method.

I have successfully shot IR this way with a Canon 20D, 30D, and 5D. I've known other photographers who have done this with other DSLRs too.

Yup it's completely possible.  Here's one I did with a 40d and a 720nm filter:


I use a Lindahl 3x3 drop in filter/holder which makes the process a little simpler, but it presently limits me to lenses with a filter size of 62mm without vignetting.