Using IR creatively

[cbretteville]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is one I posted in the photo forums a little while ago. M8, CV25/4 and an old Leitz IR pass filter. The raws are quite funky in all their redness.

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/landscape-travel/19810-morning-light.html

 

- C

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Woody Campbell]

Woody,

 

(1) Have you tried the "R" offset for focusing? . . . . The M8 technique you describe -- f11 to f22 for proper focusing -- drives one to use a tripod. It might work hand held with the focus offset.

 

(2) Do you always have a flare problem? This could be a limiting factor in the usefulness of the M8 for IR. Pehaps something with the design of the innards of the M8 makes it overly succeptible to flare in the IR range.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

(1) I tried - the new lenses don't have R offsets (300-400 times the focal length as infinity focus is a general rule of thumb for lenses that don't have a mark). The current 28mm f2.8 (for example) is fuzzy no matter what you do about focus, even at f16. All of my IR work is on a tripod.

 

The summaron is known as a good IR lens.

 

The other issue with the newer lenses is a serious hotspot in the middle of the image.

 

See this thread for an example: http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/17434-shooting-infrared.html

 

Based on the advice from Vivek Iyer, a member of this forum, I bought a Russian Orion-15 28mm f16 which produces outstanding IR images - no focus issues and no hotspot. But don't ask about the build quality! Here's a sample:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

(2) With a lens that performs well in IR like the Orion flair is not a particular problem.

[richam]

Woody, Thanks for the reply. If you run across additional info on this subject, please keep us posted.

[Fin]

Jaap,

 

I've followed your experience with the M8 for some time now and this is my favorite shot to date! Hope the skiing is as good!

 

I have the M8 + Noctlilux and have a second hand 24mm in Solms for coding (9 weeks and counting ). This sort of shot makes me drool with anticipation!

 

Keep them coming!

 

Fin

[farnz]

... The current 28mm f2.8 (for example) is fuzzy no matter what you do about focus, even at f16...

At first I also found the same with the 28/f2.8 ASPH and sharpened heavily to try to compensate. But then I discovered that if I altered my workflow I was getting much sharper IR images as below. I always use a tripod, shoot only at ISO 160 and try to keep the lens as wide open as I can (for reasons stated later).

 

I was converting from the magenta-coloured images to B&W using the PSCS2 greyscale image and the focus and sharpness were disappointing. However if I left the images in RGB and minimised saturation the detail and sharpness were retained and then it's a matter of a levels adjustment layer to give what you see below.

 

I started shooting with small apertures figuring that the lenses wouldn't focus for IR so dof might be the answer but I noticed that the smaller the aperture the brighter and smaller the hotspot in the centre of the image. At f8 a small amount of burning repaired the artifact but wide open its not noticeable.

 

Now I'm not suggesting that the image below is perfect but, to me, the results are exciting.

 

Pete.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

M8, 28/f2.8 ASPH, ISO 160, 4 secs @ f4, 89B IR pass filter.

[rpierce]

Pete,

 

Nice image.

 

I had the same experience with the 28 f/2.8 lens using the B+W 092 IR filter. Small apertures caused a central hotspot (The B+W 093 IR filter also gives the same hotspots, but worse.), but I used f5.6 and larger aperture with good results. And, I also found that just using the red channel gave poor focus (noise is different too), but channel mixing the rgb equally gave good results. I found that setting the focus to 5 meters seemed to give good focus out to infinity. I need to do additional experimentation; it seems strange that the different color channels give different focus when the filter only allows the near-IR to pass...there must be a good explaination.

 

Bob Pierce

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks, Robert, and interesting to hear about the 5m focus tip. I should consider using hyperfocal distance.

 

I presume that hyperfocal distance is the same for IR and visible light - does anyone know otherwise please?

 

Pete.

[RSL]

Jaap, Stunning stuff. Thank you.

[robsteve]

Thanks, Robert, and interesting to hear about the 5m focus tip. I should consider using hyperfocal distance.

 

I presume that hyperfocal distance is the same for IR and visible light - does anyone know otherwise please?

 

Pete.

