How Important Is The Histogram . . . Really?

[Scottelly]

Here is a shot from SPP with highlight recovery on. The shutter speed was chosen to push the large peak all the way to the right of the display. The shutter was 1/8 second.

Then I pushed the exposure just a little less than half a stop using 1/5 second in second picture. Nothing could be done to recover the color of the wall. To me this would indicate the Quattro histogram is very good at showing what to expect.

I shot some pictures at a wedding using the histogram to make sure the wedding dress was not blown out , and it worked perfect.

Holy cow! Thank you for posting this example. Sometimes though, the histogram does tend to lie . . . or not tell the whole truth . . . I think. (I guess it could be me just misunderstanding what I see.)

--
Scott Barton Kennelly

http://www.bigprintphotos.com

 

[TN Args]

Here is a shot from SPP with highlight recovery on. The shutter speed was chosen to push the large peak all the way to the right of the display. The shutter was 1/8 second.

Then I pushed the exposure just a little less than half a stop using 1/5 second in second picture. Nothing could be done to recover the color of the wall. To me this would indicate the Quattro histogram is very good at showing what to expect.

Exactly.

I shot some pictures at a wedding using the histogram to make sure the wedding dress was not blown out , and it worked perfect.

It is really convenient and it works really well. A point I have been trying to make too.

Holy cow! Thank you for posting this example. Sometimes though, the histogram does tend to lie . . . or not tell the whole truth . . . I think. (I guess it could be me just misunderstanding what I see.)

Scott, nobody is suggesting that the above (and my evidence) applies to all cameras.

 

[SigmaChrome]

I just shot this photo of a red flower:

This is how the histogram looked, upon reviewing the image:

Here's the whole scene/shot:

As you can see, I was shooting at ISO 50. The histogram makes it look like I am under-exposing the scene. If I had pushed the histogram to the right, I would probably have blown the red flower. Here is how the histogram looks in SPP, with warnings:

Here is how the photo looks after I made some adjustments, to try to reduce the warnings:

To me the warnings are B.S. I guess sometimes they are a good indicator, but like the histogram on the back of the camera, they don't always mean anything significant.

Which version of the red flower photo do you like better?

Here is the raw file, just in case you would like to play with it yourself:

Why are you using ISO 50?

How did you meter this image?

I assume that this is full sunlight, so the base exposure settings for ISO 50 would be 1/50 f/16. Therefore, at f/5.6, the shutter speed should be 1/400 if I am doing my math correctly.

Then we have the old base ISO for any particular imager. If I recall correctly, and Ted can correct this, the base here is ISO 200. That means that is where everything works best, so to speak. (It could be ISO 100, but recall is a shifting result for me these days.)

It is ISO 100, Laurence.

And then there is the question of how you metered. In this image, you almost need a spot meter or to use that in the SD1. And you would meter the green foliage with a similar lighting. The old adage is green is gray, and you are metering for ND gray with a spot meter.

 

[SigmaChrome]

...............

How did you meter this image?

I didn't. I estimated. I do that all the time, and then I chimp. If the image looks right and the histogram looks right, then I figure I got the shot . . . but I often shoot another, just in case there was a breeze that made the flower move right when the shutter fired. (I was using 2 second self-timer to shoot these.)

I don't have a meter. I shoot with all manual settings and do my best to estimate what the exposure should be, because things change so quickly. I know I should get a meter and try to use it, because I'll be using a large format camera more in the near future, but I'm hoping I an figure out what settings I need to use with my film cameras based on my digital photos. I plan to shoot both - digital first, and then film.

OMG! If everything you do is guesstimation, and not based on measurement, why do you ask all these highly technical questions? In photography, technique and technical understanding is fundamental to producing usable results. To get good results, you absolutely have to understand how different subjects and materials behave under different lighting conditions. Guessing is not going to help you. You need to understand the standards that you set yourself.

I find that most of my sunrise photos are shot at ISO 100 and 1/60 sec. at f7.1 or f6.3. With a 4x5 or 8x10 that could be 1/30 sec. or maybe 1/15 sec. at f11 or f16. Maybe it's going to be an expensive experimental learning experience for me, but I figure I will be able to use a digital camera as a meter of sorts.

Just buy a light meter.

