Infrared

Avesfraz

New member
Dear nikon pros,
I have a nikon d3200 camera. Recently I have been looking into infared photography, and wanting to get into it. However when researching it I am not sure exactly what the next step is. I found people saying that you should have the camera converted to IR but I don't want to buy another camera just for that. I have found that you can buy infared filters that are compatible with the d 3200 but I am not sure how well they work. Also others have said that that certain programs will brin out the infrared effects from the raw file. What would you advise for an effective yet practical way of doing IR photography?
 
Last edited:

MartinCornwall

Senior Member
Welcome to the forum, I bought a cheap Newer 720nm of fleabay and there's no colour cast on it. Was only £13. You are into 2-3 second exposures in full sunlight but it does the job on a budget. You do have to swap the red blue channels in PS though but you can download a free PS action to do this.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Welcome to the forum.

Here's the thing about IR photography - yes, you can shoot with a normal camera "as is" using filters. But, and it's a significant one, the filter stack on current DSLRs, like your D3200, have IR filtration built in to the filter stack. So, when you filter out everything but the IR wavelengths, the total amount of light you have coming in is much less than what you're used to, so you're going to be using long exposure times and tripods to get the shots you want. And even then the shot you get may not be nearly as dynamic as what you'll get from a converted camera. A converted camera removes the IR filtration and substitutes a filter blocking out some portion of the visible spectrum. 720nm filters are the most popular, but you can get filters that allow in more visible light and color, and these are becoming more and more popular. Some Nikon cameras seem to have an issue white balancing in-camera post conversion, but as long as you're shooting RAW you can overcome this in post - and you will almost always need to do a certain amount of post with IR.

So, do you need a second camera? Not necessarily. Cameras can be converted for dual or even full spectrum use. Dual simply removes the IR filtration from the filter stack but does not add the visible light filter. So, your camera now shoots both at the same time, and all filtration will now be done externally. Want to shoot normally? Stick the IR filter on the lens. Want to shoot IR? You can now add the filter of your choice and not be stuck with a fixed wavelength conversion. It's a great option, but not without drawbacks. First off, your lenses don't typically have the same filter size, so you either have to buy multiples, or just buy the largest for your lens set (or potential set) and then use step down converters to put the larger filter on the smaller lenses (and btw, larger glass means more expensive glass - running about $80-90 each, plus conversion cost). It also means that you always need to have a filter on, and if you want to use an ND or polarizer then you've got two extra pieces of glass on the lens.

My recommendation to someone who wants to do it is to get a converted camera. If you don't know which one, get the one that allows in more visible light, because you can always add extra filtration. I have a 720nm conversion and if I want to shoot at 590nm there's nothing I can do. But I can always add a 720nm filter on a 590nm coverted camera.

Lifepixel seems to be the most popular conversion company, but I would heartily recommend the folks at Kolari Vision. They did a great job on mine, including free focus calibration on one lens (I use my 18-105mm almost exclusively on the camera).
 

John P

Senior Member
I use a Hoya R72 filter on my lens. I get great results.
As others have mentioned. The long shutter speeds involved cause motion blur with foliage.
I will eventually have a camera converted.
If you do use a lens filter. Remember to cover your viewfinder.
 

Englischdude

Senior Member
hi there,

first off welcome to the forum.

Jake has already given a very thorough and professional rundown on the pros and cons of each method. What I would like to add is the post processing required. This is not to be underestimated and if you want to get serious about IR photography you have to prepare yourself for the post processing required to even get half way decent results. This does not cost money, as there are a number of programs available, even open source for all platforms which will provide the tools you need, but you will have to learn how and be prepared for post processing.

My suggestion would be, get a 720 filter and a tripod and try it out. If you like it you can always invest in a converted camera later on. I bought an old D70 and had that converted, fulfils my needs perfectly.

Good luck, and if you have any further questions dont hesitate to ask.
 

aroy

Senior Member
For serious IR photography you need two things
1. Monochrome sensor which is sensitive to IR portion of the spectrum. With film it s easy, just pop the IR sensitive film and that was all. With digital, it is different, as the sensor has a colour filter on each pixel in Bayer pattern. So for all practical purpose only the RED pixels will contribute to the image, degrading the resolution. Monochrome sensors have no such pattern. They also have no IR filter, which is used to block IR, as it will not only heat up the sensor inadvertently.

2. Lenses which are APOCHROMATIC, that is those that focus at the same point across the spectrum.
 

patrick in memphis

Senior Member
DSC_0038 infrared.jpgDSC_0038.jpgso i downloaded a new plugin for photoshop elements (free) it was called simpelfilter le heres the site SF ColorMixer it works well.i think i overexposed the pic to begin with hence lack of clarity.however i seem to be unable to get the trees/shrubbery to become white like i see in alot of the photos.am i doing something wrong or am i not processing enuff or????also does time of day seem to matter,i.e. morn/noon/eve?
 
Top