Posted by Curtis Knight on February 22, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I'm wanting to play around with infrared photography, but I don't want to invest $100+ in a filter if my sensor's filter is too efficient. I shoot with a Canon 300d (the original Digital Rebel) and expect to upgrade to the 450D when it hits the market in April.
I also have access to a 7mp Panasonic P&S (my wife's) that might actually have a less efective IR filter.
Anyway, here is my main question: What filter is generally best for digital? (Or does it even matter whether you're shooting film or digital?)
any other advise is quite welcome. I have never done any IR work at all.
Thanks!
Edit: What about converting my Rebel by removing the IR filter from in front of the sensor? anyone ever done this?
Posted by Jim Jirka on February 22, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Curtis,
Take a look at www.lifepixel.com
Provides info on conversions, costs, DIY etc...
Posted by Paul Wegemann on February 22, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Curtis,
I had my Digital Rebel (300D) converted for IR and it works great. It's not an inexpensive conversion. I paid $400, but it was well worth it IMO.
Before deciding to do that though, I had played around with IR by simply using a Hoya R72
filter. It worked fine on my 20D, but exposure times were extremely long, sometimes up to
2 minutes depending on ISO and the amount of sunlight hitting the subject. I found my
Canon A620 was much more sensitive to IR, so with an R72 I was able to shoot with
exposures in the neighborhood of 10-15 seconds. Most digital cameras allow some IR
through, so it's just a matter of how long of an exposure you're willing to put up with.
(In general, point and shoots are more sensitive to IR than DSLRs). This of course means
you'll be using a tripod, which I always do anyway. If you want to dabble in IR, finding a Hoya
R72 for your Panasonic might be your best bet. Below around 58mm or so, the R72 is pretty
inexpensive. This will give you a taste of things before you spend more money on a full
blown conversion. Lifepixel and Maxmax are two well known businesses that do IR
conversions. They both have informative websites.
These guys are just getting started, but have some nice photos and a coupon for Lifepixel -
http://www.irleague.com/Site/Home.html
This is a stitched pano made from my 300D -
http://paulwegemann.smugmug.com/gallery/4046721_rZDQ3#235637509
Also from the 300D-
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=91441&CGISESSID=356939040a
8336907f9c98e8135e9aa9&u=13477
This was taken with my A620 -
http://paulwegemann.smugmug.com/gallery/4035072_Qz57W#234901939
IR shooting is a blast. It makes you start seeing light in a whole new way.
Good luck. I look forward to seeing some of your IR shots on NPN.
Paul
Posted by Stefan Ganev on February 23, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Curtis,
I had my old d70 converted. Works fine and IR is a lot of fun. After the conversion, the sensitivity is about the same as it was to visible light. The exposure metering is not accurate for IR, but setting it to manual and using the histogram solves the problem. I have a few IR images taken with it in my portfolio.
Good luck
Stefan
Posted by Curtis Knight on February 23, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Discussion
4 repliesI also have access to a 7mp Panasonic P&S (my wife's) that might actually have a less efective IR filter.
Anyway, here is my main question: What filter is generally best for digital? (Or does it even matter whether you're shooting film or digital?)
any other advise is quite welcome. I have never done any IR work at all.
Thanks!
Edit: What about converting my Rebel by removing the IR filter from in front of the sensor? anyone ever done this?
Take a look at www.lifepixel.com
Provides info on conversions, costs, DIY etc...
I had my Digital Rebel (300D) converted for IR and it works great. It's not an inexpensive conversion. I paid $400, but it was well worth it IMO.
Before deciding to do that though, I had played around with IR by simply using a Hoya R72
filter. It worked fine on my 20D, but exposure times were extremely long, sometimes up to
2 minutes depending on ISO and the amount of sunlight hitting the subject. I found my
Canon A620 was much more sensitive to IR, so with an R72 I was able to shoot with
exposures in the neighborhood of 10-15 seconds. Most digital cameras allow some IR
through, so it's just a matter of how long of an exposure you're willing to put up with.
(In general, point and shoots are more sensitive to IR than DSLRs). This of course means
you'll be using a tripod, which I always do anyway. If you want to dabble in IR, finding a Hoya
R72 for your Panasonic might be your best bet. Below around 58mm or so, the R72 is pretty
inexpensive. This will give you a taste of things before you spend more money on a full
blown conversion. Lifepixel and Maxmax are two well known businesses that do IR
conversions. They both have informative websites.
These guys are just getting started, but have some nice photos and a coupon for Lifepixel -
http://www.irleague.com/Site/Home.html
This is a stitched pano made from my 300D -
http://paulwegemann.smugmug.com/gallery/4046721_rZDQ3#235637509
Also from the 300D-
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=91441&CGISESSID=356939040a
8336907f9c98e8135e9aa9&u=13477
This was taken with my A620 -
http://paulwegemann.smugmug.com/gallery/4035072_Qz57W#234901939
IR shooting is a blast. It makes you start seeing light in a whole new way.
Good luck. I look forward to seeing some of your IR shots on NPN.
Paul
I had my old d70 converted. Works fine and IR is a lot of fun. After the conversion, the sensitivity is about the same as it was to visible light. The exposure metering is not accurate for IR, but setting it to manual and using the histogram solves the problem. I have a few IR images taken with it in my portfolio.
Good luck
Stefan
Paul, I love the IR Sunrise at Arches!
Now I have financial decisions to make