I assume that this is full sunlight, so the base exposure settings for ISO 50 would be 1/50 f/16. Therefore, at f/5.6, the shutter speed should be 1/400 if I am doing my math correctly.

Wouldn't the red flower have looked way too dark then?

Then we have the old base ISO for any particular imager. If I recall correctly, and Ted can correct this, the base here is ISO 200. That means that is where everything works best, so to speak. (It could be ISO 100, but recall is a shifting result for me these days.)

But the photos look way less noisy at ISO 100 or even less noisy at ISO 50, don't they Laurence?

And then there is the question of how you metered.

What does it matter how I metered? It's funny, but I took a photography course in college, and I don't remember the professor ever even mentioning using a meter. Maybe he thought there were more important things.

Maybe he was one of those professors who didn't know how to teach...?

I haven't used a spot meter since I shot with my Canon T90 about 30 years ago. It had a 3% spot meter built into the camera, which would average up to 9 different spots. It seemed very useful, except when I used it. I found that it didn't seem to help to any great degree, but maybe I wasn't that advanced yet. The center-weighted average metering seemed to yield better results for me. Today I don't use any metering at all. Instead I have a tendency to set the camera the way I expect the exposure should be, and then I shoot, chimp, and adjust.

If you were to meter correctly in the first place, you would get better results and have more time on your hands.

With my Sony cameras I don't even have to do that. Instead I can see how the shot will look (to a degree) before I even press the shutter, and I just make my adjustments before shooting. I love EVF cameras!

In this image, you almost need a spot meter or to use that in the SD1. And you would meter the green foliage with a similar lighting. The old adage is green is gray, and you are metering for ND gray with a spot meter.

But If I am trying to get the exposure of the flower perfect, I should just ignore the green parts, right?

 

[Scottelly]

...............

How did you meter this image?

I didn't. I estimated. I do that all the time, and then I chimp. If the image looks right and the histogram looks right, then I figure I got the shot . . . but I often shoot another, just in case there was a breeze that made the flower move right when the shutter fired. (I was using 2 second self-timer to shoot these.)

I don't have a meter. I shoot with all manual settings and do my best to estimate what the exposure should be, because things change so quickly. I know I should get a meter and try to use it, because I'll be using a large format camera more in the near future, but I'm hoping I an figure out what settings I need to use with my film cameras based on my digital photos. I plan to shoot both - digital first, and then film.

OMG! If everything you do is guesstimation, and not based on measurement, why do you ask all these highly technical questions? In photography, technique and technical understanding is fundamental to producing usable results. To get good results, you absolutely have to understand how different subjects and materials behave under different lighting conditions. Guessing is not going to help you. You need to understand the standards that you set yourself.

I find that most of my sunrise photos are shot at ISO 100 and 1/60 sec. at f7.1 or f6.3. With a 4x5 or 8x10 that could be 1/30 sec. or maybe 1/15 sec. at f11 or f16. Maybe it's going to be an expensive experimental learning experience for me, but I figure I will be able to use a digital camera as a meter of sorts.

Just buy a light meter.

I assume that this is full sunlight, so the base exposure settings for ISO 50 would be 1/50 f/16. Therefore, at f/5.6, the shutter speed should be 1/400 if I am doing my math correctly.

Wouldn't the red flower have looked way too dark then?

Then we have the old base ISO for any particular imager. If I recall correctly, and Ted can correct this, the base here is ISO 200. That means that is where everything works best, so to speak. (It could be ISO 100, but recall is a shifting result for me these days.)

But the photos look way less noisy at ISO 100 or even less noisy at ISO 50, don't they Laurence?

And then there is the question of how you metered.

What does it matter how I metered? It's funny, but I took a photography course in college, and I don't remember the professor ever even mentioning using a meter. Maybe he thought there were more important things.

Maybe he was one of those professors who didn't know how to teach...?

I haven't used a spot meter since I shot with my Canon T90 about 30 years ago. It had a 3% spot meter built into the camera, which would average up to 9 different spots. It seemed very useful, except when I used it. I found that it didn't seem to help to any great degree, but maybe I wasn't that advanced yet. The center-weighted average metering seemed to yield better results for me. Today I don't use any metering at all. Instead I have a tendency to set the camera the way I expect the exposure should be, and then I shoot, chimp, and adjust.

If you were to meter correctly in the first place, you would get better results and have more time on your hands.

