OK then, let's see YOUR infrared images please.

I know I've asked this a while ago, but I'm still really struggling to get good false colour results - they're always a bit scrappy and muted. I tend to stick to B&W conversion because I'm more often than not disappointed with the results I get from channel swapping. I certainly don't get the deep blues or clear crisp whites (or yellows) or the real colour separation I see on many of the false colour images here. I don't know if perhaps it's a slight hotspot causing problems, or whether I really just need to get away from Adobe Camera Raw for my RAW conversion to something that gets below 2000K. What workflows are you using for false colour?

Old images I've previously posted, and perhaps not the best example on the planet of what I mean as I've processed beyond just a channel swap and it's a cloudy image, but maybe give you an idea why I'm a little disappointed

Dreamscape of the Meldons by Scott Rae, on Flickr

Also an old workflow pic, but shows the unprocessed image as well as a muted false colour processed image that I feel probably should have better colour separation (though again, I've processed it so not the best example - sorry!)
Image Progression by Scott Rae, on Flickr

I've got a converted D90 720nm, with a custom white balance I think - the back screen output jpg is generally greyer rather than redder (if that makes sense) though import into ACR obviously changes the white balance to give the above. I do have a custom profile set up in ACR for the D90 IR, but I've never really seen any improvement if I use it. Once I've played with the contrast a bit in ACR, I do a channel swap in PS but the results are almost always disappointing, so I tweak the channels further, but there is generally still blue in the whites, and even trying to play with levels doesn't help that much. At this point I usually convert to B&W and get grumpy! :D

Any thoughts? Any other tutorials or guides?
 
zeameth said:
Had one make it to Flickr explore today :)


The Aln River, Northumberland
by David , on Flickr
Click to expand...

David, Wonderful spread of the sharp but soft toned grays, it is personal but I think IR gives you the easiest black and whites. This pictures reminds me of home and lots of trees was a very hard process to learn to carry into a picture and see that picture you framed and snapped. I like it. A side note, when using straight IR 720nm I think is the easiest for these, but now the 665nm might be the most versital. Like I side, very attractive all around black and white IR.
 
worth said:
David, Wonderful spread of the sharp but soft toned grays, it is personal but I think IR gives you the easiest black and whites. This pictures reminds me of home and lots of trees was a very hard process to learn to carry into a picture and see that picture you framed and snapped. I like it. A side note, when using straight IR 720nm I think is the easiest for these, but now the 665nm might be the most versital. Like I side, very attractive all around black and white IR.
Click to expand...

Thanks Steven, Very kind of you to say. I spend almost all of my time with my 590nm Camera. It takes more time and effort to get good black and white conversions but i love the flexability.
 
Scott, I get my best deep blues from a 720nm at 180 degrees from the sun with a good lens and glass. I believe some glass does better then another. You find your favorite ones if you like the performance. Here is what my 720nm looks like as I don't color swap very often. I just happen to go for the white and rusty colors.
IMG_0591.JPG
I will take a quick look for a blue oneIMG_0563.JPG
Yep, this comes right out of my 50mm or 85mm L lenses. You can add a cool looking flat green kinda a under water look. I have a preset in ACR, it set the standard for everything I run thru it, color whatever. Default adobe in basic with the clarity slightly turn up 20,25. The tab with the sharpening and chromatic noise. I then adjust the first 4 sliders in contrast and set curves accordingly. They always come out clean and crisp, if you need color try the camera calibration tab down at the end. I love artistic license and the right to use any method to apply color. But I alway try the camera first,,fix later. White balance on 720nm an up is different from the rest to ultraviolet. 720 uses white card, below uses gray card. I use a expo disc, than take a picture of a silver tarp with about 1/3 dark shadow for the others. Good luck and walk away from a picture if you can't see it. Come back the next day.
 
Last edited:
James Blonde said:
I know I've asked this a while ago, but I'm still really struggling to get good false colour results - they're always a bit scrappy and muted. I tend to stick to B&W conversion because I'm more often than not disappointed with the results I get from channel swapping. I certainly don't get the deep blues or clear crisp whites (or yellows) or the real colour separation I see on many of the false colour images here. I don't know if perhaps it's a slight hotspot causing problems, or whether I really just need to get away from Adobe Camera Raw for my RAW conversion to something that gets below 2000K. What workflows are you using for false colour?
Click to expand...

My workflow is initial colours sorted in DXO optics pro (free download of version 9 - handles the raws better than LR) then into GIMP to switch colour channels, then perfect effects (free download from on-one) to bring out colours and some tone work before LR for final levels adjustment and cataloging. I need more practice.

I have a variety of presets that I created in Perfect Effects that I use for false colour work, but they all boost micro-contrast, colour saturation and in some cases apply a slight orange filter, plus alter the tonal range to lift shadows. I have also begun by-passing PE, going straight from GIMP into LR, adjusting sharpness, noise, tone curve, colour balance, tonal range, contrast, saturation and vibrance, clarity and B&W points. Because the colours in IR images are usually very muted, they often require a lot of boosting to get something looking vaguely solid. At the same time any slightly off colours, like the magenta & green patches in clouds, also get boosted, and for skies - following a tip from Steven - I will often reduce saturation, possibly altering the white balance to 'help' the sky a little.
 
ff8413e4b9d0a4c1a1176e0136134a84.jpg


Taken this capture of an old train with an D90 720nm to better isolate the subject from the background.

