Reading mode: Light Dark

Warning...no Infrared for coolpxes!

Go to last post
Gaber

Gaber

Veteran Member
Messages
6,438
Solutions
2
Reaction score
837
Location
Hartsdale, NY, US
--I have been following all the threads about IR photography in the forum, and participated in them as well. I must admit I was starting to get excited about doing some and was just about to order an R72 from SRB. I called Nikon support today because I needed some advice on some settings on my 950. After that issue was settled, I brought up the subject of infrared photography. Basically what they said was that you could damage the ccd of the camera and that they neither recommend nor support it [on all coolpixes, including the D70]. There are software filters that will give the same effect, and they recommend using them instead.

As a result, I have decided not to persue IR photography.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
 
Gaber said:
--I have been following all the threads about IR photography in the
forum, and participated in them as well. I must admit I was
starting to get excited about doing some and was just about to
order an R72 from SRB. I called Nikon support today because I
needed some advice on some settings on my 950. After that issue was
settled, I brought up the subject of infrared photography.
Basically what they said was that you could damage the ccd of the
camera and that they neither recommend nor support it [on all
coolpixes, including the D70]. There are software filters that will
give the same effect, and they recommend using them instead.

As a result, I have decided not to persue IR photography.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/john
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/italyfav
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/adirondacks
Johndig
CP-885, CP-8800, (pbase supporter)

You don't sound happy. Sorry for your disappointment.
John D.
 
.
Johndig said:
You don't sound happy. Sorry for your disappointment.
John D.
Click to expand...
-I'm pleased that I found out in time to avoid possible damage to the camera. Perhaps other members of the forum might now have second thoughts about it too.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
 
Gaber said:
Gaber said:
You don't sound happy. Sorry for your disappointment.
John D.
Click to expand...
-I'm pleased that I found out in time to avoid possible damage to
the camera. Perhaps other members of the forum might now have
second thoughts about it too.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/john
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/italyfav
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/adirondacks
Johndig
CP-885, CP-8800, (pbase supporter)
 
Gaber,

I believe you've been give the wrong information. I could be wrong but the way I read about and understood IR photography, especially using the R72 is like this. The R72 cuts a certain ammount of visible light that would otherwise reach the sensor. What's left to actually reach the sensor is the IR light plus a very small ammount of visible light near the IR spectrum. In other words, If the IR was going to harm your sensor then it would harm all of our sensors because it is always there and always reaches the sensor. Point your TV remote control at your lens and press and hold a button, look into your LCD and you should see a flashing dot. The brighter the dot, the more sensitive your camera is to IR and the greater your success will be in IR photography.

Ron
Gaber said:
--I have been following all the threads about IR photography in the
forum, and participated in them as well. I must admit I was
starting to get excited about doing some and was just about to
order an R72 from SRB. I called Nikon support today because I
needed some advice on some settings on my 950. After that issue was
settled, I brought up the subject of infrared photography.
Basically what they said was that you could damage the ccd of the
camera and that they neither recommend nor support it [on all
coolpixes, including the D70]. There are software filters that will
give the same effect, and they recommend using them instead.

As a result, I have decided not to persue IR photography.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
Click to expand...
 
Al Dugan wrote:

The infrared is already passing through the lens and some of it reaches the CCD. When you put a visible light blocking (IR filter) filter infront of the lens, only the IR gets through. Of course a longer shutter speed is necessary for the exposure, but hardly enough light will get through to damage the camera.

The 950 is one of the best for this purpose and they are very cheap on Ebay. I use mine and have had no problems. I'm sure there are people out there who have been using the 950 for this purpose for years now. Take a chance and live a little. Nikon won't recommend anything out of the normal. Most companies won't

IR simulation software wouldn't do it for me. I'd always no it was a simulation. What is the point? Why do people buy a telescope to look at the sky when you can get pictures off the hubble? There is something about doing it yourself. When I showed my eight-year-old daughter some of the moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn it was real for her. I explained we were seeing the same things Galileo did in the sixteenth century. It's a thrill.

My two cents worth,

Al Dugan
Johndig said:
Gaber said:
Johndig said:
You don't sound happy. Sorry for your disappointment.
John D.
Click to expand...
-I'm pleased that I found out in time to avoid possible damage to
the camera. Perhaps other members of the forum might now have
second thoughts about it too.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/john
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/italyfav
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/adirondacks
Johndig
CP-885, CP-8800, (pbase supporter)
Click to expand...
 
I've used my 8800 for infrared without any problems. Nikon may be trying to cover their tails for some reason or another. There are some people who alter their cameras in order to improve IR performance -- perhaps they are wary of that. Putting a dark filter on a camera can't hurt it, it's really just like taking night shots.

Here's a good site that explains a lot of the technical aspects of IR: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/
Gaber said:
--I have been following all the threads about IR photography in the
forum, and participated in them as well. I must admit I was
starting to get excited about doing some and was just about to
order an R72 from SRB. I called Nikon support today because I
needed some advice on some settings on my 950. After that issue was
settled, I brought up the subject of infrared photography.
Basically what they said was that you could damage the ccd of the
camera and that they neither recommend nor support it [on all
coolpixes, including the D70]. There are software filters that will
give the same effect, and they recommend using them instead.

As a result, I have decided not to persue IR photography.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
Click to expand...
--
Alex
N i k o n 8 8 0 0 - P e n t a x S 4 i
 
I took the 'Shooting Digital' course at the Nikon School last month and one of the instructors described how to take IR photos with digital cameras.
HABrown said:
Here's a good site that explains a lot of the technical aspects of
IR: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/
Gaber said:
--I have been following all the threads about IR photography in the
forum, and participated in them as well. I must admit I was
starting to get excited about doing some and was just about to
order an R72 from SRB. I called Nikon support today because I
needed some advice on some settings on my 950. After that issue was
settled, I brought up the subject of infrared photography.
Basically what they said was that you could damage the ccd of the
camera and that they neither recommend nor support it [on all
coolpixes, including the D70]. There are software filters that will
give the same effect, and they recommend using them instead.

As a result, I have decided not to persue IR photography.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
Click to expand...
--
Alex
N i k o n 8 8 0 0 - P e n t a x S 4 i
Click to expand...
 
Al Dugan wrote:

I just remembered an example of a company not recommending a course of action. In the 1980's I designed and built a microscope exhibit for the San Diego zoo. It involved modifying a $15000 microscope to have motorized zoom and focus. We also built a stage that could present any of a dozen different slides accurately within 1/1000" and mounted a video camera on the microscope.

I called Zeiss and they didn't recommend it, but they didn't have a model that fit the bill. I was hoping they would have some engineering suggestions. Nothing against Zeiss, but they simply had no idea whether it would work out. If we had enough money, I'm sure they would have done it for us.

That didn't stop us. We built it anyhow and it was a very satisfying project. People loved it. They couldn't touch the microscope itself, but they could control it. It was a treat for the average visitor to operate a professional instrument without fear of damaging it and to see the result on a Macintosh computer screen.

It was easier than I guessed.

Also; I've done the switch repair and the door repair on my old 950. Nikon recommended against that. They just can't accept the responsibility for a problems that might crop up.

Al Dugan
Al Dugan said:
The 950 is one of the best for this purpose and they are very cheap
on Ebay. I use mine and have had no problems. I'm sure there are
people out there who have been using the 950 for this purpose for
years now. Take a chance and live a little. Nikon won't recommend
anything out of the normal. Most companies won't

IR simulation software wouldn't do it for me. I'd always no it was
a simulation. What is the point? Why do people buy a telescope to
look at the sky when you can get pictures off the hubble? There is
something about doing it yourself. When I showed my eight-year-old
daughter some of the moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn it
was real for her. I explained we were seeing the same things
Galileo did in the sixteenth century. It's a thrill.

My two cents worth,

Al Dugan
Johndig said:
Gaber said:
Al Dugan said:
You don't sound happy. Sorry for your disappointment.
John D.
Click to expand...
-I'm pleased that I found out in time to avoid possible damage to
the camera. Perhaps other members of the forum might now have
second thoughts about it too.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/john
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/italyfav
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/adirondacks
Johndig
CP-885, CP-8800, (pbase supporter)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
.Interesting article. It seems like everyone is in favor of infrared except Nikon. As I said before, their [short] comment was "it would damage the ccd and is not recommended". Just thought I would pass that on for what it's worth.

--
Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
 
Terry J said:
I took the 'Shooting Digital' course at the Nikon School last month
and one of the instructors described how to take IR photos with
digital cameras.
Click to expand...
.

--That's interesting! I wonder why I got that responce from them?

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
 
Al Dugan said:
I called Zeiss and they didn't recommend it, but they didn't have a
model that fit the bill. I was hoping they would have some
engineering suggestions. Nothing against Zeiss, but they simply
had no idea whether it would work out. If we had enough money, I'm
sure they would have done it for us.

That didn't stop us. We built it anyhow and it was a very
satisfying project. People loved it. They couldn't touch the
microscope itself, but they could control it. It was a treat for
the average visitor to operate a professional instrument without
fear of damaging it and to see the result on a Macintosh computer
screen.

It was easier than I guessed.

Also; I've done the switch repair and the door repair on my old
950. Nikon recommended against that. They just can't accept the
responsibility for a problems that might crop up.

Al Dugan
Al Dugan said:
The 950 is one of the best for this purpose and they are very cheap
on Ebay. I use mine and have had no problems. I'm sure there are
people out there who have been using the 950 for this purpose for
years now. Take a chance and live a little. Nikon won't recommend
anything out of the normal. Most companies won't

IR simulation software wouldn't do it for me. I'd always no it was
a simulation. What is the point? Why do people buy a telescope to
look at the sky when you can get pictures off the hubble? There is
something about doing it yourself. When I showed my eight-year-old
daughter some of the moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn it
was real for her. I explained we were seeing the same things
Galileo did in the sixteenth century. It's a thrill.

My two cents worth,

Al Dugan
Johndig said:
Gaber said:
Al Dugan said:
You don't sound happy. Sorry for your disappointment.
John D.
Click to expand...
-I'm pleased that I found out in time to avoid possible damage to
the camera. Perhaps other members of the forum might now have
second thoughts about it too.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/john
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/italyfav
http://www.pbase.com/johndig/adirondacks
Johndig
CP-885, CP-8800, (pbase supporter)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
 
Great link, i saved it for future reading/use.

I have been recently using standard Kodak IR film in a 25year old
Canon Ae-1 with very good results and have enjoyed the IR film and
b+w printing results.

I like seeing the others IR digital effect too and noted a book called 'Digital Infrared Photography : Professional Techniques and Images' by pat rice. if i remember he shows how to take apart a coolpix 950 and remove the IR filter and reassemble. Thats a lot cheaper that the new IR Canon D20 @ 2500$.

I will try this soon with my CP4500 and R25 filter.

Actually one could get a cheap film P&S, kodak IR film for 11$, etc.. sorry, wrong forum/medum :) .

js
HABrown said:
Here's a good site that explains a lot of the technical aspects of
IR: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/infrared/
Gaber said:
--I have been following all the threads about IR photography in the
forum, and participated in them as well. I must admit I was
starting to get excited about doing some and was just about to
order an R72 from SRB. I called Nikon support today because I
needed some advice on some settings on my 950. After that issue was
settled, I brought up the subject of infrared photography.
Basically what they said was that you could damage the ccd of the
camera and that they neither recommend nor support it [on all
coolpixes, including the D70]. There are software filters that will
give the same effect, and they recommend using them instead.

As a result, I have decided not to persue IR photography.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
Click to expand...
--
Alex
N i k o n 8 8 0 0 - P e n t a x S 4 i
Click to expand...
 
Ya probably got some grumpy tech who had to get out of bed early and hadn't had his coffee. He thought he'd ruin your day.

I've been using an IR filter on my 5700 pretty much since I've had it with no ill effects. I know there are others around here that would say the same.
I think you're safe. I will be getting a 58mm IR filter for my 8800 shortly.

--
Scott Atherton
---------------------
http://www.pbase.com/atherts/

Nikon CP Tips Sites
http://tevern.com/dpr/
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/%7Eshene/DigiCam/index.html
http://www.karott.com/photo_tips/default.asp
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/
 
.

--I still can't get over what horrible technical advice I got from Nikon.!

Anyway, based on all the good advice I received from the forum, I just ordered a Harrison & Harrison 89b filter.

Thanks again.

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
 
If you intend to work on the internals of your camera, then of course it's not supported. But if you just use a filter to block everything but IR, then there's no problem, as the IR light hits the CCD whther you want it or not. The IR light is the re all the time, not just when you want it to be. It's not created by a filter, or anything. It's just light that is beyond the detection spectrum of our eyes. Most CCD chips are sensitive up to 1050 nm (our eyes see from 400 to 700 nm) so each CCD actually collects IR light wether we like it or not. The WB settings correct this effect so our pictues turn out all right.

--
bdery

Québec city, Canada
Cool,pix S Q
 
bdery said:
If you intend to work on the internals of your camera, then of
course it's not supported. But if you just use a filter to block
everything but IR, then there's no problem, as the IR light hits
the CCD whther you want it or not. The IR light is the re all the
time, not just when you want it to be. It's not created by a
filter, or anything. It's just light that is beyond the detection
spectrum of our eyes. Most CCD chips are sensitive up to 1050 nm
(our eyes see from 400 to 700 nm) so each CCD actually collects IR
light wether we like it or not. The WB settings correct this effect
so our pictues turn out all right.

--
bdery

Québec city, Canada
Cool,pix S Q
Click to expand...
--So, if I understand you, the IR light hits the ccd all the time, and is actually in all of our pictures anyhow combined with all the other light, but when you use the filter, the only light that comes though is the infrared light. Is this correct?

Coolpix 880,950,4500, Canon S400
CATS member> ^..^
WSSA member#40
http://www.pbase.com/thegaber
 
Gaber said:
--So, if I understand you, the IR light hits the ccd all the time,
and is actually in all of our pictures anyhow combined with all the
other light, but when you use the filter, the only light that comes
though is the infrared light. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
Correct. However, when you place the dark IR Filter on the camera, you have to expose the image for a much longer time than a normal full light spectrum exposure. So I would assume that the IR-only exposure will focus a lot more IR light on the CCD. Now IR is the portion of the full light spectrum that heats objects exposed to it. So it makes sense to me that you could be heating your CCD exposed for a longer time to IR much more than a full spectrum exposure. So, the Nikon tech may have known this as fact and advised against it. He should have explained why to you. But he may have been having a bad day or was impatient with your call.

Hopefully some physicist schooled in light, optics, and CCD technology will see this and confirm my suspicions or correct them.

--
Craig 'Sully' Sullivan
Whidbey Island, WA, USA, Earth



PBase Supporter http://www.pbase.com/csully
C P 5 7 0 0, T C - E 1 5 E D, E p s o n 1 2 8 0, i M a c 2 0'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top