It would take longer for me to get out a meter and use it than to just shoot a photo and chimp at it. I'm getting pretty good by now (hundreds of thousands of photos later) at predicting what shutter speed and ISO is going to be needed to get my exposure right at a particular aperture. Sometimes I'm right on the money, sometimes I need to step up or down half a stop or so, and sometimes I'm totally off. It's easy to figure out what I need to do with one or two more shots though, and that only takes a couple of seconds each - far less than it would take for me to get out a light meter . . . though I guess I could have a light meter hanging around my neck all the time. (That would be convenient . . . though it would be annoying too, I'm sure.)

With my Sony cameras I don't even have to do that. Instead I can see how the shot will look (to a degree) before I even press the shutter, and I just make my adjustments before shooting. I love EVF cameras!

In this image, you almost need a spot meter or to use that in the SD1. And you would meter the green foliage with a similar lighting. The old adage is green is gray, and you are metering for ND gray with a spot meter.

But If I am trying to get the exposure of the flower perfect, I should just ignore the green parts, right?

 

[obsolescence]

IMO a handheld spot meter with its own viewfinder is one of the best exposure tools you could own, especially for large-format film shooting. For my commercial work in 4x5 and 8x10 spanning nearly four decades, this was a very reliable way to work. Isolating exactly the area of the subject to read, and then "placing" that value where you want it so the widest range will "fall" within the film's/sensor's DR (once you know what that is), gives you predictable results. Highly recommended and I think you'll find it to be a real time-saver (and frustration/disappointment preventer).

The terms "place" and "fall" come from the Zone System lexicon, which also relate to film development and printing. While the latter two are not relevant to digital capture, the metering technique is very useful. Knowing that the meter's indicated setting wants to render 18% medium gray, we can decide whether the area we are reading should fall to that value (on average) or whether we should increase or decrease the exposure by a predetermined amount to fall to the tonal value we want (based on the DR capability and sensitivity of the film/sensor).

When shooting chrome film, I might use the meter to read a broad highlight area and place the setting + 1&2/3 or up to + 2 stops on the meter's calculation dial. With negative film, I would read a shadow area and place that at a minus setting while watching where the highlights fall to determine how much to pull or push film development (for B&W), or with color to determine how much of the subject's brightness range will fit into the film's tonal range.

I guarantee that once you get rolling with a good spot meter, you'll find it gives you so much information and control, that you'll wonder how you did without it.

 

[obsolescence]

I think that the in-camera histogram is not a RAW histogram, that it uses the JPEG for histogram information. Maybe someone here can confirm. I thought that it would help to use UniWB but I have not been able to get it working on my SD1 Merrill. I can get blue and green channels pretty closely aligned, but the camera refuses to set custom white balance for targets with extreme casts so the red channel always trails by at least a stop. Only getting half-way there makes it not worth sacrificing the custom white balance slot, IMO.

Setting custom white balance in the camera involves using a clean white card as a target, certainly not any kind of target with an extreme cast. I use a sheet of matte print media that has optical brighteners, mounted on foam board.

 

[obsolescence]

A subject with a relatively flat, even surface and limited range of tonal values, such as a wall, is the least challenging to any camera's metering system and to the histogram usefulness. Metering options are designed to be accurate in certain commonly encountered lighting conditions, and they can work quite well if you follow the manufacturer's guidelines. But often when you shoot in "real world" complex lighting situations, metering inadequacies become pronounced, in terms of errors in predicting whether you're capturing the highlight values you want to have detail in, up to the point of clipping. The histogram is easily fooled by strong backlight, for example. A better test would be to shoot a wide open area with strong backlight (sunlight), to see whether the camera's histogram differs from the Raw histogram from the capture.

 

[xpatUSA]

I use a sheet of matte print media that has optical brighteners, mounted on foam board.

Do you notice any effect from the low-wavelength blues emitted from the paper when there is UV in the lighting?

 

[Scottelly]

A subject with a relatively flat, even surface and limited range of tonal values, such as a wall, is the least challenging to any camera's metering system and to the histogram usefulness. Metering options are designed to be accurate in certain commonly encountered lighting conditions, and they can work quite well if you follow the manufacturer's guidelines. But often when you shoot in "real world" complex lighting situations, metering inadequacies become pronounced, in terms of errors in predicting whether you're capturing the highlight values you want to have detail in, up to the point of clipping. The histogram is easily fooled by strong backlight, for example. A better test would be to shoot a wide open area with strong backlight (sunlight), to see whether the camera's histogram differs from the Raw histogram from the capture.