Final processing in Photogene4 (iPad), first with the Vivid2 preset, before giving it some final tweaks.
 
Last edited:
I will take a look at Photogene4, don't have a thing on my pad,,,your train looks nice and sharp with all the needy adjustments,,,if any. I really like the light yellow but seem to have never been able to work it in. I have had it when it is there when I open the picture, but I need to develop my color skills. Over here on this side of the pond we have always remembered who lead in the development in the train engine, cheers.
 
James Blonde said:
I've got a converted D90 720nm, with a custom white balance I think
Click to expand...

I've found 720nm to give poor results with false colour. I ended up doing a series of test shots with my 590nm converted X-T1 at 590, then 720, 760, 850 & 950 with screw on filters. The results (for me) showed that the 590 was best for everything - excluding B&W - where the 760nm was my preferred choice. I'd heard that the 700+ wavelengths were "sharper" but even pixel peeping at 100% I could only see the smallest of differences which weren't visible in print (A3) without nose-to-the-paper examination. The 950 gave some very cool results but was really difficult to use (get focus, WB etc).

In short - for false colour, I'd have no filters on and stick to 590nm. There's more visible light coming through which gives you more colour to play with. At 720 there's less to play with and therefore it's going to be trickier doing a false colour conversion. I keep a 750nm screw on in the bag for contrasty scenes that might look good in B&W.

There's no "right" way to process - and I've also discovered that you need "good" light to get that goldie effect without a ton of fiddling in Photoshop (@worth touched on it). Your workflow pic for example (to me) shows that ordinary colour is probably the better image with the B&W rendition coming a close second. That's why I tend to carry two bodies. Just in case :) The image below was actually left in the original purple colours for a wall print - rather than the goldie one. And even the normal (non-IR) image looks OK.

Normal camera (X-T2, 10-24mm lens) // IR Camera (X-T1, 590nm, 16-55mm lens) // Processed 590nm shot from a few minutes later with the IR camera - showing - for me - a less aesthetically pleasing image.

r5jv2Tn.jpg
 
Last edited:
That might sway me in my decision on whether to go for a full spectrum conversion for my D7100 rather than going with 720nm again... Hmm....! Still got my old Hoya R72, so I can work my way through different filters I guess, though I kind of liked being able to use the viewfinder... I was going to trade in my D90 IR for the D7100 conversion, but maybe I should keep it? Argh, decisions decisions!!!
 
Harlequin565 said:
I've found 720nm to give poor results with false colour. I ended up doing a series of test shots with my 590nm converted X-T1 at 590, then 720, 760, 850 & 950 with screw on filters. The results (for me) showed that the 590 was best for everything - excluding B&W - where the 760nm was my preferred choice. I'd heard that the 700+ wavelengths were "sharper" but even pixel peeping at 100% I could only see the smallest of differences which weren't visible in print (A3) without nose-to-the-paper examination. The 950 gave some very cool results but was really difficult to use (get focus, WB etc).

In short - for false colour, I'd have no filters on and stick to 590nm. There's more visible light coming through which gives you more colour to play with. At 720 there's less to play with and therefore it's going to be trickier doing a false colour conversion. I keep a 750nm screw on in the bag for contrasty scenes that might look good in B&W.

There's no "right" way to process - and I've also discovered that you need "good" light to get that goldie effect without a ton of fiddling in Photoshop (@worth touched on it). Your workflow pic for example (to me) shows that ordinary colour is probably the better image with the B&W rendition coming a close second. That's why I tend to carry two bodies. Just in case :) The image below was actually left in the original purple colours for a wall print - rather than the goldie one. And even the normal (non-IR) image looks OK.

Normal camera (X-T2, 10-24mm lens) // IR Camera (X-T1, 590nm, 16-55mm lens) // Processed 590nm shot from a few minutes later with the IR camera - showing - for me - a less aesthetically pleasing image.

r5jv2Tn.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a great post, but from experience I would say that at 830nm, you really start to get some deep blacks, which get deeper as you move towards 950nm, but as you point out at these wavelengths focusing becomes an issue. For a period I had an 830nm X-E1, and found that I loved the deep blacks, much better than the R72 filter on an unmodded camera. Ultimately I just didn't shoot enough IR, and the number of IR compliant Fuji lenses is limited, so I let it go.


