billh Posted April 3, 2007 Share #1 Posted April 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/M8_7/m8_7.html “The IR blocking filter then is a good solution for pictures where the fibres and materials do emit IR radiation. For all other pictures one should not add the filter to the lens: it does not improve the colour rendition and it only adds the classical filter effects of contrast reduction and additional reflections......” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 3, 2007 Posted April 3, 2007 Hi billh, Take a look here Filter issues, E. Puts. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted April 3, 2007 Share #2 Posted April 3, 2007 Erwin's right, but how do I know in advance whether the subject emits IR? Answer, in most cases I don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted April 3, 2007 Share #3 Posted April 3, 2007 Surely someone would have a list of fabrics/situations that usually cause problems. Seems to be info on every other imaginable subject. Would have thought it would be the first thing that gets looked at. Flop the filter on for weddings and formal. What about mountian tops or is that just UV? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted April 3, 2007 Share #4 Posted April 3, 2007 Too many hypothesis' for my liking. Speaking practically, ie from a user's POV, I have had problems when NOT using filters. NEVER had a problem when using (IR) filters. That is not to say I never will, but I'm a numbers man so I go with the probability theory. I don't have the time or inclination to "measure" for rampant IR. I just cut it out. My results have never been better.After all, my time is cut out just capturing the image without trying to analyze it! Now if I spent the energy that Puts does on his theories (God bless him), on my actual shooting, I reckon I might get somewhere with my photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted April 3, 2007 Share #5 Posted April 3, 2007 Erl I guess if you are in a situation where your filters are fogging the camera would already have collapsed ... Can see your point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted April 3, 2007 Share #6 Posted April 3, 2007 Something I've noticed which doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that the exposure meter in the camera has residual sensitivity to IR. With strong tungsten light I've found up to half a stop difference with and without the filter. Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_b_elmer Posted April 3, 2007 Share #7 Posted April 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you Erwin, you are convincing as always. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted April 3, 2007 Share #8 Posted April 3, 2007 Looking at the images at E Puts site I see he has at least 2 of them mislabeled. The image of the girls face says Top/Above "With filter" Bottom/Below "Without Filter". Clearly the top image has magenta and the bottom does not. So it seems that the filter was used on the bottom image. I take all of this with a grain of salt. Since buying some filters, only within the last week, I see a truer color rendition then I was getting without any IR cut filters. I'll stick to using the filters in all situations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 3, 2007 Share #9 Posted April 3, 2007 IR contamination is in every image you shoot PERIOD under all lighting condtions. Some are worse than others tungsten being the worst. It also affects ALL colors of the visable light spectrum. The only way to get rid of the IR contamination is to use a IR cut filter, no profile on the planet will do that , it can come close but will affect other colors. Forget the magenta black and the only reason it gets mentioned is because it is obviously visually by the naked eye, it affects other colors just as well. The M8 is sensitive to IR light the built in IR filter is not strong enough to cut the IR light hitting the sensor and the reason for the IR threaded filter is to cut the IR light out to a optimum level.PERIOD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 3, 2007 Share #10 Posted April 3, 2007 I agree, Guy there is no photograph that does not benefit from the filter, even B&W (although opinions differ there) except when you want IR in the picture, see the "creative use of IR" thread. Nikon D70 users, should be well advised to follow our lead, as that camera is as IR sensitive as the M8 and a number of others are not far behind. It is not for nothing that Heliopan has been selling theirs as "Digital" filters for years before the M8 came out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 3, 2007 Share #11 Posted April 3, 2007 My recommendation is glue the filters on. LOL You simply want them on all the time B&W you do have a choice if you want IR or not Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted April 3, 2007 Share #12 Posted April 3, 2007 "Er, excuse me maam, but can you please tell me if your black gown is made of synthetic material or is it the real thing?" "Oh, and sir, is that tuxedo jacket polyester or wool?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted April 3, 2007 Share #13 Posted April 3, 2007 I totally agree with Guy. IR contamination is obvious with grass for instance... Or with skins under artificial light. Another example of "Erwin Puts should really not talk about digital". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 3, 2007 Share #14 Posted April 3, 2007 purple fringeing on specular highlights.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted April 3, 2007 Share #15 Posted April 3, 2007 Jaap, I still get those when using a filter. I was shooting into the sun on a beach at the weekend and they were all over the place. Good job I prefered b&w for those shots :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivek Iyer Posted April 3, 2007 Share #16 Posted April 3, 2007 Nikon D70 users, should be well advised to follow our lead, as that camera is as IR sensitive as the M8 and a number of others are not far behind. Jaap, I think it is the other way around! M8 users are following the lead of D70/R-D1s users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted April 3, 2007 Share #17 Posted April 3, 2007 I am using the filters now for about 3 weeks ... and i am not convinced i keep using them for B&W ...... yes the shadows are deeper ..... imho sometimes too deep, especially in contrasty light For B&W .....the files without using the filters are richer negatives for post-processing and the typical "white faces" are easy corrected in post by applying a digital green filter. If your ultimate goal is better B&W results directly off camera it's better to use the filters. Just my 2 cents Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 3, 2007 Share #18 Posted April 3, 2007 Jaap, I think it is the other way around! M8 users are following the lead of D70/R-D1s users. You are a filter man, Vivek. The number of D70/RD1 users with IR filters is very,very limited. It seems it is not the M8 that is IR sensitive, but the M8 users..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmSummicron Posted April 3, 2007 Share #19 Posted April 3, 2007 purple fringeing on specular highlights.... purple fringing on highlights is not an effect of IR contamination. you get this with other digital cameras and even when shooting film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted April 3, 2007 Share #20 Posted April 3, 2007 While I'm not going to heartily or strongly disagree with my good friends here, I just have to say that I get fine colour from the M8 without filters. Really. So we'll call this a minor dissenting opinion The question is always "compared with what?" so I'll just say "compared with the other digicams I use" which, right now, are from Canon and Leica. Do the M8 shots need correction to be good? Yes. But I've never, ever had a colour image--film or digital--that doesn't need correction. Just because a lab used to do it doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done now. Profiles aren't about eliminating IR either--they're about managing other colour in relation to the way the camera sees the world. Yes, the M8 is more sensitive to IR than some other cameras; no--IR does not practically affect the entire visible spectrum, and for practical purposes, there are also many times where It Just Doesn't Matter Purple fringing in blown highlights is not IR. Rosacea and magenta faces are not the domain of IR (or my Canon wouldn't do it!). Magenta blacks? Yes, and muddied greens in some shots--absolutely. And if you're shooting xmas lights in a green tree, then definitely use a filter. But FWIW, greens on other digicams are similarly messed a lot of the time (not all of the time). They're usually too yellow, as I see them, and for all I know that may be just a factor of Bayer filter interpolation. Don't get me wrong--I generally agree with everything said here, and I will use filters most of the time when I get them without fear of interference (well, except in candlelight). Better colour in camera is a time saver, for sure. But I just don't think you shouldn't be telling yourself that the M8 is so sensitive to IR as to render it completely unusable without them--even for colour. None of the pictures I've ever posted have been filtered, and I think mostly the colour is good--even in tungsten Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.