Vancouver in Infrared (my 99th thread!)

[faunagraphy]

I just looked at my forum stats. Only 1500+ posts but hey, I've started 98 threads so far! I might as well go for 100 while this site is still live! So here's #99 ...

I visited Vancouver, BC for the first time a few days back. As many of you know my passion is wildlife, so I'm a bit lost when it comes to photographing urban settings. I was WAY outside my comfort zone, so I set a few "rules" for myself:

• Take photos for fun and do not worry about getting them right.
• Pack small. I took my IR (720+ nm) E-M5 for monochrome and my wife's pretty E-PL9 for color.
• Only shoot JPEGs with the E-PL9.

Here are some of the monochromes that I shot with my E-M5. Any aberrations you see are because of the (invisible) uneven coating on glass facades which reflects infrared light in an irregular manner.




Canada Place


VanDeusen Gardens




Olympic Village






Science World










Central Library




BC Stadium




Totem Poles at Stanley Park


Lions Gate Bridge




You can take faunagraphy away from wildlife but you cannot take wildlife away from faunagraphy.



Thanks for viewing!

You can view the rest of them here: https://www.faunagraphy.com/Travel/Vancouver-2023/Infrared

--
Central India --> Pacific Northwest. Favorite lenses: Olympus 300mm Pro, 8mm Pro. Favorite subjects: leopards, swallows, ospreys.

 

[Dino Anderson]

Great photos. I love the contrasty look you have achieved. This post makes me wanna buy an IR filter for my full spectrum E-M10.3 that I use for astro.

 

[faunagraphy]

Great photos. I love the contrasty look you have achieved.

Thanks allematic. The contrasty look is mostly the effect of infrared itself, which is why in some the sky looks darker than in others (it depends on the weather and the relative position of the sun).

I kept PP to a minimal. Used DxO PL5 for JPEG conversion and mostly used the basic 'B&W' preset with 'Black and White: Structured' for a few.

This post makes me wanna buy an IR filter for my full spectrum E-M10.3 that I use for astro.

I'd say go for it! Keep in mind that IR works a lot better with non-Pro lenses in my experience. There must be something in the best coatings that greatly reduces the IR light that can reach the sensor.

There are articles online about the best lenses for infrared photography, but I disagree with their assessment as they are equating 'no flares' with being good lenses and ignoring how much light they cut out.

It's possible that Panasonic's best lenses work well for IR although Olympus Pro lenses do not, since Panasonic cameras use different filters over their sensors and do not use those coatings on their lenses. I haven't tried them.

 

[J4Hug]

I have liked the IR on trees but your architectural images are really good, perhaps I need to wander around town rather than the woods.

I agree with your comments re Pro lenses, I get a central hotspot/vignetting with the MZ12-100, as you say, it must be something to do with the more expensive coating.

 

[faunagraphy]

I have liked the IR on trees but your architectural images are really good, perhaps I need to wander around town rather than the woods.

Thank you!

I agree with your comments re Pro lenses, I get a central hotspot/vignetting with the MZ12-100, as you say, it must be something to do with the more expensive coating.

I do not own the 12-100 but have experienced this central (faded) bright spot on my 8mm Pro. Plus my 300mm Pro cuts around 4 stops of light for infrared compared to regular shooting and has low contrast.

On the other hand, my Panasonic 12-32mm, Olympus 14-42 EZ and especially my Panasonic 20mm are really good. Yes they flare, but I enjoy that as well.

I'll probably be purchasing a Lumix 12-60mm to use with my E-M5 for a weather-sealed kit. I do not know if the Leica 12-60mm or 12-35mm would work well.

 

[roger2013]

Hotspots also depend on the aperture, so make sure you have tried different apertures before deciding a lens is no good for IR.

It could well be the coatings, because old, film-era OM lenses generally work very well. Other film-era brands may well work too, but I have no experience of them with IR. (And my IR cameras are not MFT but the results probably generalise.)

 

[JeanPierre Martel]

Shooting infrared pictures in black in white is an excellent school of image composition. If its asymetric composition is balanced, the photo will be good. Otherwise…

Because of Covid restrictions, most of my IR photos are taken in an urban setting (Montréal). However, what I’m doing is colour infrared, taken with a full-spectrum m4/3 IR camera. Here are a few examples:
https://www.jpmartel.quebec/category/photographie/photo-infrarouge/infrarouge-couleur/page/2/ (skip the French text)

 

[faunagraphy]

Shooting infrared pictures in black in white is an excellent school of image composition. If its asymetric composition is balanced, the photo will be good. Otherwise…

Because of Covid restrictions, most of my IR photos are taken in an urban setting (Montréal). However, what I’m doing is colour infrared, taken with a full-spectrum m4/3 IR camera. Here are a few examples:
https://www.jpmartel.quebec/category/photographie/photo-infrarouge/infrarouge-couleur/page/2/ (skip the French text)

JeanPierre, I've been a huge fan of your photography for a while now! My camera has been modified to only "see" wavelengths of 720 nm and higher, so it cannot see well in colour. I chose this modification because I wanted to capture the "inky black sky / water and white foliage" look.

I'm sure that you're well-versed in the different effects created by different IR filters, but for the sake of anyone else reading this, Kolari Vision has an excellent explanation on this topic: https://kolarivision.com/choosing-an-infrared-filter/