150725 Salford Quays View from Red Bridge 02 sm by David Yeoman, on Flickr


150609 Hartlepool Old Cemetry sm by David Yeoman, on Flickr
 
David, you can see in your pictures the reason I am liking the 830nm right now. Those beautiful white trees. It isn't time to put it down for another one, if I did it would be the 665nm. When I picked this one Lifepixel didn't have the 590nm out yet. If I get it I would have to find a 50D. Ya know I like to use more then one camera, no body ever told me that PS will line up a mixture of sizes. I have had some problems,,,yea turned out to be the wind. I am sitting in the church waiting for the wife. I brought my color with a manual 28-105mm, manual zooms are a new toy for me. I started to mix in yashicas and they are for e excellent IR lenses. Yes I am wandering practicing focusing. It is hard work, I have never really had to use manual before now. At least one color and two Different IR's are pretty standard for me. I hardly use it but the best one is a split on the 590nm. The super blue,.
 
Hey Jerry, I'm spoiled...[emoji424]. At Least I recycle into IR....now if I could only make a real very cool picture.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
the number of IR compliant Fuji lenses is limited, so I let it go
Click to expand...

Yeah - I get this. I was full of hope with my 16-55 but it's only any good at f2.8-4. Anything over starts to hotspot dramatically. However the 18-135 though. It's an awesome lens for IR and an incredibly useful focal range. Starting to have some real fun with it these days.
 
James Blonde said:
I know I've asked this a while ago, but I'm still really struggling to get good false colour results - they're always a bit scrappy and muted. I tend to stick to B&W conversion because I'm more often than not disappointed with the results I get from channel swapping. I certainly don't get the deep blues or clear crisp whites (or yellows) or the real colour separation I see on many of the false colour images here. I don't know if perhaps it's a slight hotspot causing problems, or whether I really just need to get away from Adobe Camera Raw for my RAW conversion to something that gets below 2000K. What workflows are you using for false colour?

Old images I've previously posted, and perhaps not the best example on the planet of what I mean as I've processed beyond just a channel swap and it's a cloudy image, but maybe give you an idea why I'm a little disappointed

Dreamscape of the Meldons by Scott Rae, on Flickr

Any thoughts? Any other tutorials or guides?
Click to expand...

I do like the result above. Here are my recent 720 ones from a converted Canon 20D. Various custom white balances when shooting (I mess with them a lot) and pp.

Had a chance to take some infrared shots on a recent New Forest walk.

Here's a selection of them.
IMG_1533i.jpg


IMG_1535.jpg


IMG_1566.jpg


IMG_1567.jpg


IMG_1591.jpg

:)
 
ChrisA said:
I do like the result above. Here are my recent 720 ones from a converted Canon 20D. Various custom white balances when shooting (I mess with them a lot) and pp.

Had a chance to take some infrared shots on a recent New Forest walk.

Here's a selection of them.
IMG_1533i.jpg


IMG_1535.jpg


IMG_1566.jpg


IMG_1567.jpg


IMG_1591.jpg

:)
Click to expand...

You always get great separation in your tree textures. Real do like the browns that creep across in lights and darks. You say that u used a 20D. The 10,,20 and 30D have a completely sealed sensor and some of the best pictures. If
I use an 830nm 50D that I use, it leaks from the live view. It isn't really a bad thing because you get real light color if you want to use it in some way. Chris keep your 20D they are unique. Always feel the fearless and movements you go thru when you shoot IR. Trees are so hard when a little wind comes by.
 
worth said:
You always get great separation in your tree textures. Real do like the browns that creep across in lights and darks. You say that u used a 20D. The 10,,20 and 30D have a completely sealed sensor and some of the best pictures. If
I use an 830nm 50D that I use, it leaks from the live view. It isn't really a bad thing because you get real light color if you want to use it in some way. Chris keep your 20D they are unique. Always feel the fearless and movements you go thru when you shoot IR. Trees are so hard when a little wind comes by.
Click to expand...

Thank you Steven. All shots were on my 17-40mm L lens. Find it works fairly well with the IR. Did not know that about the liveview giving a leak. Interesting. Think the separation maybe due to the increase in contrast and clarity I add when processing the RAW. Using Topaz Adjust in some. And finding that Topaz Restyle is a nice colouring tool.
 
That's really nice. The 18-135 is a super lens for IR. Really enjoying it.
 
OK, took the D70 out today, before the sun broke through ( :( ) for a session around Blenheim.

Blenheim-.jpg

Blenheim--2.jpg

Not really sure I'm feeling the IR-ness in these, but just too lazy tonight to do the proper false colour thing.
 
Got out on the weekend with the absolutely fantastic 16mm f1.4 which is just a lovely IR lens. Put an 850nm front on my 590nm converted X-T1. Really pleased with the results.

it's IR weather at the moment!


Hunt's Lock VIII by Ian, on Flickr
 
•


Wow… that was a snow storm! :jawdrop:

Very cool, Ian! (y)
 
A few from our week in the Lake District last week.

Isle of Man
[url=https://flic.kr/p/27JqQ9f]Isle of Man by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]


Ullswater
[url=https://flic.kr/p/27P7SHP]Ullswater IR by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]


View of "The Struggle" from Kirkstone Pass
[url=https://flic.kr/p/26Hd3So]The Struggle pano by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]


Faux colour Wastwater
[url=https://flic.kr/p/254acwL]Wastwater IR by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]


Derwent Water from above Ashness Bridge
[url=https://flic.kr/p/27Fi1iN]Derwent Water by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top