I totally agree. That's part of my thinking, when I posted about the red flower and the meaning of the histogram.

 

[xpatUSA]

IMO a handheld spot meter with its own viewfinder is one of the best exposure tools you could own, especially for large-format film shooting. For my commercial work in 4x5 and 8x10 spanning nearly four decades, this was a very reliable way to work. Isolating exactly the area of the subject to read, and then "placing" that value where you want it so the widest range will "fall" within the film's/sensor's DR (once you know what that is), gives you predictable results. Highly recommended and I think you'll find it to be a real time-saver (and frustration/disappointment preventer).

The terms "place" and "fall" come from the Zone System lexicon, which also relate to film development and printing. While the latter two are not relevant to digital capture, the metering technique is very useful. Knowing that the meter's indicated setting wants to render 18% medium gray, we can decide whether the area we are reading should fall to that value (on average) or whether we should increase or decrease the exposure by a predetermined amount to fall to the tonal value we want (based on the DR capability and sensitivity of the film/sensor).

When shooting chrome film, I might use the meter to read a broad highlight area and place the setting + 1&2/3 or up to + 2 stops on the meter's calculation dial. With negative film, I would read a shadow area and place that at a minus setting while watching where the highlights fall to determine how much to pull or push film development (for B&W), or with color to determine how much of the subject's brightness range will fit into the film's tonal range.

I guarantee that once you get rolling with a good spot meter, you'll find it gives you so much information and control, that you'll wonder how you did without it.

Truly good advice - and Scott could try it out with the SD14 spot metering mode, while realizing that it ain't 1 deg, still he could try it. I'm always on spot metering and manual exposure anyway, so it suits me well.

OT but I'm having some success with incident light metering, too (Sekonic L-398).

For some reason, I keep going back to eBay and looking at L-608s . . .

 

[D Cox]

...............

How did you meter this image?

I didn't. I estimated. I do that all the time, and then I chimp. If the image looks right and the histogram looks right, then I figure I got the shot . . . but I often shoot another, just in case there was a breeze that made the flower move right when the shutter fired. (I was using 2 second self-timer to shoot these.)

I don't have a meter. I shoot with all manual settings and do my best to estimate what the exposure should be, because things change so quickly. I know I should get a meter and try to use it, because I'll be using a large format camera more in the near future, but I'm hoping I an figure out what settings I need to use with my film cameras based on my digital photos. I plan to shoot both - digital first, and then film.

OMG! If everything you do is guesstimation, and not based on measurement, why do you ask all these highly technical questions? In photography, technique and technical understanding is fundamental to producing usable results. To get good results, you absolutely have to understand how different subjects and materials behave under different lighting conditions. Guessing is not going to help you. You need to understand the standards that you set yourself.

I find that most of my sunrise photos are shot at ISO 100 and 1/60 sec. at f7.1 or f6.3. With a 4x5 or 8x10 that could be 1/30 sec. or maybe 1/15 sec. at f11 or f16. Maybe it's going to be an expensive experimental learning experience for me, but I figure I will be able to use a digital camera as a meter of sorts.

Just buy a light meter.

But he has a light meter, in the camera. Shooting a test image, examining it and adjusting exposure accordingly is a perfectly valid method of judging the best exposure settings.

Same as making a test strip when printing in the darkroom.

 

[D Cox]

I think that the in-camera histogram is not a RAW histogram, that it uses the JPEG for histogram information. Maybe someone here can confirm. I thought that it would help to use UniWB but I have not been able to get it working on my SD1 Merrill. I can get blue and green channels pretty closely aligned, but the camera refuses to set custom white balance for targets with extreme casts so the red channel always trails by at least a stop. Only getting half-way there makes it not worth sacrificing the custom white balance slot, IMO.

Setting custom white balance in the camera involves using a clean white card as a target, certainly not any kind of target with an extreme cast. I use a sheet of matte print media that has optical brighteners, mounted on foam board.

I don't think I would want to use a surface with optical brighteners, as its colour will vary according to the amount of UV in the light.

