INFRARED-Image-Thread

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bags, is that the restored Warren Bridge?

Yes! you know it? 

[bags27]

I notice that in your last picture of the bridge there seems to be an angled criss-cross pattern all over it.  I'm not sure what's caused that unless it's a form of Pattern Noise.  I can't see it on your other pictures fortunately.  Did you use a polarising filter on that one?

 

Pete.

no, only the very first picture used the polarizer, as a test.

I guess I don't see that pattern, nor on any others: 1. either I'm just lucky to have poor eyes; 2. or it's on the bridge itself?

[Advertisement]

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

[gbealnz]

I've got lousy eyes, but can see the Pete hatched pattern, more so in the darker segments of the sky and water.

It can't be the camera, or you'd assume everyone here will get the same issues, and there are a few now using the Q for I/R.

Maybe the aperture used?
Gary

[pico]

Yes! you know it? 

 

Your photo was familiar to what I remember from 65 years-ago. I'm originally from Warwick, but we know RI is a small and familiar state.

 

Thank you for the photo!

Edited May 22, 2018 by pico

[bags27]

Your photo was familiar to what I remember from 65 years-ago. I'm originally from Warwick, but we know RI is a small and familiar state.

 

Thank you for the photo!

How very cool. Not much changes in Rhode Island. You might be interested in knowing that I took the picture from the construction site where they are now converting the massive, defunct American Tourister bldg into a commercial/residential property. 

[Martin B]

Martin, how about center filters and IR? Any peculiarities?

 

I have never used one - not even for regular light photography!

[zampelis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Clearly both photos have a hot spot in the middle - it has nothing to do with external conditions, this is a property of the lens you used. Hot spots might also appear at smaller apertures - again, depending on the lens. I wouldn't use this lens for IR photos if I were you. 

 

 

Thanks for the comment, but I believe this is a quite bold statement, especially when we are not talking about just a lens but the whole camera. Instead of dismissing the use of the Q for IR photography it would be better if we actually investigate in what conditions this spot gets triggered so that we can avoid it.

 

Clearly it is not shown in all photos, so there must be a factor that affects the way the lens react to the IR. It would be much more proactive to see if such a factor exists before we dismiss the use of the camera for IR photography altogether.

 

And to be honest even if there is a hotspot that can't be avoided, it is not as bad as some other lens I have seen. At least it is not a "defined" hotspot, which means that in the worst case it could be removed more easily in post processing.

Edited May 23, 2018 by zampelis

[Martin B]

Thanks for the comment, but I believe this is a quite bold statement, especially when we are not talking about just a lens but the whole camera. Instead of dismissing the use of the Q for IR photography it would be better if we actually investigate in what conditions this spot gets triggered so that we can avoid it.

 

Clearly it is not shown in all photos, so there must be a factor that affects the way the lens react to the IR. It would be much more proactive to see if such a factor exists before we dismiss the use of the camera for IR photography altogether.

 

And to be honest even if there is a hotspot that can't be avoided, it is not as bad as some other lens I have seen. At least it is not a "defined" hotspot, which means that in the worst case it could be removed more easily in post processing.

 

Unfortunately this is technically not correct. A hot spot is created only by the lens (maybe further increased by a filter on top of the lens) but not by the camera. You cannot avoid a hot spot if the lens makes hot spots - best you can do is to chose the angle towards the sun in a way that it becomes less visible and using a wider open aperture. From my experience this will still be insufficient to resolve the issue. I have never been able to remove hot spots in PP - likely this is possible with more PP skills than I might have, but it will be a pain to do. 

[bags27]

If hot spots don't harm the sensor, right?, then for those who want to shoot IR with the Q it's a question of either learning to shoot in a way (direction, aperture, a little photoshop magic) that minimizes it or else to accept it as part of the aesthetic. After all, a great number of excellent digital photographs show "noise" which only makes them more interesting as bleeding toward the film aesthetic many of us grew up on. 

 

Thanks so very much for spotting this and for starting this interesting conversation.

[bags27]

Can we ask that this thread get pinned, so it stays up top?

 

Separately, I want to raise for discussion with those who know the IR wave lengths.

