Infrared or Colour in landscapes?

Harry Wheeler-Brand

Harry Wheeler-Brand

Messages
18
Name
Harry Wheeler-Brand
Edit My Images
No
This photograph was from a strange strange day.. at a location, I drive past every day, but it's never special enough to photograph. That was until I gave it a chance with an Infrared camera! This special little image ended up getting me runner up in this year's Young Landscape Photographer of the Year, so you can only imagine how silly I felt.

Does anything else end up kicking themselves when you realise something so special is on your doorstep?

lindsey, suffolk.jpg
 
We live in a gently rolling part of Oxfordshire, and it's easy to drive past a lot of it without 'seeing' things. It's also a good place to practice because when you DO get to some amazing landscapes you're skilled up to make the most of it.

Yes, I like a bit of IR too, though conditions have to be right for it to work.
 
Last edited:
I am inclined to put infrared in the same sort of category as pictures taken with special effect filters. Initially they "caught my eye", but eventually I was not bothered if I never saw another.
All a matter of personal taste.
 
ancient_mariner said:
We live in a gently rolling part of Oxfordshire, and it's easy to drive past a lot of it without 'seeing' things. It's also a good place to practice because when you DO get to some amazing landscapes you're skilled up to make the most of it.

Yes, I like a bit of IR too, though conditions have to be right for it to work.
Click to expand...

Very true.. it’s quite rare I take the IR out of the bag, mostly it sits there gathering dust apart from very exempt days in summer..
 
arclight said:
I am inclined to put infrared in the same sort of category as pictures taken with special effect filters. Initially they "caught my eye", but eventually I was not bothered if I never saw another.
All a matter of personal taste.
Click to expand...

Very much so.. it’s fascinating all of the different light wavelengths IR has to offer.. some increasingly strange effects they can give.

I have to admit, I wouldn’t touch IR if it didn’t give such a high contrasted black and white image.. all a matter of taste though.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH it's very similar if doing mono - the raw files won't look much different and you won't have the problems of missed focus that can happen with IR. Obviously different for colour (channel swapping won't work the same) but that wasn't what you were talking about.
Click to expand...

I was going to mention missed focus as that's how the OP shot looks. I don't know the finer details of it all but I believe IR converted camera's struggle with AF focus?
 
It's a cracking photo - well done! :D The long exposure gives it life - It's the thing I miss about doing long exposure infrared.

Different light puts a whole new perspective on what you might previously have seen as mundane and boring - and it might be light that happens one time a year, or you see by complete chance. Infrared gives you a different type of light to play with, long exposure IR a different one again! and they work particularly well on days or times of day where light and contrast might not work so well for colour. It'll work for some things, not so well for others. I take 2 cameras everywhere, and treat the IR camera like my colour one - it's used for everything.

Problem with IR is that it's very marmite, as I'm sure you already know and as is demonstrated by this thread ;) and that's fine - we'd be boring if we were all the same! Personally, I've grown to love it enough to convert cameras, and for the first time bought a new camera specifically to convert, rather than convert my old bodies. Other people look at my work and wonder what planet I'm on! But it's a different string to your bow

On a traditional converted (D)SLR camera, the focus point would ideally be reset to the lens during conversion. However it shouldn't be a problem when using live view to compose, or mirrorless or compact due to the different autofocus method. But for the most part, on a converted SLR, I've never found focus a massive problem, and on an unconverted, hey it's all part of the fun! :D
 
SFTPhotography said:
I was going to mention missed focus as that's how the OP shot looks. I don't know the finer details of it all but I believe IR converted camera's struggle with AF focus?
Click to expand...

They do massively.. usually I crack up the f stop massively to try to compensate, and spend 5 minutes trying to nail focus.
 
James Blonde said:
It's a cracking photo - well done! :D The long exposure gives it life - It's the thing I miss about doing long exposure infrared.

Different light puts a whole new perspective on what you might previously have seen as mundane and boring - and it might be light that happens one time a year, or you see by complete chance. Infrared gives you a different type of light to play with, long exposure IR a different one again! and they work particularly well on days or times of day where light and contrast might not work so well for colour. It'll work for some things, not so well for others. I take 2 cameras everywhere, and treat the IR camera like my colour one - it's used for everything.