My preference is for either the Color Checker or a piece of stiff card painted light grey with acrylic paint. (The acrylic medium is colourless.)

 

[D Cox]

A subject with a relatively flat, even surface and limited range of tonal values, such as a wall, is the least challenging to any camera's metering system and to the histogram usefulness. Metering options are designed to be accurate in certain commonly encountered lighting conditions, and they can work quite well if you follow the manufacturer's guidelines. But often when you shoot in "real world" complex lighting situations, metering inadequacies become pronounced, in terms of errors in predicting whether you're capturing the highlight values you want to have detail in, up to the point of clipping. The histogram is easily fooled by strong backlight, for example. A better test would be to shoot a wide open area with strong backlight (sunlight), to see whether the camera's histogram differs from the Raw histogram from the capture.

The problem is that the SPP histogram is small and the camera histogram is tiny. Real-scene highlights are usually only a very small part of the image, and the right hand end of the histogram trails off into a trickle of values that are almost impossible to see. Raw Digger and Image Analyser both have better histograms.

 

[xpatUSA]

I think that the in-camera histogram is not a RAW histogram, that it uses the JPEG for histogram information. Maybe someone here can confirm. I thought that it would help to use UniWB but I have not been able to get it working on my SD1 Merrill. I can get blue and green channels pretty closely aligned, but the camera refuses to set custom white balance for targets with extreme casts so the red channel always trails by at least a stop. Only getting half-way there makes it not worth sacrificing the custom white balance slot, IMO.

Setting custom white balance in the camera involves using a clean white card as a target, certainly not any kind of target with an extreme cast. I use a sheet of matte print media that has optical brighteners, mounted on foam board.

I don't think I would want to use a surface with optical brighteners, as its colour will vary according to the amount of UV in the light.

My preference is for either the Color Checker or a piece of stiff card painted light grey with acrylic paint. (The acrylic medium is colourless.)

I scratched my head about that too. So I googled brighteners and the emitted violet/blue does seem to be below the UV/IR blocker cut-off point - and maybe he uses a haze filter on the lens. Earlier, I asked if he sees any blue-related effects, so maybe we'll learn more direckly . . .

 

[digidog]

I think that the in-camera histogram is not a RAW histogram, that it uses the JPEG for histogram information. Maybe someone here can confirm. I thought that it would help to use UniWB but I have not been able to get it working on my SD1 Merrill. I can get blue and green channels pretty closely aligned, but the camera refuses to set custom white balance for targets with extreme casts so the red channel always trails by at least a stop. Only getting half-way there makes it not worth sacrificing the custom white balance slot, IMO.

Setting custom white balance in the camera involves using a clean white card as a target, certainly not any kind of target with an extreme cast. I use a sheet of matte print media that has optical brighteners, mounted on foam board.

I don't think I would want to use a surface with optical brighteners, as its colour will vary according to the amount of UV in the light.

My preference is for either the Color Checker or a piece of stiff card painted light grey with acrylic paint. (The acrylic medium is colourless.)

The MacBeth and the Passport patches contain no OBAs and better still, the white patch is spectrally neutral which is what one desires for white balancing. What's interesting is that the Passport has little white icons (a face, what look like mountains) on the target of white's that do graduate from warm to cool that are filled with a massive amount of OBAs. So this target is useful in detecting them under an illuminate like a blacklight. All the text printed on the target behave the same way as well.

The Passport is one of the best products X-rite has come up with in a very long time!


OBA's like crazy outside the patches!

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog

Home

 

[obsolescence]

I use a sheet of matte print media that has optical brighteners, mounted on foam board.

Do you notice any effect from the low-wavelength blues emitted from the paper when there is UV in the lighting?

My use of CWB is with flash or tungsten lighting in the studio. The former have UV-filtered flash tubes and halogen lamps also emit very little UV (esp when used w/ umbrellas or softboxes). Outdoors I typically use the cameras' WB presets and make adjustments in Raw processing. In building interiors there's usually mixed lighting, so I select the WB preset that looks best on the LCD screen.

I haven't done any comparison tests between different print media used as targets, so I can't answer your question, other than to say I think I am getting the best color my cameras are capable of reproducing (which is not perfect, and often requires tweaking).

Thanks for asking -- it could be a variable that should be excluded from the process, so it's worth testing. I just assumed that OB would minimize any yellow cast from the natural fibers. I probably should use CWB for some location shooting, too.

