Ozoyo Posted December 11, 2013 Share #1 Posted December 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I keep reading on the various Leica M colours threads about IR contamination. I am just wondering; does it mean that the Leica M is suitable for IR photography (with IR92 filter) ? I know that you can more or less reproduce the effects via post-processing. But it is still not quite the same result... I have been doing some film IR photography as can be seen on my blog here : an Analog blog (if you scroll down to the part about Ireland) and I thought IR digital photography was impossible until I read this on the Leica blog david-english-infrared-monochrom/ What do you think, worth a try? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 Hi Ozoyo, Take a look here Leica M & IR photography. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
01af Posted December 11, 2013 Share #2 Posted December 11, 2013 I keep reading on the various Leica M colours threads about IR contamination. Yeah ... but don't believe everything you read. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozoyo Posted December 11, 2013 Author Share #3 Posted December 11, 2013 Yeah ... but don't believe everything you read. Well, that comes from the official Leica FAQ : How infrared sensitive is the new M?All image sensors for Leica M cameras are designed and constructed to provide the best possible image quality with Leica M lenses. One prerequisite for this is the use of an extremely thin infrared filter on the image sensor to ensure a full corner-to-corner rendition of details. The consequence of this thin filter is that infrared light is not completely absorbed. This may result in slight color variations in certain lighting situations... I am just trying to put a positive spin on this issue Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted December 11, 2013 Share #4 Posted December 11, 2013 Well, that comes from the official Leica FAQ: [...] That's not what I meant. I was referring to the alleged connection between poor colour rendition and residual IR sensitivity. IR photography with digital M cameras is not impossible ... but more or less difficult. The best IR camera among these is the M8/M8.2, followed by the M Monochrom. The M9, M9-P, and M-E are poor IR cameras—but even these can wring out acceptable IR pictures, preferably from atop a tripod because with a serious IR filter they need long exposure times. I am not quite sure yet where the M (Typ 240) belongs in terms of IR capability ... I guess it's close to the M9 group, or maybe slightly better. There's a thread somewhere on this forum where someone is showing real nice IR pictures taken with a digital M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozoyo Posted December 11, 2013 Author Share #5 Posted December 11, 2013 That's not what I meant. I was referring to the alleged connection between poor colour rendition and residual IR sensitivity. IR photography with digital M cameras is not impossible ... but more or less difficult. The best IR camera among these is the M8/M8.2, followed by the M Monochrom. The M9, M9-P, and M-E are poor IR cameras—but even these can wring out acceptable IR pictures, preferably from atop a tripod because with a serious IR filter they need long exposure times. I am not quite sure yet where the M (Typ 240) belongs in terms of IR capability ... I guess it's close to the M9 group, or maybe slightly better. There's a thread somewhere on this forum where someone is showing real nice IR pictures taken with a digital M. After searching a little bit : Leica M (240) IR Test #2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Although I still have to see for myself, from what I have seen around, I agree with you about the colour issue, looks very marginal. I am more than happy to accept the odd IR contamination issue if it opens the possibility of IR photography. I have been shooting IR with a Rolleiflex 2.8F and SFX200, so I have no problem with long exposures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted December 11, 2013 Share #6 Posted December 11, 2013 Everyone is trying to wring IR contamination out of digital photos. I kept the M8 for the purpose of making ir photos. Some have reported they simply leave the M8 cut filters on for use on new cameras. That is my practice and I have purchased some nice screw in shades to help with the stray light. Others claim they get improved pics with new cameras using the cut filters and have posted examples. I have taken a few photos in sunlight without and do not see much difference, but have never tried tungsten and fluorescent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted December 11, 2013 Share #7 Posted December 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) IR with the M is definitely worth it. Place a 092 filter on the lens and focus with live view, this is possible with f1.4 lenses outdoors. Turn up the iso and wide angle/normal lenses can easily be handheld when shooting in bright sunlight. The results should be somewhat similar to sfx film when converted to monochrome, the spectrum allowed by the 092 filter is red and infra-red, you will see this with the on-screen histogram. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MirekE Posted December 12, 2013 Share #8 Posted December 12, 2013 What do you think, worth a try? There is a risk that your lenses will cause hotspots in IR. I think all my lenses do so I did not even bother testing on M240. The IR filters aren't cheap, so try before buy... I believe the suggested filter is not pure IR. Not sure if can bring up any of the IR effects like Wood's. The posted image just show black sky which is also possible to achieve with dark red. True IR filters will most likely require exposures in seconds or tens of seconds. I am not sure how useful it would be to use very fast lenses as suggested in the linked article given the inaccurate nature of focus in IR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 12, 2013 Share #9 Posted December 12, 2013 The 092 is a deep red to IR filter. The 093 is an IR filter only. You can look up the filtering curves on the B&W website. Focus is not inaccurate, it is just shifted, so LV will give you accurate focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozoyo Posted December 12, 2013 Author Share #10 Posted December 12, 2013 Done! I found a good deal on ebay for a hoya R72 and Green L IR950 I'll be able to try them in the coutry side during christmas on my 35 lux, if they arrive on time. I'll post the results here. I have managed to shoot handeld with my rolleiflex in the past @200iso with R72. It is a 50mm equivalent, so it will probably be easier with a 35mm and high iso. I'll still try to bring a tripod with me (not an easy task with kids and bags absolutely jammed). Here is an example with Rolleiflex handheld and SFX 200 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/218231-leica-m-ir-photography/?do=findComment&comment=2485458'>More sharing options...
farnz Posted December 12, 2013 Share #11 Posted December 12, 2013 … Here is an example with Rolleiflex handheld and SFX 200 A dolmen on The Burren in County, Clare perhaps… ? Pete, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozoyo Posted December 12, 2013 Author Share #12 Posted December 12, 2013 A dolmen on The Burren in County, Clare perhaps… ? Pete, Well spotted , this is the Poulnabrone. Clare is my second home, a few more photos from there are on my blog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted January 21, 2014 Share #13 Posted January 21, 2014 I might try out the IR, and have few doubts. Here is what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong. 1. B+W 093, best for IR images, but requires long exposures at high ISO, and stationary subjects. 2. B+W 092, lets some visible light in, and could be used handheld in certain scenarios. It requires more PP like swapping red, and blue channel, and cooling the WB. 3. Hoya R72, somewhere in between. Do you set the white balance to the lowest K value for the shot, or you create a custom dng profile later on? Can someone share his experience, and maybe a shot or two with the above mentioned filters, please? I found many IR photography sources, but I'm not sure where to put the M in the equasion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2014 Share #14 Posted January 21, 2014 Whitebalance on the camera is useless for this purpose. Most IR is done in B&W. So convert in postprocessing. Recreating the “faux colour” IR film look is a more complicated postprocessing process. I seem to recall an article in LFI. The filter used is of no relevance to the postprocessing workflow, but does produce different intensities of the IR effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted January 21, 2014 Share #15 Posted January 21, 2014 I actually prefer B&W with white foliage, and dark sky. It would be just for fun. Should I go with b+w 092 or Hoya? ...from the tech spec stand point of those two filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2014 Share #16 Posted January 21, 2014 If I were you I would start out with a B&W 092. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain225 Posted January 21, 2014 Share #17 Posted January 21, 2014 this was with m8 35mm Summilux Hoya r72 .Tripod 2secs. It was heavy rain so not the best conditions. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 21, 2014 Share #18 Posted January 21, 2014 I might try out the IR, and have few doubts. Here is what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong. 1. B+W 093, best for IR images, but requires long exposures at high ISO, and stationary subjects..... Or use a tripod which is what I mostly do with M8/093 combination. With normal ISO, exposures are one second or shorter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted January 21, 2014 Share #19 Posted January 21, 2014 Or use a tripod which is what I mostly do with M8/093 combination. With normal ISO, exposures are one second or shorter. ...but this was with M8. I've just ordered B+W 092, and will see what it can deliver. It only fun after all, expectations are not set high. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 21, 2014 Share #20 Posted January 21, 2014 You should get a blend of visible and IR light forming your images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.