 

I did some limited tests today using a 90mm APO Summicron and the 093 filter. The IR focus was best after focusing and then moving the focus to the right hand f5.6 DOF mark. The 90mm didn't seem to have a hot spot. If I get a chance I will try it again with a few of my other lenses.

[farnz]

Thanks, Rob, that's really helpful. None of my lenses have the red "R" so the f5.6 mark seems like a good guide.

 

Pete.

[jaapv]

The Summaron is indeed very good in IR. Not very impressive esthetically, but the lens at 3.5 (wide open)

 

 

[jaapv]

I'm getting a bit better at this...

 

I always have problems with black cats. Photographically I mean. IR helps. The Summaron again.

 

 

And the "polder" I live in:

 

[waterlenz]

Here is a shot of Mt. Rainier near sunset from a Seatac hotel room window from a couple evenings ago. Used 90 macro with old Leitz IR filter. Set infinity by f/8 DOF mark as focus compensation - seems to work OK. Autoexposure works OK too. Converted to B&W using LR 1.0.

Happy Easter!

Tom

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest stnami]

Re: Using IR creatively...Petes image shows where the idea belongs and may it remain with the silent ones:eek:

[brucek]

Re: Using IR creatively...Petes image shows where the idea belongs and may it remain with the silent ones:eek:

 

Imants:

 

I'm curious - what sorts of problems do you have with using IR creatively? In harsh light I think it can be used to a rather dramatic effect. It certainly doesn't make up (entirely) for poor composition or subject matter, nor do I think it should be over used. But once in a while I do use it to, IMHO, interesting effect.

 

Or are you just being your usual cranky self...

 

Bruce

[farnz]

Re: Using IR creatively...Petes image shows where the idea belongs and may it remain with the silent ones:eek:

Imants,

 

Presumably you mean worshipped in church?

 

(BTW, are ya hangin' ten by the barbie yet? )

 

Pete.

[Guest stnami]

The images are some what flattened, almost as if they have a hint of posterisation, doesn't enhance the images nor subject. Coupled with other post processing techniques there it has a minor role

Or are you just being your usual cranky self..

........ never cranky just a perception by those who haven't got anything left to say or don't want to be spanked by a moderator:eek:

[farnz]

The images are some what flattened, almost as if they have a hint of posterisation, doesn't enhance the images nor subject. Coupled with other post processing techniques there it has a minor role

Im,

 

I interpret "... a hint of posterisation..." as meaning compressed tonal range (please correct me if I've misunderstood you), which may be caused by weak pp technique - I find that the images universally benefit from increased contrast - that may compress the tones.

 

Or perhaps the tonal range is lost during capture from a) the presence of the weak IR filter on the sensor or that the sensor is only registering wavelengths above 700 nm and therefore there are fewer photons generated by each of the sensor's photodiodes so the gradation of tone is less continuous. (This theory may of course be complete rubbish. )

 

Personally I find IR images attractive although I would agree that they are not mainstream and are much a novelty (minor role?). My novice eyes don't detect posterisation in all of the images so I'd be grateful if you'd clarify where please? I welcome constructive criticism, without which I'm unable to improve.

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Im,

 

I interpret "... a hint of posterisation..." as meaning compressed tonal range (please correct me if I've misunderstood you), which may be caused by weak pp technique - I find that the images universally benefit from increased contrast - that may compress the tones.

 

Or perhaps the tonal range is lost during capture from a) the presence of the weak IR filter on the sensor or that the sensor is only registering wavelengths above 700 nm and therefore there are fewer photons generated by each of the sensor's photodiodes so the gradation of tone is less continuous. (This theory may of course be complete rubbish. )

 

Personally I find IR images attractive although I would agree that they are not mainstream and are much a novelty (minor role?). My novice eyes don't detect posterisation in all of the images so I'd be grateful if you'd clarify where please? I welcome constructive criticism, without which I'm unable to improve.

 

Pete.

 

I think he may be referring to post # 31, where my images are indeed not very impressive and posterized - first wobbly steps....

[farnz]

I know what you mean, Jaap, digital IR photography and pp seem to be quite different from conventional b&w although the principles are of course the same. Well worthwhile though, imho.

 

Were you using an R72, 093 or an 89B filter?

 

Pete.