[A side note: the biggest problem I've encountered with modern building interiors is the use of infrared-reflecting glazing which imparts a strong cyan cast. Adding to that in various spots, warm white LED lighting which has an orange cast, and I get... green (yech) -- a bit of a nightmare to retouch. No way to CWB that.]

 

[xpatUSA]

I use a sheet of matte print media that has optical brighteners, mounted on foam board.

Do you notice any effect from the low-wavelength blues emitted from the paper when there is UV in the lighting?

My use of CWB is with flash or tungsten lighting in the studio. The former have UV-filtered flash tubes and halogen lamps also emit very little UV (esp when used w/ umbrellas or softboxes). Outdoors I typically use the cameras' WB presets and make adjustments in Raw processing. In building interiors there's usually mixed lighting, so I select the WB preset that looks best on the LCD screen.

I haven't done any comparison tests between different print media used as targets, so I can't answer your question, other than to say I think I am getting the best color my cameras are capable of reproducing (which is not perfect, and often requires tweaking).

Thanks for asking -- it could be a variable that should be excluded from the process, so it's worth testing. I just assumed that OB would minimize any yellow cast from the natural fibers. I probably should use CWB for some location shooting, too.

[A side note: the biggest problem I've encountered with modern building interiors is the use of infrared-reflecting glazing which imparts a strong cyan cast. Adding to that in various spots, warm white LED lighting which has an orange cast, and I get... green (yech) -- a bit of a nightmare to retouch. No way to CWB that.]

Thanks for the detailed response. Up 'til know, I hadn't thought about that kind of glazing or indeed the use of "solar film" on windows, quite popular round here.

 

[obsolescence]

I think that the in-camera histogram is not a RAW histogram, that it uses the JPEG for histogram information. Maybe someone here can confirm. I thought that it would help to use UniWB but I have not been able to get it working on my SD1 Merrill. I can get blue and green channels pretty closely aligned, but the camera refuses to set custom white balance for targets with extreme casts so the red channel always trails by at least a stop. Only getting half-way there makes it not worth sacrificing the custom white balance slot, IMO.

Setting custom white balance in the camera involves using a clean white card as a target, certainly not any kind of target with an extreme cast. I use a sheet of matte print media that has optical brighteners, mounted on foam board.

I don't think I would want to use a surface with optical brighteners, as its colour will vary according to the amount of UV in the light.

My preference is for either the Color Checker or a piece of stiff card painted light grey with acrylic paint. (The acrylic medium is colourless.)

Acrylic paint may be a good idea, but the color checker is not so good because its colors could skew the results. I doubt OB have any effect, but I will test. Custom white balance is designed for a white target, and while gray will work, I think the brighter target is more likely to give an accurate result.

 

[xpatUSA]

I think that the in-camera histogram is not a RAW histogram, that it uses the JPEG for histogram information. Maybe someone here can confirm. I thought that it would help to use UniWB but I have not been able to get it working on my SD1 Merrill. I can get blue and green channels pretty closely aligned, but the camera refuses to set custom white balance for targets with extreme casts so the red channel always trails by at least a stop. Only getting half-way there makes it not worth sacrificing the custom white balance slot, IMO.

Setting custom white balance in the camera involves using a clean white card as a target, certainly not any kind of target with an extreme cast. I use a sheet of matte print media that has optical brighteners, mounted on foam board.

I don't think I would want to use a surface with optical brighteners, as its colour will vary according to the amount of UV in the light.

My preference is for either the Color Checker or a piece of stiff card painted light grey with acrylic paint. (The acrylic medium is colourless.)

Acrylic paint may be a good idea, but the color checker is not so good because its colors could skew the results. I doubt OB have any effect, but I will test. Custom white balance is designed for a white target, and while gray will work, I think the brighter target is more likely to give an accurate result.

Some while back I bought the Kodak R-27 set of cards - 18% gray on one side, 90% on the other. Excellent quality - you get two 8x10" and one 4x5". I find them invaluable when investigating ISO and stuff but they also work well for the custom WB thing. I can just about get a custom WB off the white with the SD1M in full-spectrum mode but the SD10 and SD14 just refuse to do it. The SD1M balks as soon as I put an IR filter on the lens, though.

--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted