skimmel Posted November 10, 2006 Share #1 Posted November 10, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very interesting test here: u n d e r e x p o s u r e on how black fabric is rendered by several different digital cameras, including the RD-1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 10, 2006 Posted November 10, 2006 Hi skimmel, Take a look here IR effects on RD-1 and other cameras . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
blakley Posted November 10, 2006 Share #2 Posted November 10, 2006 Now that's pretty interesting. I wonder if hot-mirror filter prices are going to go up... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted November 10, 2006 Share #3 Posted November 10, 2006 THis sure puts the issue in a realistic perspective ... thanks for sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi S Posted November 10, 2006 Share #4 Posted November 10, 2006 Very interesting. Thanks for posting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimmel Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share #5 Posted November 10, 2006 I agree, it's very interesting. Sean Reid has used the RD-1 for lots of weddings -- I wonder if he's noticed this at all with black tuxedos (I realize he shoots B&W mostly, but perhaps there's a few color shots along the way). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egibaud Posted November 10, 2006 Share #6 Posted November 10, 2006 bad news for everybody then :-) M8 is not worse than the rest. Yesteday I spoke on the phone to a Leica dealer from Paris, France. His answer was simple. "There maybe a problem, there be not, all I can tell you is that we have a medium format shop too.... and digital equipment that cost around US$ 25000 out of 10 shots of the same subject you get about 5 different results". So the bad news is... digital is surely not a very precise science right now. The good news... M8 uses lenses that are backward compatible (since 1954) so our material will hopefully not get obsolete when M9, M10, M11... come out, as Leica policy does not seem to go this way. And any lense we buy now can be used on an MP, M7, M6... this is not true for many other solutions such as 4/3 etc. Let's wait and see. Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivek Iyer Posted November 10, 2006 Share #7 Posted November 10, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) So the bad news is... digital is surely not a very precise science right now. Only when a digital sensor with much wider spectral sensitivity than a normal E6 film is treated as one and expected to give the same results. If the "right" light is allowed to strike the sensor, one can expect the same results as the ones from film and with excellent consistency. Medium format digital backs (and a camera like the Mamiya ZD) belong to a different category in that the user can (in principle) change the filter on the CCD without sending it back to the camera manufacturer. Personally, I would find the M8 more versatile if Solms can get rid of the ineffective IR cut filter altogether. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 10, 2006 Share #8 Posted November 10, 2006 Interesting indeed! I've shot about 6,000 pics with R-D1 and R-D1s bodies. Only got 2 or 3 'slight' so-called magenta (in fact red) casts on black material so far and each time i's been easy to tweak by a couple of clics in iCorrect. Now i don't shoot much indoor with bright light sources to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 10, 2006 Share #9 Posted November 10, 2006 bad news for everybody then :-) M8 is not worse than the rest. Yesteday I spoke on the phone to a Leica dealer from Paris, France. His answer was simple. "There maybe a problem, there be not, all I can tell you is that we have a medium format shop too.... and digital equipment that cost around US$ 25000 out of 10 shots of the same subject you get about 5 different results". So the bad news is... digital is surely not a very precise science right now. Eric I'm sorry, but that's not correct. 10 MF digital shots of the same subject and 5 different results? Hardly. Try, set the profile ... and 10 identical shots out of 10. Commercial shooters would go nuts if that dealer comment were true. You must not believe everything you hear from salespeople. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunom Posted November 10, 2006 Share #10 Posted November 10, 2006 Marc Maybe the dealer meant 'same shot but with ten different backs' ? Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbabbott3 Posted November 10, 2006 Share #11 Posted November 10, 2006 Thank you for the lead. I've sent the "Underexposed" URL on to the Leica Reflex Forum (leicareflex@freelists.org) and am much obliged to you. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonasYip Posted November 14, 2006 Share #12 Posted November 14, 2006 I just came across this thread with the link to my RD-1 test from a couple of days ago. Just wanted to point out that although the RD-1 and D1x both exhibited the IR sensitivity, that behavior generally hasn't resulted in objectionable results. The examples I've seen from the M appear to be much worse and immediately noticeable... but then I don't have one in hand to compare so I can't really judge that. [OK, after I typed that I went through some old pictures and I do see bad blacks here and there. Nothing really bad, but then again I didn't really have many examples with different black things in one shot that might make the problem stick out. There only one was a shot of a real black rabbit next to a fake black rabbit... and the fake one was decidedly purple. Good to know that the real rabbit isn't made of IR reflecting synthetic materials!] j Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted November 14, 2006 Share #13 Posted November 14, 2006 Yikes! I just checked back over the first time I used the RD-1 on a job. It was a wedding. I shot the M7 (with film) through the wedding, but 'tested' the RD-1 on the guests at the reception, being non critical images. Comparing the pics of peples clothes shot on film with the RD-1 is an eye opener. The IR effect is really there. I just thought some people has poor taste in dressing! I must check another wedding that was shot all on the RD-1. I will report back tomorrow. The dog is demanding a walk (by tearing up my office carpet) and then I'm off to bed. Will report back tomorrow. This is getting interesting. Cheers, Erl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markedavison Posted November 14, 2006 Share #14 Posted November 14, 2006 See http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/MarkEDavison/M8infrared/ for some more examples of IR contamination with the Leica M8, the Epson R-D1, the Nikon D200 and the Nikon D2h. In preparing these examples I also made shots of the scene with an IR pass filter at the same exposure as the shots with and without IR cut filtration, so you can get some idea of the relative sensitivity of the cameras to IR. The colors in the Nikon D200 shots correspond closely to my visual impression of the scene. These examples show that IR contamination affects more than just synthetic black fabrics. Unfortunately these examples also show that a Tiffen standard hot mirror filter is not strong enough to completely correct the color shifts. Mark Davison Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 14, 2006 Share #15 Posted November 14, 2006 It's an interesting question being raised here. In the article I'm working on now, I'm going to test the usual trio (M8, 5D and R-D1) with and without the 486 filter. Subjects will be lit by incandescent light and will include dark textiles. I myself am curious about the results. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted November 14, 2006 Share #16 Posted November 14, 2006 I recently photographed at an event with the R-D1 and was caught out by it's IR sensitivity. Normally I'd use a B+W 486 filter to avoid problems. The lens used was the Canon 50mm 0.95 which produces flare at full aperture with filters, so none was used. The scene was illuminated by tungsten light and most of the black fabrics have turned magenta. Bob. 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/8895-ir-effects-on-rd-1-and-other-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=93292'>More sharing options...
Vivek Iyer Posted November 14, 2006 Share #17 Posted November 14, 2006 See for IR and UV on Epson R-D1: http://shardsofphotography.blogspot.com/2006/07/ir-and-uv-photography.html and (sorry, I pulled most of my photos from that "feisty" site) http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HTSH Anyone in the Netherlands who would let me test their M8 for UV response? Also see here: http://filmlives.net/community//netscape6/viewtopic.php?t=405 for one possibility (application) of reflected UV photography besides pretty flowers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.