Every once in a while I get the urge to play with IR. I know that digital cameras would be very sensitive to Infrared light, but they have an IR blocking filter to prevent such things from happening. I also know that there are services that will remove this filter for you, put in another filter that is very receptive to IR and blocks visible light, and charge you a handsome fee for doing it. I have a spare Canon Powershot camera sitting around that I considered having made into an IR camera, but the upgrade cost more than the camera! $300. Not going to happen.
So, I looked for cheaper alternatives. One way, as I’ve done here, is to simulate it in Photoshop. Boring and it’s just a simulation. I want the real thing! After a small amount of research, I found that there is a filter, an 89B that blocks available light and allows IR through and is the least dense of the IR filters. More dense, and better performing filters are the Wratten 87 and Wratten 87C, both very dense filters requiring very long exposure times.
From what I’ve read, you have to use a tripod because the amount of visible light getting through is almost nil, add to that the camera’s resistance to IR light, and you have some fairly long exposure times, sometimes 2 to 5 minutes!
So, has anyone tried any of these filters? If so, do you have examples? I see that I can get fairly inexpensive IR filters, in the $60 range to try.
Thanks!
Paul
Related Posts :
Jekyll Island, GA "Driftwood Beach" - No filter I have a number of items in my camera bag i ...
Final touches All this talk of old school film and cameras reminded me of a skill that I once ...
Willow Dance: 1/15 sec @ f/5.6 ISO 100 As I've mentioned, I don't 'do' filters much; howeve ...
6 Responses to “IR Filters”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I have used the Hoya R72 which only passes light above 720nm which works well with the Nikon D70.
The Nikon D200 has a more aggressive IR coating on sensor and I have read that it will not work as well. I will need to try out and I suspect that it might just take longer to get useful rays.
With th4e D70 I only needed to set shutter to 1/8s to 1/125s in bright daylight.
You need to pre-focus without filter as it is too dark for camera to detect. Then set the WB to sunlight green foliage and no yo have a mostly red image. IF you do the reverse channel mixer- Red to Blue and Blue to Red you get those lovely white and dark blue skies.
Niels Henriksen
There are a lot of P&S digitals out there that work really well with IR filters. I did my first IR work using a Sony DSC-F707 with the Hoya R72 with good results. You are right though… the exposures get long. I don’t think I had anything go over 2 minutes though… I think my daytime outdoor IR shots ranged from 5 to 15 seconds in most cases. You might come out better picking one of the older model point and shoots that will accept filters on the lens and then just buying the filter rather than having a conversion done…
In my infrared film shooting I’ve learned (the expensive way) that I get the best results from a red #25 and a polar stacked than I’ve ever gotten with an infrared filter. Don’t know how that works with digital infrared, though. Now, if I were a digital shooter, I’d have an old digital camera converted to infrared in a heartbeat.
Well, Micki, if I had an extra $300 lying around and took lots of IR pictures, I’d do it. Instead, it was just an idea to play around with.
Most of the newer digital cameras have very strong IR filters that block it, so to get IR pictures with any reasonable shutter speeds, you have to have it converted. I don’t have a spare digital camera that I’d like to convert, though.
I’ve tried it with the filters and it is a royal pain. Noisy and the filters are actually pretty expensive for a reasonable size.
I’ve an old Canon D60 that I keep meaning to get converted. Never quite got around to it.
There’s a good rant against IR on the Online Photographer blog, while you are thinking about it
@Gordon. Thanks for pointing out the article on TOP. Fortunately, I am not so closed-minded in my thinking. I’m up to trying things, not to differentiate myself, but just because I like to experiment, quite frankly.
I don’t believe in the one-size-fits-all ideology that he seems to support in his article, but to each his own. There is no ‘right way’ to do photography and experimentation is fun. That said, his arguments hold no water for me.