Problem with IR is that it's very marmite, as I'm sure you already know and as is demonstrated by this thread ;) and that's fine - we'd be boring if we were all the same! Personally, I've grown to love it enough to convert cameras, and for the first time bought a new camera specifically to convert, rather than convert my old bodies. Other people look at my work and wonder what planet I'm on! But it's a different string to your bow

On a traditional converted (D)SLR camera, the focus point would ideally be reset to the lens during conversion. However it shouldn't be a problem when using live view to compose, or mirrorless or compact due to the different autofocus method. But for the most part, on a converted SLR, I've never found focus a massive problem, and on an unconverted, hey it's all part of the fun! :D
Click to expand...

I like your thinking [emoji1]
 
I should have said in my first post that yes, it really is a great pic. Well done for seeing the possibility.
 
Harrybehindthelens said:
They do massively.. usually I crack up the f stop massively to try to compensate, and spend 5 minutes trying to nail focus.
Click to expand...

Would critical focus on live view work or is that a no.

I'm potentially interested in modifying one of my D810's, I can see they make truly amazing B&Ws and it would give me a lot of fun.
 
SFTPhotography said:
Would critical focus on live view work or is that a no.

I'm potentially interested in modifying one of my D810's, I can see they make truly amazing B&Ws and it would give me a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

Yep, live view solves the focus problem completely - though I'm going mirrorless as I much prefer using the viewfinder (and completely forget to use the back screen on my converted D7100!). Whilst the EVF is taking a little getting used to, I think for IR / full spectrum, it'll be a godsend!

So I've bought a (new) Z5 which I'll be getting converted to full spectrum in the new year and probably go back to using a Hoya R72 on the lens and buy different wavelength (probably lens) filters for different effects. You can get a hot mirror filter which would effectively turn it back into a normal colour camera, so I did at one point consider just using 1 body and getting a Z7 or Z7II converted to full spectrum, but was talked out of that as not being as practical as it sounds. But can experiment with the Z5 and see how I get on and maybe reconsider later.

Also bought a (new used) Z7 to be my colour body, and I'll be getting rid of my D810 colour and D7100 infrared. So will still have 2 cameras, but a much lighter weight system, and can get rid of my DX lenses.
 
SFTPhotography said:
I was going to mention missed focus as that's how the OP shot looks. I don't know the finer details of it all but I believe IR converted camera's struggle with AF focus?
Click to expand...
It depends on the camera & the conversion.
Converted DSLRs certainly have issues most of the time.

My (full spectrum converted) mirrorless cameras have no problem unless chromatic aberration is too great (for the lens & wavelength range being photographed - sometimes this can be 300nm to 1100nm).
Shooting basic IR my mirrorless bodies will focus just as they do with visual light. I've not found it an issue photographing motorsports with a 590nm set-up.
IR BTCC - Cole by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

My SD14 has severe issues with one of the lenses, as the focusing movement is not sufficient to get infinity focus anywhere in the upper half of the zoom range. Small apertures & manually focused to the stop generally give acceptable results with that lens.
 
As far as the the title's question goes there's no need for an either or. Colour can work well with IR.
Much of my Infra red is done in colour,
either using a pseudo aerochrome result such as this one:
seafront garden aerochrome small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

or the Goldie look (590nm w channel swap/hue adjust):
P1160563c by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

590nm without the channel swap (better for flesh tones):
Flatford bridge by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

or more unusual options such as this BG3 filter gives (IR, UV & blue):
aP1040285 by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Definitely marmite :) I’m a sucker for IR black and white and had my first DSLR converted for that. No live view in that one so focus is a pain apart from using the lens the conversion was calibrated with.
 
Harrybehindthelens said:
They do massively.. usually I crack up the f stop massively to try to compensate, and spend 5 minutes trying to nail focus.
Click to expand...