 

Martin, I see, uses at least a 72 mn and a 74 filter, Pete a 93. those of us using the Hoya all bought the 72 (their only wave length). Apropos of this, there's an interesting thread on the T/TL site about getting an old T converted to infrared (a great idea, BTW: I've this old Fuji x100...) Anyway, the options for the camera conversion are copied below, and I wonder if this is cause for interest. While Hoya only makes the 72,  Fotgo (likely inferior, because much much cheaper) sells on Amazon 720, 760, 850, 950 and 1000. Very cheap, certainly cheap enough to experiment with. I find a good resource here:

https://kolarivision.com/articles/choosing-a-filter/

 

anyway, this is what is on the Leica thread:

 

590nm Golden glow, allows orange and red visible light and IR light on to the sensor
665nm – This allows red visible light and IR light on to the sensor
720nm – False Colour, allows only IR light on to the sensor
780mn – False Colour, though muted. IR Only
830nm – Monochrome Only, allows only IR light on the sensor.
Quartz – Full spectrum

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/284219-leica-t-for-infrared/?do=findComment&comment=3524011

Edited May 23, 2018 by bags27

[bags27]

this may or may not have a hotspot: I used the boats to block the strong direct sun...

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!

[gbealnz]

Hot-spot or not, they are all excellent.

 

I wondered if Martin may have missed the point Zamp was making, in effect the lens IS the camera, one cannot interchange it, so therefore if the Q has a hop-spot, you're stuck. We all are?

 

Having said that, I don't think it makes too much difference, just get out and shoot. At worst try a few varying apertures, as I recall the effects of the hot-spot differing with a change in aperture.

 

Gary

[zampelis]

Can we ask that this thread get pinned, so it stays up top?

 

Separately, I want to raise for discussion with those who know the IR wave lengths.

 

Martin, I see, uses at least a 72 mn and a 74 filter, Pete a 93. those of us using the Hoya all bought the 72 (their only wave length). Apropos of this, there's an interesting thread on the T/TL site about getting an old T converted to infrared (a great idea, BTW: I've this old Fuji x100...) Anyway, the options for the camera conversion are copied below, and I wonder if this is cause for interest. While Hoya only makes the 72,  Fotgo (likely inferior, because much much cheaper) sells on Amazon 720, 760, 850, 950 and 1000. Very cheap, certainly cheap enough to experiment with. I find a good resource here:

https://kolarivision.com/articles/choosing-a-filter/

 

anyway, this is what is on the Leica thread:

 

590nm Golden glow, allows orange and red visible light and IR light on to the sensor

665nm – This allows red visible light and IR light on to the sensor

720nm – False Colour, allows only IR light on to the sensor

780mn – False Colour, though muted. IR Only

830nm – Monochrome Only, allows only IR light on the sensor.

Quartz – Full spectrum

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/284219-leica-t-for-infrared/?do=findComment&comment=3524011

 

Just for the record Bags, I am using a Heliopan RG715. Also on the first photos I had the camera under a shade. From some reading I did it seems that having some big lens hood or avoiding the sun altogether helps quite a bit.

 

 

Hot-spot or not, they are all excellent.

 

I wondered if Martin may have missed the point Zamp was making, in effect the lens IS the camera, one cannot interchange it, so therefore if the Q has a hop-spot, you're stuck. We all are?

 

Having said that, I don't think it makes too much difference, just get out and shoot. At worst try a few varying apertures, as I recall the effects of the hot-spot differing with a change in aperture.

 

Gary

 

 

I was planning to do some proper testing this weekend Gary but unfortunately here in UK it is going to rain non stop for the next 10 days.. As you said, my point is that I would prefer to use the Q for IR shots instead of another camera. I have also a Nikon D80 with a 50mm prime, which is effectively 10MP. Compared with the Nikon I have way better results cropping the photos of the Q at 50mm.

 

We have invested some good money on buying this camera and it has way too many advantages, so my personal opinion is that investing time to find how to overcome this problem can be more advantageous than investing money to get another camera and lens. Some people treat the cameras as disposable stuff, trading this... to buy that.. I personally have zero GAS and even when on some point get an M (to be honest more for the different shooting experience) I have zero intention to sell the Q the same way I will never sell my D80.

 

For me getting close with my camera is as important as the photos I take with it. It helps me feel relaxed holding it and confident that I have mastered it so it gets out of the way and I can focus on the shots I take. This takes time and (again) it is a time investment that many people don't even think when they just trade their old cameras for a new one. I could just start contemplating trading the Q for an SL for example and start playing with zoom lenses until I find one that has no hotspot but just think all the time it will take me to go through this process and how many great shots I will miss in the mean time. I am quite confident that the process of finding the proper conditions for taking IR with the Q is going to be shorter and (most of all) cheaper compared to start playing with different lenses and camera bodies.

 

And to be fair I don't even see it as a problem as it is so subtle compared to some really nasty hot spots I have seen from other lenses. A proof is that so many people were looking on the photos for such a long time and we didn't even realise it was there until it was pointed out. I just feel that the word "hotspot" has become a taboo word. How do we know that the many "non-hotspot" lenses that are listed here and there on internet, they too don't have a very minor hotspot, or a hotspot that shows up in specific conditions that people just missed identifying it?

