Hammer's Interesting Infrareds
- Thread starter BF Hammer
- Start date
BF Hammer
Senior Member
A day of experimentation. I tried out my Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon on the IR D600. It has a hot-spot, so I don't think I will try that again. I hoped for good, dramatic clouds with storms in the day's forecast. The morning was simply a solid overcast with no texture.
Another wind farm near Freisland, WI. I have to stop hanging out around these places.
Watertown, WI later in the afternoon. Better clouds, composition needs a tractor or something in foreground. No extra charge for the raindrops on the lens.
A mild fail with the Zeiss lens for IR shots. I will just have to continue using the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D as that is tried and proven at this point to behave well in IR.
Another wind farm near Freisland, WI. I have to stop hanging out around these places.
Watertown, WI later in the afternoon. Better clouds, composition needs a tractor or something in foreground. No extra charge for the raindrops on the lens.
A mild fail with the Zeiss lens for IR shots. I will just have to continue using the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D as that is tried and proven at this point to behave well in IR.
TwistedThrottle
Senior Member
Some very interesting shots! Whats the process for IR photography? I understand if its done with filters it's long exposure, blurred leaves, etc. Converted cameras, like yours allow you to shoot real time in IR, correct? Do you get a preview of the shot on the back of the camera? Once it hits your computer, whats it look like? I bet you could mess with the vignette slider to get rid of the hot spot in the wind farm shot. Real nice [MENTION=48483]BF Hammer[/MENTION] !
BF Hammer
Senior Member
Some fair questions there. Converting a camera involves removing the optical filter in front of the sensor which is supposed to block IR and pass visible, and substituting a new filter that will block most visible light and pass light in near-infrared and lower in frequency. My filter is of the 720nm type, which is a very traditional wavelength for the the IR cutoff. Many photographers opt for a shorter wavelength so more color will appear.
With a conversion, the camera basically just sees in a different wavelength and operates mostly the same. I normally just hand-hold and use A-Mode auto-exposure with auto-ISO just like I do with the other cameras. IR light does not refract the same way in lenses so some will work better than others. The autofocus has to be re-tuned and normally works better tuned with a lens you intend to use mainly. The big thing to keep in mind is white-balance. Auto white balance will pretty much make an all-magenta-toned image. I use preset white balance, and use a photo taken in green grass as the reference value for white. The preview on the camera back will show the image mostly correct. Of course the optical viewfinder is still a color composition. This conversion would be more ideal on a mirrorless body.
Processing the Raw image, you can tune the WB more by sampling any leafy plants in the image, as they should be white. Sunny skies will have a copper-color to it, and some browns appear. It is individual taste if you process with the IR conversion color pallete or desaturate to B/W. I look at the image and let it tell me which way I process it. I find with the D600 that it works better with extra contrast added and some highlights/shadows adjustments. Not too different than my color processing.
This D600 is really my 4th IR converted camera. My first was something I DIY-converted. I used a Coolpix 2200 and cut a piece of exposed/processed color print negative as my filter. It really worked, such as it was. That was done to determine if I would spend real money to professionally convert my Coolpix 995, and I did. Still have that 3.4MP camera, but it is limiting today. I converted a beat-up and well-used D80 professionally, and some months later it decided to die on me. Last year I decided I was not done playing in IR yet, so I shopped for weeks looking for a used camera already converted by somebody else. That is how I wound up with this current D600.
TwistedThrottle
Senior Member
Great info, thanks! I like the effect it gives, its very unique. I especially like the dock shot, and the sidewalk shot just pops! When you say the autofocus has to be re-tuned, is that something you adjust in camera yourself or does it need to be sent in somewhere? Is it just trial and error on what lenses work best? Seems a prime, especially a zeiss would be a better choice than a screw drive zoom, but I think I see what you mean about different wavelengths being handled differently lens to lens.
BF Hammer
Senior Member
The places that do the conversion services mention sort of up-front that they should tune the autofocus to a specific lens you plan to use, or they can do a general re-tune if you don't have a specific lens at that time. I understand this as being a hand-tuned thing rather than the focus-tuning on the camera menu of some cameras.
When I bought this D600, it was body only from KEH. I only had a couple of full-frame lenses appropriate for wide-normal range at the time, and was more planning to find a crop-sensor body. So I decided to buy a cheap used FX kit lens at my local camera store, and went shopping. I brought the camera to test the lenses in store, and have been very pleased with the 28-105mm lens for this purpose. It is truly a landscape camera, so fast autofocus is not mandatory. FWIW I also have used a 50mm f/1.8G and it is a good option. But the zoom lens has been so satisfactory that I don't see the need to swap the 50mm in. I should try out my 70-200mm f/2.8 sometime just to find out if it looks OK in IR. I did a moon photo with an old 500mm reflex lens and as-predicted, it was very good with IR.
