Infrared Photography

For guides on how to do something, explanations on how particular results are achieved, etc.
gcluer
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat 22 Sep 2012, 12:30

Re: Infrared Photography

Postby gcluer » Sat 09 Feb 2013, 22:34

"Proper" cameras have an IR filter. Some old/cheap ones don't.

I am told that the iPhone 3 has an IR filter on its main camera but not on the front facing one. The iPhone 4 seems to have an IR filter on both. My Galaxy S3 appears to have an IR filter on the main (rear facing) camera but not the front one.

I am not suggesting we try to take Mike quality photos with our mobile phones but I found it interesting seeing which of my cameras would detect IR from a TV remote.
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Infrared Photography

Postby Mike Farley » Sun 10 Feb 2013, 18:53

Thanks for the interesting and informative update, Graham. To clarify one point, all digital cameras have an infrared blocking filter in front of the sensor as IR light has undesirable effects on focus, exposure and colour rendition. In most recent cameras, the filtration is very effective with very little IR reaching the sensor, making such cameras much less usable for shooting infrared with an IR filter attached to the lens. Exposure times will be in the region of a month of Sundays @ f/11. ;)

It seems that some mobile phone cameras are at the point where digital cameras were a few years ago when models such as the Nikon D70 which are known for their IR capability were being manufactured. It is unlikely that it will be possible to take handheld IR shots on a suitable mobile phone with a IR filter covering the lens as exposure times will be too long. Assuming that a mobile phone camera shutter can stay open long enough, it will be necessary to find ways of both supporting the phone and triggering the shutter without introducing camera shake.

There is one exception where a modern camera can be used to take infrared images without having to be modified. The Sigma range of SD DSLRs, including the current SD1, all have a removable IR blocking filter which doubles as a cover in front of the sensor to prevent the ingress of dust. The downside is that it is still necessary to place an IR filter over the lens to vlock visible light, with all the complications that method brings when creating a composition, as well as getting the exposure and focus correct. The benefit is that exposure times will be short as none of the IR light will be blocked.

I have found the link below which lists those cameras known to have more moderate IR filtration. As can be seen, none of the cameras listed are in current production and are all older models.

http://dpanswers.com/content/irphoto_sensors.php
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
User avatar
davidc
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2012, 11:27
Location: location, location.
Contact:

Re: Infrared Photography

Postby davidc » Sun 10 Feb 2013, 20:03

You can also get cameras for dedicated astrophotography that also have the IR filters removed - e.g. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professio ... s/eos_60da
However as they are designed explicitly for astrophotography rather than "regular" IR photography I wouldn't gamble on them being suitable for regular IR photos without a bit more research!
Check out my website - davidcandlish.photography
My Top 50 album is here
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Infrared Photography

Postby Mike Farley » Sun 10 Feb 2013, 21:00

davidc wrote:You can also get cameras for dedicated astrophotography that also have the IR filters removed - e.g. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professio ... s/eos_60da
However as they are designed explicitly for astrophotography rather than "regular" IR photography I wouldn't gamble on them being suitable for regular IR photos without a bit more research!


The short answer is no. Bob Atkins previewed the 60Da and had this to say:

"The EOS 60Da is not an infrared camera. Infrared modified cameras have a filter that transmits IR light and blocks visible light. The 60Da, like the 60D is just the opposite. They have filters that transmit visible light and block IR light."

This is the full article - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/di ... ation.html

The normal practice for cameras converted for use in astrophotography is to remove the IR blocking filter and replace it with a clear one. The photographer can then attach any type of filter to the lens according to the type of light to be captured. As you are probably aware, astronomers are able to tell a lot about the universe by looking at the different types of radiation that are emitted, so that would seem to be overall a more practical option than the 60Da which appears to be a one trick pony. Mind you, like you I do not know much about astrophotography, so it might be quite an important trick.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
User avatar
davidc
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2012, 11:27
Location: location, location.
Contact:

Re: Infrared Photography

Postby davidc » Sun 10 Feb 2013, 21:08

It explicitly removes the inherent filtration in digital cameras of the wavelength of light that relates to hydrogen alpha - this is the most common wavelength of light from nebulae, and make the prettiest pictures.

So yes, it's not infrared really. Sorry for the thread hijack!
Check out my website - davidcandlish.photography
My Top 50 album is here
User avatar
davidb
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu 14 Nov 2013, 13:45
Location: Croydon, Surrey, UK

Re: Infrared Photography

Postby davidb » Sat 05 Jul 2014, 20:16

Mike

I note you've converted a Canon 450D to infer-red. Would a 350D convert and how much would it cost?
Regards

David A Beard.
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Infrared Photography

Postby Mike Farley » Sat 05 Jul 2014, 23:31

davidb wrote:Mike

I note you've converted a Canon 450D to infer-red. Would a 350D convert and how much would it cost?


I gave the details of the two companies which specialise in conversions at the start of the thread and it is to them that you should really direct your questions, which they will be happy to answer before you commission any work. Most DSLRs can be converted and I see no reason why any Canon DSLR cannot be so modified.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
User avatar
davidc
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2012, 11:27
Location: location, location.
Contact:

Re: Infrared Photography

Postby davidc » Sat 22 Nov 2014, 10:48

I'm quite close to converting my 550d but thought I would resurrect this with a couple of questions before I do, just to make sure. Which type of IR conversion did you choose and also what wavelength filter did you go for if you went down the IR filter route? It seems 590nm & 720nm are the two most popular options.

I think based on your pictures and from memory you went for the permanent IR filter rather than full spectrum? Curious what your thought process behind the decision was, though I think I might be erring to a permanent 590nm route on my 550d.
Check out my website - davidcandlish.photography
My Top 50 album is here
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Infrared Photography

Postby Mike Farley » Sat 22 Nov 2014, 17:54

davidc wrote:I'm quite close to converting my 550d but thought I would resurrect this with a couple of questions before I do, just to make sure. Which type of IR conversion did you choose and also what wavelength filter did you go for if you went down the IR filter route? It seems 590nm & 720nm are the two most popular options.

I think based on your pictures and from memory you went for the permanent IR filter rather than full spectrum? Curious what your thought process behind the decision was, though I think I might be erring to a permanent 590nm route on my 550d.


I am not quite certain what you mean by "type of IR conversion", but I had a Canon 450D converted to 720 nm by Advanced Camera Services. 720 nm is the most flexible option as it enables both false colour and mono to be shot. 590 nm is more suitable for false colour work whenyou can obtain quite dramatic results. The Protech website has examples of the effects available with the various filter types.

A clear filter to allow full spectrum use is not really a good option for a DSLR unless you have a specialised purpose such as astrophotography in mind. If you want to shoot IR or UV, it is still necessary to attach a filter to the lens, which will make operation of the camera more difficult. You will not be able to use the optical viewfinder as there will not be any light entering from the visible spectrum when the filter is in place and you will need to adjust the focus to take account of IR light having a longer wavelength than visible light. Whilst you can use Liveview, you might not find that so satisfactory. If you want a full spectrum camera, you would be better off modifying a CSC as all the data used for viewing and focussing is taken directly from the sensor. Protech says that the Panasonic G series convert well and I am planning on sending them my Panny G3 at some point.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Infrared Photography

Postby Mike Farley » Sat 22 Nov 2014, 17:58

Further to my previous post, I undertsand that modifying Olympus CSCs is a tricky operation due to the sensor also having a built in image stabilisation mechanism in place.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)

Return to “Techniques & Tutorials”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests