Infrared Photography.

Ajsski99

Ajsski99

Messages
12
Name
Archie Saunders
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I'm currently studying A Level Photography (1st year) and have been tasked with a project running from now until the end of May.

It can be on whatever we want, but to be honest that's just a little background information on this question.
I've come across some photographers while researching who shoot in Infrared and I really want to try this myself.

Continuing my research I found you can either use filters on the end of the lens, or you can get your camera sent away and converted to only shoot IR.

The first option seems the most logical for a broke A Level student as its the most inexpensive and seems a lot less hassle than having to wait for a camera to be converted and shipped etc.

The second option does also seem tempting, although it comes with a hefty price tag. Luckily a few days ago I was gifted a Sony A290 DSLR from a friend which would be ideal to use for IR as I wouldn't want to do this process on my main Nikon.

However, I've seen that the first option drastically reduces the amount of visible light entering the camera meaning long exposures, and therefore potential blurriness. But on the other hand, the second option retains the user being able to shoot handheld like normal with a DSLR.

So... I think I'm going to choose the first option of using filters as it seems the most logical for me. but I'm really stuck on where to buy the ones correct to my camera (Nikon D3300, Nikon 18-55mm Lens) and what "nm" filter to buy.
I really like the look of 590nm filters, followed by 665nm and 720, I'm not looking to shoot anything darker than that.

So to conclude, I'm looking for your advice.
Option 1 or 2?
What filters (Please leave links I'm stupid)
Best way to go about shooting

Sorry for the very long post but I tried to make it as clear as possible for you :)

Many Thanks, Ajsski99
 
Welcome Archie,

The problem with option 1 is as you say. Long exposures are forced, so you'll get people movement, tree movement, cloud movement, water movement, and you won't be able to shoot without a tripod. If you push your ISO super high (6400) and open the aperture, you might get shutter speeds of 1/60 or faster, but probably not and only on bright days (lol UK winter). As you say though - it's cheap and needs no equipment.

If you have a camera though, you just need the cost of the conversion. It's still not cheap, and resale afterwards is poor. However cost and having to have a second camera is the only downside. I've used Protech (Sussex I think) for both my full camera IR conversions and they were fab.

So with cost being a major factor, it's got to be your decision as we (I) don't have to live with the financial consequences of our advice...

In terms of filters, a 590nm blocks out less "normal" light, so there's more colour in the image resulting in a more... well... colourful image. The 720nm will block out more visible light leaving you with a very monochrome image. 590nm filters are generally used for people who like to mess about with the colour and do things like channel swap red & blue channels to get a "Goldie" effect. Working on the basis that you can't put back what isn't there, my inclination would be to go for a 590 as this gives you the most flexibility. Modern software makes B&W conversions easy, so getting a monochrome look from a 590nm filter isn't hard. Although you could consider "hamstringing" yourself for the purposes of the project and go 720nm and do everything in B&W. Certainly if one of your research photographers was Simon Marsden you can see the amazing stuff he did with IR - and that was on film.

I use Zomei filters on my film cameras. They're relatively cheap and do the job fine for me. Amazon & eBay both sell them.
Good luck with your project and welcome to TP!
 
Harlequin565 said:
Welcome Archie,

The problem with option 1 is as you say. Long exposures are forced, so you'll get people movement, tree movement, cloud movement, water movement, and you won't be able to shoot without a tripod. If you push your ISO super high (6400) and open the aperture, you might get shutter speeds of 1/60 or faster, but probably not and only on bright days (lol UK winter). As you say though - it's cheap and needs no equipment.

If you have a camera though, you just need the cost of the conversion. It's still not cheap, and resale afterwards is poor. However cost and having to have a second camera is the only downside. I've used Protech (Sussex I think) for both my full camera IR conversions and they were fab.

So with cost being a major factor, it's got to be your decision as we (I) don't have to live with the financial consequences of our advice...

In terms of filters, a 590nm blocks out less "normal" light, so there's more colour in the image resulting in a more... well... colourful image. The 720nm will block out more visible light leaving you with a very monochrome image. 590nm filters are generally used for people who like to mess about with the colour and do things like channel swap red & blue channels to get a "Goldie" effect. Working on the basis that you can't put back what isn't there, my inclination would be to go for a 590 as this gives you the most flexibility. Modern software makes B&W conversions easy, so getting a monochrome look from a 590nm filter isn't hard. Although you could consider "hamstringing" yourself for the purposes of the project and go 720nm and do everything in B&W. Certainly if one of your research photographers was Simon Marsden you can see the amazing stuff he did with IR - and that was on film.

I use Zomei filters on my film cameras. They're relatively cheap and do the job fine for me. Amazon & eBay both sell them.
Good luck with your project and welcome to TP!
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the super informative reply, I'll definitely take a look at the Zomei filters and also at Simon Marsden. Does Zomei do the 590mm filters for DSLR's? specifically the D3300.
Thanks for the warm welcome :)
 
Last edited:
Ajsski99 said:
Does Zomei do the 590mm filters for DSLR's
Click to expand...

Yes. Filters block light. IR filters block visible light, allowing IR only to pass through. Doesn't make a difference whether the camera behind it is film or digital. Filters are filters. Just make sure you get one that has the same diameter as your lens.
However the exposure differs for film. You don't need to worry about that with digital because of the fab what-you-see-is-what-you-get response.
 
If you're serious about this, get a converted camera. They come up for sale quite often on ebay etc and you should be able to re-sell without loss after the project is done.

There are lots of problems just using filters, as you're aware. Also, camera sensors vary quite a lot in how they respond with filters but even the best can't hold a candle to a converted camera. Lenses vary in how they transmit IR too. Google it - it's a specialist subject, but lots of good info around.
 
I'll second the Zomei filters. If you're not going to get the camera converted though, stick with 720nm filters - the lower values allow more visible light in, and as an unconverted camera is not very sensitive to infra red but very sensitive to visible light, you won't get much of an infra red effect. You may be able to get away with a really heavy 890nm filter, but probably not, and the exposure time will be very long indeed. In my experience something in the region of 30 seconds exposure at f8 with a 720nm filter on an unconverted camera generally works well.
 
Budget option is a D100 or D1. They have crappy built in filters so can do short exposures with IR filters near the 720 end. Good enough for portraits in direct sunlight. Focussing is hit and miss when you start with no live view. Later Nikons got better filters so are less good for IR.

If your lens is a first generation AF-S one (doesn't have a lock) then it will work with IR.Later ones they changed the lens arrangement and it doesn't work so well.

IR looks best in the Summer when there are things to take pictures of. In Winter you get cloudy days (no IR) and no trees.

I got a budget set of IR filters. One of these does a nice two tone effect on my d100. Grass and trees are different colours. It is either a 770 or a 850. (I'd like to know so I can get a better one. I think it is mislabelled)
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
If you're serious about this, get a converted camera. They come up for sale quite often on ebay etc and you should be able to re-sell without loss after the project is done.

There are lots of problems just using filters, as you're aware. Also, camera sensors vary quite a lot in how they respond with filters but even the best can't hold a candle to a converted camera. Lenses vary in how they transmit IR too. Google it - it's a specialist subject, but lots of good info around.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. I would genuinely consider buying a converted camera but they’re very expensive and I have barely any money to spend as I can’t find a job

So since I have quite a long time until the end of the project, I’ll buy some IR filters and experiment, maybe post some results on here.

Then if those results are rubbish I’ll consider getting my Sony converted or I’ll buy a converted camera from eBay.
 
Been through this process many times, by far the best options if a pre-converted mirrorless camera. Ebay is awash with early Olympus and Panasonic m4/3 bodies for around £100. Get one of those and a cheap zoom lens (check lens databases first for hot spot performance), and as @HoppyUK says, sell it when you're done, it should cost you next to nothing as long as you don't get hooked and keep it. Worth mentioning that you can buy a full spectrum converted mirroless camera and still put a filter on the lens to change the wave length you want to work with. Or buy a 590 and put an 850 filter on or whatever. You can still use those combinations like a normal camera. My personal choice would be something like a Panasonic G1/G2/G3 body with a 720nm conversion. The G series have a viewfinder which is useful on a bright day and 720 can give you nice colour infrared or deep contrasty black and white infrared. A good jack of all trades and no messing with filters. Converted DSLR's would be second choice but there are drawbacks vs mirrorless. Firstly the autofocus might be iffy. It may have been adjusted if the camera was well converted but it's rarely right for all lenses. Live view auto focus will work well though. But also, if you do stick and additional IR filter on the lens of a DSLR, you can no longer see through the viewfinder so you're really more or less stuck with whatever wave length the camera is converted to.

Unconverted cameras can be okay to dip into this hobby. I used to be able shoot my X100 handheld but it's a massive compromise with everything turned up to 11, max aperture, max iso and still about 1/30 second exposure. Tripod is fine but you will not get crisp foliage or clouds forms that are often synomous with the 'IR look'. I'd strongly recommend option 1!

One last thing, have you considered using a film camera for this?...
 
Just doing a quick look on eBay there a few converted D70’s going for sale from about £119 to £150, once you have used it and no longer need it you could bung it back on eBay and more or less get your money back
 
If you're using a unmodified camera, filters shorter than 720nm won't work well - they let through visible light as well so the IR will be swamped.
Filters are readily available on e-bay from the far east for little money (most of mine were ~£15-£20 IIRC

How much the shutter speed will be effected is very much dependent on the camera. My old K100d is fairly sensitive to IR so can just about be hand held on a sunny day. My newer DSLRs go to higher ISO but still can't manage settings that can be reliably held. Results on a tripod are OK but not ideal.

There are a few cheaper options for converted cameras you may want to investigate if faster shutter speeds are useful. There are some older Sony models that have a 'Nightshot' feature which removes the hot mirror boosting IR sensitivity dramatically. My V1 compact is one of these and only cost £15 Due to an IR LED on the front it can take shots in complete visual darkness, but restricts the aperture to wide open, keeps the ISO high & applies a green colour...

You can buy a cheap point & shoot & convert it yourself (some models are relatively easy others have far more complicated bodyshells) Models like this are often sold cheaply pre-converted as ghost hunting cameras, but I suspect they are often not well converted.

Buying a preconverted camera is often cheaper than getting a conversion done. This is what I did for my MFT system, getting a 'full spectrum' converted camera that see's UV, visual & IR - allowing a wide range of interesting filters to be applied. Unlike a DSLR a mirrorless camera shows in the viewfinder what the sensor sees. so you can still frame pictures with a IR only filter fitted. Filters like the 590nm, Tiffen 47 (Blue & IR) and U330 (UV & IR) can all give good results. The body I got was £150, being a slightly older model at the time (& a bit battered)

Another possibility is one of the Sigma Foveon cameras. These have a removable IR cut filter/dust trap within the mount, popping it out makes the camera IR sensitive. Due to the way they determine colour the results from these cameras are very different from other converted cameras IR is seen strongly in the red channel, while Bayer cameras see it in all three channels.
 
Last edited:
Hi @Ajsski99 Further up the thread (Post #4) I asked if you had an understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum.
I've just re-read my own comment and it sounds a bit condescending...It wasn't meant to :)
If you are studying for A level I suspect that you will need some background knowledge.
 
Petrochemist said:
This would be useful information to share.
If you're close to me Essex/Suffolk boarder, you could try out most of the options & borrow a filter or two :)
Click to expand...

I live down in East Devon near Exeter so you’re quite far away for someone who can’t drive yet thanks for the offer though :)
 
Graham W said:
Hi @Ajsski99 Further up the thread (Post #4) I asked if you had an understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum.
I've just re-read my own comment and it sounds a bit condescending...It wasn't meant to :)
If you are studying for A level I suspect that you will need some background knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yep, I have a GCSE Physics level of understanding. Think that shall suffice :p
 
I've been looking into getting a cheap coverted camera recently

Ideally an older NEX one as I've got E-Mount lenses now, I'll be keeping an eye on eBay for a deal :)
 
Ajsski99 said:
I live down in East Devon near Exeter so you’re quite far away for someone who can’t drive yet thanks for the offer though :)
Click to expand...
Yes it's a bit far, I might be down your way in the summer but I guess that's far too late to help!
 
Graham W said:
Ha ha. Yes, that should see you through. Like I say, I wasn't trying to patronise.
As someone else said the Nikon D70 is a popular camera for converting, and cheap as chips.
Click to expand...
Actually the D70 has a pretty weak hot mirror so is one of the better choices for simply sticking a filter in front of. No live view though...
 
Petrochemist said:
Actually the D70 has a pretty weak hot mirror so is one of the better choices for simply sticking a filter in front of. No live view though...
Click to expand...

So I think I’m going to get some filters, ranging up to 720nm. I’ll Have a play with my Nikon D3300 and Sony DSLR and see what the results are.

Based on that, I’ll buy a Nikon D70 off of EBay that’s he converted and see what the results are with that too.

I’ll post results on here too so you guys can check them out and help if needs be :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top