 

Along with photography, my other hobby is listening to music. I am an audiophile and have some of the most exotic components for music listening. For a long time I have been unhappy with the sound of my system and for over a decade I have spent thousands and thousands of money on trading components just to realise in the end that there is no "perfect" sound. At the point that I realised that, I was again able to sit down and listen to "music" instead of the "sound" of my equipment. So I will try to avoid falling into the same rabbit hole in photography and will just focus on taking (and most of all enjoying) my photos even though they may have their blemishes.. 

 

P.S.

Oh my... this ended up as a really long post in the end! Apologies to everybody for that!!

Edited May 24, 2018 by zampelis

[Leica Guy]

Just for the record Bags, I am using a Heliopan RG715. Also on the first photos I had the camera under a shade. From some reading I did it seems that having some big lens hood or avoiding the sun altogether helps quite a bit.

 

 

 

 

I was planning to do some proper testing this weekend Gary but unfortunately here in UK it is going to rain non stop for the next 10 days.. As you said, my point is that I would prefer to use the Q for IR shots instead of another camera. I have also a Nikon D80 with a 50mm prime, which is effectively 10MP. Compared with the Nikon I have way better results cropping the photos of the Q at 50mm.

 

We have invested some good money on buying this camera and it has way too many advantages, so my personal opinion is that investing time to find how to overcome this problem can be more advantageous than investing money to get another camera and lens. Some people treat the cameras as disposable stuff, trading this... to buy that.. I personally have zero GAS and even when on some point get an M (to be honest more for the different shooting experience) I have zero intention to sell the Q the same way I will never sell my D80.

 

For me getting close with my camera is as important as the photos I take with it. It helps me feel relaxed holding it and confident that I have mastered it so it gets out of the way and I can focus on the shots I take. This takes time and (again) it is a time investment that many people don't even think when they just trade their old cameras for a new one. I could just start contemplating trading the Q for an SL for example and start playing with zoom lenses until I find one that has no hotspot but just think all the time it will take me to go through this process and how many great shots I will miss in the mean time. I am quite confident that the process of finding the proper conditions for taking IR with the Q is going to be shorter and (most of all) cheaper compared to start playing with different lenses and camera bodies.

 

And to be fair I don't even see it as a problem as it is so subtle compared to some really nasty hot spots I have seen from other lenses. A proof is that so many people were looking on the photos for such a long time and we didn't even realise it was there until it was pointed out. I just feel that the word "hotspot" has become a taboo word. How do we know that the many "non-hotspot" lenses that are listed here and there on internet, they too don't have a very minor hotspot, or a hotspot that shows up in specific conditions that people just missed identifying it?

 

Along with photography, my other hobby is listening to music. I am an audiophile and have some of the most exotic components for music listening. For a long time I have been unhappy with the sound of my system and for over a decade I have spent thousands and thousands of money on trading components just to realise in the end that there is no "perfect" sound. At the point that I realised that, I was again able to sit down and listen to "music" instead of the "sound" of my equipment. So I will try to avoid falling into the same rabbit hole in photography and will just focus on taking (and most of all enjoying) my photos even though they may have their blemishes..

 

P.S.

Oh my... this ended up as a really long post in the end! Apologies to everybody for that!!

Zampelis,

 

You are becoming more wise at a rapid rate. I applaud your commitment to learning the camera you have instead of jumping to another. It speaks volumes about your maturity and personality.

 

I have enjoyed the IR thread and many of the images. I frankly am unconcerned about the “hotspot” issue. I take photos for fun and an occasional sale. Should someone well versed in IR photography find fault with an image of mine, I’ll accept that and try and learn from it, but I won’t stop using the Q for this purpose. I’m pretty amazed that a $30 R72 filter can produce such interesting B&W images.

 

As you age, your audio equipment will only sound better :-) because your hearing will likely slowly decline in the higher frequencies. Enjoy the challenges right now while you can.

 

Dan

[Martin B]

Can we ask that this thread get pinned, so it stays up top?

 

Separately, I want to raise for discussion with those who know the IR wave lengths.

 

Martin, I see, uses at least a 72 mn and a 74 filter, Pete a 93. those of us using the Hoya all bought the 72 (their only wave length). Apropos of this, there's an interesting thread on the T/TL site about getting an old T converted to infrared (a great idea, BTW: I've this old Fuji x100...) Anyway, the options for the camera conversion are copied below, and I wonder if this is cause for interest. While Hoya only makes the 72,  Fotgo (likely inferior, because much much cheaper) sells on Amazon 720, 760, 850, 950 and 1000. Very cheap, certainly cheap enough to experiment with. I find a good resource here:

https://kolarivision.com/articles/choosing-a-filter/

 

anyway, this is what is on the Leica thread:

 

590nm Golden glow, allows orange and red visible light and IR light on to the sensor

665nm – This allows red visible light and IR light on to the sensor

720nm – False Colour, allows only IR light on to the sensor

780mn – False Colour, though muted. IR Only

830nm – Monochrome Only, allows only IR light on the sensor.

Quartz – Full spectrum

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/284219-leica-t-for-infrared/?do=findComment&comment=3524011

 

Let's keep in mind that the full spectrum conversion requires additional lenses of a specific wavelength range mounted on top of the lens. If you shoot full spectrum without any additional filters (what paranormal hunters often falsely claim is the best to see "ghosts"), you see everything and nothing since all the wavelengths overlay and interfere. Full spectrum conversion has only the advantage that it gives you options to narrow down the registered wavelength range according to your own choice with selected filter(s). So you can shoot IR with a full spectrum converted camera if you add for example a 720 nm cutoff filter. The results will be in theory the same as if you directly converted your camera to 720 nm IR cutoff, but now you have the slight disadvantage that you have an additional glass element - the filter - on top of your otherwise likely excellent lens. This might or might not give you some issues. I see the advantage of full spectrum conversion that you can for example switch between IR and UV photography just by replacing the filter on the lens. You could also shoot both in UV and IR light by removing visible light with a specialized (and expensive) Schott filter. 

 

Regarding the IR wavelengths, main difference between a 720 and 830 nm IR cutoff filter (some even go as high as 860 nm) is contrast and what you intend to do with your IR photo in PP. 720 nm allows a bit of regular light to sneak into your taken photo without harming the IR effect - but the visible light allows to do some PP processing with false color images (you have to swap red and blue color channels and then adjust accordingly). Or you can convert your 720 nm IR image directly into B&W (which I do most of the time). 830 nm and abobe only provides you with a B&W IR image since no visible light can be registered at this higher wavelength cutoff. Some claim that the 830 nm and above IR cutoffs provide more contrasty looking B&W images where I do not fully agree with. IMO you can achieve exactly the same effect by PP a 720 nm IR image in B&W. I personally prefer the 720 nm "standard" IR cutoff since it gives me the option to do some false color IR if needed (one is posted below). 

 

I personally have never been a big fan of the mixed regular light IR filters below 720 nm. 656 nm cutoff is worthwhile for astronomers to take IR photos capturing the red spectrum of the hydrogen-alpha galaxy nebula. But everything else below 720 nm - as shown in the table above is too saturated and unnatural looking for my taste - but some like it. 

 

[pico]

RE: Hot Spot - we have not explored the earlier mentioned ND center-filter.

If one can be borrowed it might help settle the question.

Edited May 24, 2018 by pico

[farnz]

.

I've used both 720 nm and 850 nm IR-pass filters (and others) and I've always found the contrast available from 850 nm is beyond what's available with a 720 nm filter.  I don't do 'faux-infrared' with channel swapping and I prefer the stark whites of foliage, which is probably why 'black' 850 nm filters appeal to me more than 'deep red' 720 nm.  I doubt, for instance, that I could have taken the picture below with a 720 nm filter.

 

(I continue to apologise for posting M8 pictures in a Q thread but it's in support of the wider IR theme that this thread has developed into - and I don't have a Q.)

 

Pete.

 

York, May 2018.

 

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 and 21/2.8 Kobalux with Singh-Ray I-Ray 850 nm filter

[farnz]

Zampelis,

 

An idea for you since your exploring infrared with the Q, you might consider acquiring an infrared light source (torch) and playing around with that at night and for infill during the day.  It's likely to be hit-and-miss since you won't be able to see where you're pointing it (unless you're wearing James Bond goggles  ) but they used to be available at that online auction site fairly cheaply because there's a large market for them for enhancing infrared security cameras and CCTV.

 

Pete.

[pico]

Zampelis,

 

An idea for you since your exploring infrared with the Q, you might consider acquiring an infrared light source (torch) and playing around with that at night and for infill during the day.  It's likely to be hit-and-miss since you won't be able to see where you're pointing it (unless you're wearing James Bond goggles  ) but they used to be available at that online auction site fairly cheaply because there's a large market for them for enhancing infrared security cameras and CCTV.

 

Pete.

 

Are the infrared light sources you refer to just ordinary lights with an IR filter? In my experience those are very dim.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[farnz]

Are the infrared light sources you refer to just ordinary lights with an IR filter? In my experience those are very dim.

 

Hi, Pico,

 

I don't know but I recall when I looked a few years ago there were quite powerful ones that were designed to (IR) floodlight tennis court sized areas.

 

Pete.