argomazov Posted August 14, 2007 Share #41 Posted August 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Guys, could you help me out?I absolutely adore your IR pics, but I have never taken IR pics on a digital camera, how do I do it on the M8? Will I need a filter, or can it be done in PS? Hello Andreas. Yes, you need a filter that lets either only IR (and lower) wavelengths through, or IR plus some visible light. I personally prefer the latter type. Specifically, I use a B+W 092 filter, available in Europe, for example, from the excellent Foto Huppert. Be careful with lenses though: not all of them "behave well" with IR photography. Usually, older, non aspherical lenses work better than the new, "everything-corrected" ones. I am personally relatively happy with the CV 21/4. I read on this forum that the old, eastern european Orion lenses do wonder with IR on the M8. Luca Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Hi argomazov, Take a look here Infrablack. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wlaidlaw Posted August 14, 2007 Share #42 Posted August 14, 2007 Guys, could you help me out?I absolutely adore your IR pics, but I have never taken IR pics on a digital camera, how do I do it on the M8? Will I need a filter, or can it be done in PS? Andreas, The simple answer is yes. Seriously you can do both. There are various companies selling plug-ins for PS to give you pseudo IR and some of them are not bad. However I think all the guys on this thread are using physical IR filters. I am using a 52mm B+W 092, which allows a little natural light in. They also do an 093 which blocks all visible light but it is a tad more difficult to use. Don't do like I did the first time and leave the IR/UV cut filter on or you will get a blank image! The 52mm size with a couple of adapter rings covers all my lenses (21/2.8CZ , 35/1.2CV, 50 Elmar and 90 Elmarit) just leaving my 35 CZ Biogon, 16mm Fish-Eye and Noctilux uncovered. I have also a Wratten 70a for my fish-eye but that allows a lot more natural light in and is less exciting. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 14, 2007 Share #43 Posted August 14, 2007 486 + 092 = no harmful light any more Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
argomazov Posted August 14, 2007 Share #44 Posted August 14, 2007 486 + 092 = no harmful light any more Eh eh, this combination should really be marketed as a tool to "protect and preserve your delicate M8 sensor" :-) Luca Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 14, 2007 Share #45 Posted August 14, 2007 Wilson, I have the same kind of thoughts about the price of CS3 in Europe, so I too decided not to buy it for as long as I can resist. One quick and much less expensive option to properly swap channels on a Mac without buying CS3 is to use GraphicConverter: for this kind of operation, it is really worth it. Attached is an example picture with the red/blue channels swapped by GraphicConverter, after WB setting and curve editing with Lightroom. Sorry about the flare... Cheers, Luca Luca, Apple did not give you Graphic Converter on Intel machines. I have it on my g5 PowerMac but that is back in the UK. I have found a US retailer who has a new, unregistered, full retail version copy of CS3, which has a very very scrunched box but the disc is OK. It is about 30% of the European price. I think I will get that. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
argomazov Posted August 14, 2007 Share #46 Posted August 14, 2007 Luca, Apple did not give you Graphic Converter on Intel machines. I have it on my g5 PowerMac but that is back in the UK. I have found a US retailer who has a new, unregistered, full retail version copy of CS3, which has a very very scrunched box but the disc is OK. It is about 30% of the European price. I think I will get that. Wilson You can download, and then buy, if you like it, a Universal Binary version of Graphic Converter from the developer's site. The price is around 30 EUR, I think (I bought it a couple of years ago). The Universal Binary is quite faster on Intel Macs than the PPC version on PPC Macs. Still far, far away from CS3 with respect to functionalities, but I find it that it covers decently the few functionalities that I sometimes need after working in Lightroom, such as channel swapping. Lightroom, in my opinion, does really cover the vast majority of what I need to "develop" pictures. As of the "70% discount" on CS3, I guess you should go for it: it seems like a very good deal. You probably know it already, but be careful with customs though: importing anything from the US these days can really be expensive for individuals. Cheers, Luca Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 14, 2007 Share #47 Posted August 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) You can download, and then buy, if you like it, a Universal Binary version of Graphic Converter from the developer's site. The price is around 30 EUR, I think (I bought it a couple of years ago). The Universal Binary is quite faster on Intel Macs than the PPC version on PPC Macs. Still far, far away from CS3 with respect to functionalities, but I find it that it covers decently the few functionalities that I sometimes need after working in Lightroom, such as channel swapping. Lightroom, in my opinion, does really cover the vast majority of what I need to "develop" pictures. As of the "70% discount" on CS3, I guess you should go for it: it seems like a very good deal. You probably know it already, but be careful with customs though: importing anything from the US these days can really be expensive for individuals. Cheers, Luca Luca I have just bitten the bullet and bought CS3 for $450, which is not bad. I really need it anyway, as the number of tools which work on 16 bit TIFF's on PSE4 is so limited. It also gives you benefit of working in a more integrated way with iPhoto 08, for non-destructive editing. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted August 14, 2007 Share #48 Posted August 14, 2007 Luca I have just bitten the bullet and bought CS3 for $450, which is not bad. I really need it anyway, as the number of tools which work on 16 bit TIFF's on PSE4 is so limited. It also gives you benefit of working in a more integrated way with iPhoto 08, for non-destructive editing. Wilson Wilson where did you buy the full version of CS3 for $450. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 14, 2007 Share #49 Posted August 14, 2007 Wilson where did you buy the full version of CS3 for $450. Ed, It was from a large US retailer. He only had one like this. It got badly damaged in transit and the box is toast plus the manual is not too good either. He has checked the DVD and it is fine but obviously he can't sell it normally. It is through eBay but he is a major seller with excellent feed-back. I have paid with an Amex via Paypal, so I am protected both ways. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 14, 2007 Share #50 Posted August 14, 2007 Actually the cheapest way to get CS3 is probably to buy an older version off eBay and then buy the upgrade. I think you need to get v7 or later - not sure, may be v6. That's what I did when I wanted to get a Mac version to run alongside the PC version. The upgrade doesn't force you to install the earlier version, it just asks for you to insert the disk. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 15, 2007 Share #51 Posted August 15, 2007 Steve, I got caught on the upgrade route back in the days when we used Yahoo auctions. I bought a copy of Photoshop 5 and then an upgrade to PS6 from Adobe. It said the version of PS5 I had was a "non-eligible for upgrade version PS5" - I was stuffed and Adobe were, at that time as usual, less than helpful. I was so angry, when I was in Sri Lanka, I bought a copy of PS6 on the market for £2. That is the only time I have ever bought pirate software. Adobe's help centre has improved a lot of late and you no longer get either a demand for a credit card number before they will even speak to you or a "good morning - how can I be of no assistance to you at all today." Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 15, 2007 Share #52 Posted August 15, 2007 Tell me more about Graphic Converter? I'm running a G4 eMac from several years back and don't find anything with a similar name. Several URLs turn up in a Google search; I take it the company is Lemkesoft? Could it be that the software is included in EU only? Or just that my computer is too asthmatic to handle it? And if I'm running CS2 and considering upgrading to CS3, is there a benefit to Graphic Converter? Thanks! --HC Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 15, 2007 Share #53 Posted August 15, 2007 Wilson was the version of 5 an educational one? I could be wrong, but I thought they were ineligible for upgrades. As I say I'm not too sure about this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
argomazov Posted August 15, 2007 Share #54 Posted August 15, 2007 Tell me more about Graphic Converter? I'm running a G4 eMac from several years back and don't find anything with a similar name. Several URLs turn up in a Google search; I take it the company is Lemkesoft? Could it be that the software is included in EU only? Or just that my computer is too asthmatic to handle it? And if I'm running CS2 and considering upgrading to CS3, is there a benefit to Graphic Converter? Thanks! --HC Hi. Yes, Graphic Converter is developed by Lemkesoft. It is trialware, so you can download a copy and use it before you decide whether you want to buy it. It works on both PPC and Intel Macs. I wouldn't say there's a benefit to using GC instead of CS2 (or, even worse, CS3), except for the price. CS2/3 are vastly superior to GC in terms of features and even performance. Of course, we're talking about a software that costs 30 EUR vs. a suite that costs tens of times more... What I would say is that if you shoot RAW and use a "comprehensive" tool like Lightroom, then even a basic pixel editor like GC can be enough. Or at least, I personally find it almost enough for my needs. Luca PS: sorry for steering the thread very off topic... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimcollum Posted August 15, 2007 Share #55 Posted August 15, 2007 some more from the M8 and 92 b&w filter, infra-color, not infra-black though Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 15, 2007 Share #56 Posted August 15, 2007 Jim, have you been hanging out with Jack? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimcollum Posted August 15, 2007 Share #57 Posted August 15, 2007 Jim, have you been hanging out with Jack? yea. he and i spent a morning there last weekend.. both M8's.. but he was shooting color-b/w and i had an IR filter on mine. he wasn't too enthusiastic about the hour i picked him up at (5am) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 15, 2007 Share #58 Posted August 15, 2007 How do you process the images? I just got my filter today and was shooting a bit, but I get either pink images or images which look more or less B&W but with green foliage. I think I missed something somewhere. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted August 15, 2007 Share #59 Posted August 15, 2007 some more from the M8 and 92 b&w filter, infra-color, not infra-black though [ Great shots. I am also curious as to how you processed these. I really like the look and I also have the 092, but my images don't look anything like these. Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimcollum Posted August 15, 2007 Share #60 Posted August 15, 2007 How do you process the images? I just got my filter today and was shooting a bit, but I get either pink images or images which look more or less B&W but with green foliage. I think I missed something somewhere. i normally white balance initially in camera (so at least i get a feel for what the finalwill look like). i use an expodisc and manual wb and set it that way. The problem with IR and color, is the more IR you get, the less color you get.... which is one of the reasons i shoot before the sun comes over the horizon. even if it's foggy or overcast, the ir will make it thru and start to bleach out the color in the scene. you also need to use capture one.. Lightroom and Camera Raw can't set the wb low enough (limit is 2000K) to balance out the scene.. and you end up with mostly pink images also.. if you use capture one, you need to make sure that 'pattern noise supression' is checked.. otherwise you end up with some wierd pattern artifacts.. i've only seen this happen in IR images, so i suspect it might have something to do with having the wb Kelvin setting so low Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.