Infra-Red

[SteveG]

Anyone here done any messing around with infra-red photography, either in film or digital? I'm looking for some inspiration on subjects etc. that work well as so far I've mainly done the foilage/blue sky stuff.

I had a bit of a play around with Kodak HIE and Ilford SFX back in my film days (and I've got some SFX in the fridge at the moment) - this one was using HIE but isn't great (and it's one of the better shots from back them!):

I decided on a whim to pick up a digital body that'd been converted to 720nm IR and that arrived yesterday. It's certainly a hell of a lot easier to use than film was - no need for filters, exposure and AF all working good and, even better, with shutter speeds that mean hand-held is no problem. I've only taken some casual snaps so far (this was from when I walking the dog this morning) but there definitely seems to be potential:

 

[Mr Perceptive]

I dabble occasionally, have used different wavelength IR, the longer the wavelength the better the blacks, but also the longer the exposure (typically)

Graveyards are good


150609 Hartlepool Old Cemetry sm by David Yeoman, on Flickr


160829 Davenham Church sm by David Yeoman, on Flickr

And water can be as well


dutton_horse_bridge_sm by David Yeoman, on Flickr


160824 Brunner Mond, Winnington IR sm by David Yeoman, on Flickr

 

[SteveG]

Nice. There is a old church and graveyard not far where I was walking the dog this morning so will give that a try sometime.

I particularly like the last shot BTW.

 

[PaulMB]

Without knowing, I would have guessed the last photograph was normal film with an orange or red filter. Very nice!

 

[Stunsworth]

I had a play when I got my Leica M8 - it's sensitive in the IR band. Remember if you're focussing manually you'll need to adjust that compared to 'normal' light...



Shinto temple, Tatton Park by Steve, on Flickr

 

[vuk]

i will say one thing: it certainly takes care of the massive problem of green in photography.

 

[SteveG]

I had a play when I got my Leica M8 - it's sensitive in the IR band. Remember if you're focussing manually you'll need to adjust that compared to 'normal' light...

The camera I'm using has the filter fitted in front of the sensor and, as it has an EVF, that means it's very straightforward to use comparing to when I did IR film stuff. AF works, exposure length allows hand-held no problem and you can see the IR effect via the viewfinder.

 

[JemHayward]

Yes, obsessed with it for at least 40 yrs! Started, oddly enough with Ektachrome IR colour film in 1977, as I didn't have darkroom as I was at Uni. Pink grass and green people... I then moved on to Kodak HIE, and I had a development system using Rodinol that at least minimised halation. I took a trip to the northern saharan mountains in Morocco and took a second body purely for IR, and found that you can carry HIE in a 40c rucksack and change films without a changing bag if you really need to. That was probably the last HIE I used. Played with some other semi-IR films, but HIE was my favourite.
I then went digital. Tried my filters on my 300D and it didn't really work, so when I went to the Canon 5D I had my old 300D converted to IR and used it a lot, with good, results though it lacked the 'grunge' of IR film.
Canon system abandoned I went to Fuji X - one reason was the IR sensitivity. I now do all my IR with the Fujis and have a selection of IR filters but usually use 670 or 720nm. The advantage of 670 is that it gives hand held shutter speeds at sensible ISO.
IR has a season, and now is the IR season - the wonderful white foliage and black skies of May! I have given up trying to recreate the HIE look in my more recent IR digital images as I've come to terms with the 'look' I can get with the Fuji system and the filters I have - some lenses also work better than others - some lovely flare on offer, but also some annoying 'hotspots' on occasion.

Kodak HIE:

ascog by Jem Hayward, on Flickr

IR converted Canon 300D:

tree of fire by Jem Hayward, on Flickr

Fuji X E2:

_DSF7024 by Jem Hayward, on Flickr

None of these are 'stunning' images but show the differences/similarities between the systems I've used over the years!

 

[PaulMB]

I'd say the Kodak print is more subtle, the sky is dark but not black. The digital prints seem more brutally IR. But I know nothing of digital photography so assume it can be controlled.

 

[JemHayward]

By definition the digital images are processed and I do tend to favour 'harder' monochrome images. I used to print everything on grade 5 back in that era. The film image is a scan of the negative and my develop method was designed to reduce contrast to make printing easier, as sometimes IR negs were a real pain to print. I don't miss the darkroom one little bit.