Reading mode: Light Dark

Infrared Images

Go to last post
Peter,

Pretty interesting images. I am surprised that you did not have to use a tripod. From what I have been hearing, the IR filter reduces the light level so much, a slow shutter speed of 1/2 sec or lower is required. What kind shutter speed did you use?
Peter Roberts said:
Posted 4 infrared images taken with the Hoya R72..no tripod

Link is to root gallery, just click on infrared album

Peter

http://www.pbase.com/peteplanck
Click to expand...
 
Russel,

pbase is one of the services that is still free. Here is a link showing a lot of the photo storage services available and some basic info regarding each:
http://www.andromeda.com/people/ddyer/photo/albums.html
Russell Bozian said:
Peter Roberts said:
Posted 4 infrared images taken with the Hoya R72..no tripod

Link is to root gallery, just click on infrared album

Peter

http://www.pbase.com/peteplanck
Click to expand...
Peter, what does it cost to join PBase? And how many megs of space
are you allowed to use?
Click to expand...
 
Russell Bozian said:
Peter Roberts said:
Posted 4 infrared images taken with the Hoya R72..no tripod

Link is to root gallery, just click on infrared album

Peter

http://www.pbase.com/peteplanck
Click to expand...
Peter, what does it cost to join PBase? And how many megs of space
are you allowed to use?
Click to expand...
Russell

It's free and unlimited space at this point. I contributed some $ voluntarily because i like it so much. Do you know of any others that look and work so nicely?

Peter
 
How about focusing? MF or AF? Is there any differnce in focusing technique when you are using IR filter? Digital & IR are completely new ground for me. With IR film, the final effect/appearance can be quite unpredictable. Is the final image closely resemble to what you saw in the EVF or LCD? Sorry for all these quesions. TIA.
Peter Roberts said:
Peter
Stephen Lau said:
Peter Roberts said:
Posted 4 infrared images taken with the Hoya R72..no tripod

Link is to root gallery, just click on infrared album

Peter

http://www.pbase.com/peteplanck
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Peter Roberts61457 said:
Peter Roberts said:
Peter Roberts61457 said:
http://www.pbase.com/peteplanck
Click to expand...
Peter, what does it cost to join PBase? And how many megs of space
are you allowed to use?
Click to expand...
It's free and unlimited space at this point. I contributed some $
voluntarily because i like it so much. Do you know of any others
that look and work so nicely?
Click to expand...
No, I haven't. pBase.com seems by far the best. And absolutely no ads. Darn, I just paid $30 for a year of PhotoPoint.

I love all the different image sizes. The speed is EXCELLENT, and it's a free site. And the presentation is fine. And the EXIF info can show automatically. And the navigation is good...maybe I'll throw pbase some cash and switch from photopoint...
 
I own a R72 too. Firstly,, I can shoot at 1/45 - 1/180 shuttle speed on a good day if I'm using ISO 400. Noise level is not too bad as ait is not in colour.

As for focusing I notice that manual focus is sharper than auto. Did u notice that, PB?

And normally I us Photoshop to remove the Reddish colours and to gave it more contrast. Thus what u see on the EVF may not be that pleasing, but the results after using PS is quite fascinating.
Stephen Lau said:
Peter Roberts said:
Peter
Stephen Lau said:
Peter Roberts said:
Posted 4 infrared images taken with the Hoya R72..no tripod

Link is to root gallery, just click on infrared album

Peter

http://www.pbase.com/peteplanck
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Stephen:

Almost completely new ground for me also, unfortunately, although my sister, who is a professional photographer (no digital yet) does a lot of it. I have always loved the results, but the equipment and process and paper to do infrared traditionally seemed a pain in the butt. I have only taken about 20 infrared with the D7, some were manual focus and some were auto. As I remember it, the EVF did give a pretty accurate resemblance, e.g. you can point it somewhere and see that because of the makeup of the scene there would be little infrared affect. The great thing is that all you need to experiment is a $32 filter..that's it

Hope this helps a bit....

PR
Stephen Lau said:
Peter Roberts said:
Peter
Stephen Lau said:
Peter Roberts said:
Posted 4 infrared images taken with the Hoya R72..no tripod

Link is to root gallery, just click on infrared album

Peter

http://www.pbase.com/peteplanck
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
John:

I was using auto ISO, so I'll try 400...since you are right about the noise and b and w. As I said in response to Stephen Lau, I tried both and haven't really tested my results...just playing so far. I did use PS for contrast enhancement, but I found the EVF to at least be a good indication of the final result

PR
John T said:
As for focusing I notice that manual focus is sharper than auto.
Did u notice that, PB?
And normally I us Photoshop to remove the Reddish colours and to
gave it more contrast. Thus what u see on the EVF may not be that
pleasing, but the results after using PS is quite fascinating.
Stephen Lau said:
Peter Roberts said:
Peter
Stephen Lau said:
Peter Roberts said:
Posted 4 infrared images taken with the Hoya R72..no tripod

Link is to root gallery, just click on infrared album

Peter

http://www.pbase.com/peteplanck
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Yes Pet, I do agreed that what u see on the EVF is what u get as the result. Just that I believe the R72 lets in quite an amount of natural light, that is why the contrast is not as good as what I've seens those thaken using a 87B. But then using PS normally solve the problem.

There was a thread somewhere that say the best result comes from using RAW. I've tried that , and indeed it was better; but using PS on a JPEG I managed to get something close to it.

But I agreed the result is fascinating.

PS. It cost me almost 80 bucks...I thinks reason being it is hardly availbale.
Peter Roberts said:
Almost completely new ground for me also, unfortunately, although
my sister, who is a professional photographer (no digital yet) does
a lot of it. I have always loved the results, but the equipment
and process and paper to do infrared traditionally seemed a pain in
the butt. I have only taken about 20 infrared with the D7, some
were manual focus and some were auto. As I remember it, the EVF
did give a pretty accurate resemblance, e.g. you can point it
somewhere and see that because of the makeup of the scene there
would be little infrared affect. The great thing is that all you
need to experiment is a $32 filter..that's it

Hope this helps a bit....

PR
Stephen Lau said:
Peter Roberts said:
Peter
Stephen Lau said:
Peter Roberts said:
Posted 4 infrared images taken with the Hoya R72..no tripod

Link is to root gallery, just click on infrared album

Peter

http://www.pbase.com/peteplanck
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
heh,
Bad habit of mine, just that locally we are so used to the short-cuts.
people = pple
you= u
the=d
: )
Russell Bozian said:
Russell Bozian said:
John T wrote:
Yes Pet, I do agreed that what u see on the EVF is what u get as
the result.
Click to expand...
Please feel free to skip punctuation if it will save (yo)u some
letters. I'll trade (yo)u the comma and the period for a y and an o.
Click to expand...
 
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