486 IR filter appearance

[Stan Raucher]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What does a 486 IR cut filter look like from the front when mounted on a lens?

 

Does it look similar to a typical UV filter (clear glass) or does it look like a shinny red mirror?

 

Thanks,

 

Stan

[albertknappmd]

more like a uv. Take a look at the B&W website.

[Scott W]

Straight on it is clear but off angle is gets pretty red.

 

Scott

[Guest stevenrk]

Straight on it is clear but off angle is gets pretty red.

 

Scott

 

Stan, Because the filter is designed to reflect back out rather than absorb light, it appears clear from the front. If it were not, then part of the visible light spectrum would not be making it to your sensor -- not what one wants.

 

The difficulty is that the invisible (to us) IR light and heat that the filter is designed to reflect back out through a series of layers of various esoteric subsances, when seen from any kind of an angle such as at 30 or 40 degrees, reflects back a strong red/magenta light in the shape of a bright red beacon without the Leica brand -- think the Batman symbol in the sky. Fine if you are shooting a wedding or a subject posing for you (some might debate that even) since these are not candid shots in the sense of trying to capture a subject at a candid moment -- we all go to weddings knowing that there will be photographers and that their job with a couple of cameras and flash units or many cameras is to walk around, as unobnoxiously as possible, and take our pictures. That photographer could beam the red white and blue of the American Flag at his subjects and they wouldn't think that much of it.

 

However, if you are interested in the kind of street photography that the M series was designed and recognized for, especially at night or at dusk in incandescent home or street lighting, then the red reflection from the lens is a very serious problem. Unfortunately one that none of the proponents of the IR cut filter are willing to put on the table and discuss openly.

 

What it means is that as you raise your camera or turn towards or away from a subject they will catch the red light shining at them from your "incouspicuous" M8. This is also true in daylight, but slightly less jarring since one would at least hope that other strong light sources are there competing with you for your suject's attention-- and if you happen to find yourself on a cloudy day where nature is acting as a big IR filter for you, then the IR filter, with little IR to reflect back out, will not be noticeable, but also not needed.

 

So bottom line, if you are doing street photography with an M8 and IR cut filter in light conditions that create IR problems, expect people to wonder why you are flashing the Leica red beam at them, and likely be a bit put off by it. And does sound like a workable solution to you?

[mr_big]

.The difficulty is that the invisible (to us) IR light and heat that the filter is designed to reflect back out through a series of layers of various esoteric subsances, when seen from any kind of an angle such as at 30 or 40 degrees, reflects back a strong red/magenta light in the shape of a bright red beacon without the Leica brand -- think the Batman symbol in the sky.

 

I think the reflected red/magenta looks cool. I bought a pair of Oakley sunglasses for that reason.

[Guest stevenrk]

I think the reflected red/magenta looks cool. I bought a pair of Oakley sunglasses for that reason.

 

Mr. big, that pretty much says it all.

 

So all photographers who envisioned Oakley red mirrored sunglasses as the perfect accessory to their M8's, please line up to the left. We've got some great red convertibles that you might also be interested in adding to your wardrobe along with your gleaming red M8.

[Stan Raucher]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Steven,

 

Thanks for the information. I'm disappointed that the IR cut filters have that bright red appearance when viewed at an angle. It sounds like they would not be great for street photography and that they could be off-putting to some subjects for portrait photography.

 

I generally use high quality UV filters to protect my lens, so I don't have an inherent bias against filters, but a glowing red beacon on the front of my camera is something else altogether.

 

Stan

[Bob Ross]

I generally use high quality UV filters to protect my lens, so I don't have an inherent bias against filters, but a glowing red beacon on the front of my camera is something else altogether.

 

Stan

Stan,

Your website contains monochrome images and if that is your main style, I don't think the M8 IR issue will be as much of a problem as working in color at black tie events. IR contamination is usually with man made fabrics and may produce a lighter tone that would need some attention, but you probably do that sort of thing anyway. If you work on the street in B&W just leave the filter at home.

Bob

[ho_co]

Stan--

My Edmunds 486 has very little color. One of the other threads posted here had a picture of the filter in two positions, both looking very saturated.

 

I don't find that to be the case. And if you put a hood over the filter, I don't think you'll be any more intimidating than anyone else with a camera.

 

As Bob and S Reid in his M8 part IV revision have said, for black-and-white, you are probably *better* off without the filter.

 

Or you might try the 489 filter, which looks just like a clear glass filter but cuts slightly into the visible. See http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/9624-edmund-ir-cut-identical-b-w.html#post96904 in this regard.)

 

--HC

[sean_reid]

Stan--

As Bob and S Reid in his M8 part IV revision have said, for black-and-white, you are probably *better* off without the filter.

 

--HC

 

Hi Howard,

 

It's a matter of taste. I prefer the look created by the naked lens for B&W but some will prefer the filtered look. Using a #1 green filter JFI profile on a "naked lens" file also brings it closer to the look of a 486 file (as shown in those examples).

 

All,

 

BTW, the way some of us work at a wedding is very much like what some call "street photography". Much of the time, my subjects have no awareness that they are being photographed. I haven't found the filters to be a problem at all in that respect. That kind of work is my specialty actually, not just at weddings. I would suggest that people work with these filters for awhile before getting too worried about their conspicuity.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[gravastar]

Stan--

My Edmunds 486 has very little color. One of the other threads posted here had a picture of the filter in two positions, both looking very saturated.

 

I don't find that to be the case. And if you put a hood over the filter, I don't think you'll be any more intimidating than anyone else with a camera.

[snip]

--HC

 

The photograph of filters I posted in another thread has two things that accentuate the coloring. The magenta reflection is that of a white card reflected in the filter, so it's bright. In practice that doesn't happen unless the reflection is that of a light source or bright object at an angle. Secondly, for the filter showing green the light has passed through the filter twice. Once from the angled source to the white card under the filter and again from the card to the viewer. I agree, restricting the angle of view with a hood reduces the visible coloration substantially.

 

Bob.

[mwilliamsphotography]

[quote= ... Fine if you are shooting a wedding or a subject posing for you (some might debate that even) since these are not candid shots in the sense of trying to capture a subject at a candid moment -- we all go to weddings knowing that there will be photographers and that their job with a couple of cameras and flash units or many cameras is to walk around, as unobnoxiously as possible, and take our pictures."

 

Hmmm, like Sean, my wedding style is more candid and the subject is rarely aware a shot is being taken ... even with a DSLR. I doubt anyone will notice what filter I'm using hidden under the lens shade.

 

I have a suspicion those that invested in IR Cut filters may still use them even if Leica offers up an alternative solution that doesn't involve filters.

[Peter Branch]

I just don't understand some of this.

 

If, as has been widely reported and claimed, an IRa* filter gives a visible improvement in "sharpness" with an M8 then this matters just as much for B&W as it does for colour.

 

I grant that it may be easier to "correct" for the colour errors in a B&W image, but this is a compromise. A good B&W image distinguishes between Black and Purple objects and does not render black objects as differing just because of the amount of incident or reflected IR.

 

There have been many images published on this site, and some people have commented on them, where a close examination shows that some part of the image is being affected adversly by the colour problems associated with IR. This includes some of the images purporting to show that there is no problem under some specific condition. I have not detected this in the pictures made with the IRa filters.

 

Without a filter, I don't have one, pictures taken with my M8 look "muddy" compared with the sparkling results I get from my Digilux2, and in many cases are actually less "sharp".

 

 

( *I know that the favoured IRa filters "reflect" rather than absorb but if we call filters that block UV light, UVa , then we should stick with this convention for the Infra-red and call what we are talking about IRa.)