That's surprising, I thought you had a mirrorless camera converted, similar to mine and they don't suffer from focusing issues like DSLRs do, I certainly haven't noticed any with my converted Fuji.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="
SFTPhotography said:
I was going to mention missed focus as that's how the OP shot looks. I don't know the finer details of it all but I believe IR converted camera's struggle with AF focus?
Click to expand...
They do massively.. usually I crack up the f stop massively to try to compensate, and spend 5 minutes trying to nail focus.


[/QUOTE]

No idea where this issue comes from. Perhaps you are using a red IR filter and cannot see anything to focus. I have a converted DSLR and Auto focus is just as quick, easy and accurate as it was before it was converted. I can produce Mono or False colour images. The colour images as you can see from above tend to be like marmite; only a few like them. In fact I have all but given up producing colour IR because they are not usually liked. B&W IR is still attractive and popular. I personally do not like the long exposures with fuzzy clouds and foliage blurred (due to movement). You can see some of my IR images on my website: IR Techniques.

Dave
 
justinminns said:
That's surprising, I thought you had a mirrorless camera converted, similar to mine and they don't suffer from focusing issues like DSLRs do, I certainly haven't noticed any with my converted Fuji.



YEs focusing with live view solves the problem on DSLRs
Click to expand...

Oh hey, Justin.

Yes — X-A3, didn’t know you had Fuji? Good choice. Unforgivably yes.. I’ve always had issues with it with focusing, whether it’s missed focus or doesn’t seem to want to focus at all. Most of the time I end up manually focusing the best I can on live view, even then it’s not top draw.

There’s a list of what could cause it..
- Canon lens converter (not the top of the line but, but fully electric and not cheap)
- Lens focus might be knackered
- Me...
 
My IR camera is quite old bought in 2005 but converted to IR in 2010 and I have used it ever since. One of the things they do is to move the plane of the sensor slightly so that it auto focuses on the visible image as before but that new plane of focus is then correct for IR. So the camera auto focus operates much the same as before it was converted. There is no need to use live view and the 20D does not have live view anyway. As the IR blocking filter is also removed (they obviously add an IR pass filter 720 nM for me), the amount of light means exposure is much as before. In fact I was able to ascertain that setting a permanent +1.5 stops compensation was good so auto exposure can also be used.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
My IR camera is quite old bought in 2005 but converted to IR in 2010 and I have used it ever since. One of the things they do is to move the plane of the sensor slightly so that it auto focuses on the visible image as before but that new plane of focus is then correct for IR. So the camera auto focus operates much the same as before it was converted. There is no need to use live view and the 20D does not have live view anyway. As the IR blocking filter is also removed (they obviously add an IR pass filter 720 nM for me), the amount of light means exposure is much as before. In fact I was able to ascertain that setting a permanent +1.5 stops compensation was good so auto exposure can also be used.

Dave
Click to expand...

I had a feeling they mentioned doing something to the focusing when they converted mine but I quickly forgot all the details!
 
Dave Canon said:
My IR camera is quite old bought in 2005 but converted to IR in 2010 and I have used it ever since. One of the things they do is to move the plane of the sensor slightly so that it auto focuses on the visible image as before but that new plane of focus is then correct for IR. So the camera auto focus operates much the same as before it was converted. There is no need to use live view and the 20D does not have live view anyway. As the IR blocking filter is also removed (they obviously add an IR pass filter 720 nM for me), the amount of light means exposure is much as before. In fact I was able to ascertain that setting a permanent +1.5 stops compensation was good so auto exposure can also be used.

Dave
Click to expand...
This focus re calibration is needed for DSLRs (if not using live view) but not mirrorless cameras (they effectively use live-view all the time).
It's something that often varies from lens to lens so the camera can be re-calibrated for a specific lens at it's new wavelength, but this won't be quite right if you change to a different lens (or even if you zoom the lens).
Older lenses often have an extra mark for IR focusing which usually ends up being slightly closer focused than visual light, but I have at least one lens where the shift goes the other way, which makes it a pain for IR with any subjects more than a couple of meters away!
 
I have a converted D70, and usually deal with focus issues by stopping down. Biggest problem is often hotspots, and I don't have a single lens that doesn't hotspot a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top