Critique First stumbling steps in IR.

[Baloo]

Got an IR converted camera and these are some of the first shots I am relatively happy with, all critique advice welcome.

 

[sirch]

Not something I know much about but they look good to me.

 

[Petrochemist]

I particularly like the second one.
Which conversion did you go for?

 

[Baloo]

I particularly like the second one.
Which conversion did you go for?

Hi Mike I bought the camera off ebay for pocket money, so not sure what the conversion is, not the best way to do things as it was a bit of an impulse buy.

If you could offer any advice, tips, reading or vids on infrared I would very much appreciate it, learnt how to make a custom profile in LR, although I read you do not use LR, if you are using any software for the processing of IR would love to hear about it, especially if it is free!

 

[Petrochemist]

Hi Mike I bought the camera off ebay for pocket money, so not sure what the conversion is, not the best way to do things as it was a bit of an impulse buy.

If you could offer any advice, tips, reading or vids on infrared I would very much appreciate it, learnt how to make a custom profile in LR, although I read you do not use LR, if you are using any software for the processing of IR would love to hear about it, especially if it is free!

Nothing wrong in a cheap experiment, and it clearly gives good results. I brought my Sony DSC V1 for just such reasons but it confirmed my IR bug so i've ended up getting more flexible options since....
I'd expect your's to be a 720nm conversion (they seem to be most popular) These are great for monochrome IR and can be made to give some colour with careful processing.
Both my converted cameras are supposedly full spectrum converted (seeing UV,visible & IR) but their results differ significantly at the UV end so the first one (brought pre-converted) may be nearer two spectrum. With these I can add any filter I like to select a portion of the spectrum allowing lots of false colour investigations. I tend to use a red filter most often (about 590nm) which gives fairly predictable results and still gives an IR look if converted to monochrome. The various UV + IR filters I've tried seem to vary considerably day to day (presumably down to the natural lighting changing in the ratio of the two).

I don't use LR or any specific IR software, just treating my IR shots as I would visual ones & processing with FastStone (yes it's free) the only difference is WB can be more critical & I'm prone to be much more radical with the hue control - around 180 degrees works well with the 590nm giving blue skies & yellow foliage...

The big thing is to experiment! Don't just stick to classic IR landscapes but try whatever interests you.

Ignore those that claim IR can be judged from colours there is no real relationship. Just foliage reflects IR well (not 'green' in general).
Clouds also reflect IR while the remainder of the sky tends to be very dark. Together these can give great skies sometimes showing whisky clouds that are not visible to the eye.
IR also sees through mist & slightly under the skin in portraits, improving complexions & showing tattoos (& sometimes veins) clearly.
Finally IR can see through some things we can't, quite a number of dyes are transparent as are Polaroids...
Many of these latter factors show in this shot taken using a 720nm:
BTTC grid in IR by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

 

[Baloo]

Nothing wrong in a cheap experiment, and it clearly gives good results. I brought my Sony DSC V1 for just such reasons but it confirmed my IR bug so i've ended up getting more flexible options since....
I'd expect your's to be a 720nm conversion (they seem to be most popular) These are great for monochrome IR and can be made to give some colour with careful processing.
Both my converted cameras are supposedly full spectrum converted (seeing UV,visible & IR) but their results differ significantly at the UV end so the first one (brought pre-converted) may be nearer two spectrum. With these I can add any filter I like to select a portion of the spectrum allowing lots of false colour investigations. I tend to use a red filter most often (about 590nm) which gives fairly predictable results and still gives an IR look if converted to monochrome. The various UV + IR filters I've tried seem to vary considerably day to day (presumably down to the natural lighting changing in the ratio of the two).

I don't use LR or any specific IR software, just treating my IR shots as I would visual ones & processing with FastStone (yes it's free) the only difference is WB can be more critical & I'm prone to be much more radical with the hue control - around 180 degrees works well with the 590nm giving blue skies & yellow foliage...

The big thing is to experiment! Don't just stick to classic IR landscapes but try whatever interests you.

Thank you for a detailed and informative reply. Playing around with LR and PS last night I managed to produce these, am I right in thinking that there is some visible light getting to the sensor?

 

[Petrochemist]

The three colours of the Bayer matrix do perform slightly differently at shorter IR wavelengths so colours like those can be achieved from a 720nm conversion, but I think they rule out anything above 800nm where all 3 channels tend to perform very similarly. It is certainly possible that a slightly more permissive conversion has been done on your camera, perhaps a 690 or 650. I don't think it's down as far as 590
It's worth pointing out that transitions are not as distinct as people tend to think. Filters called 720nm have roughly 50% transmission at 720nm but will transmit a little from 20-30nm below this & take another 20-30nm to reach full transmission. Some longer wavelength filters have particularly extended transmission characteristics. My 960nm filter starts transmitting at a lower wavelength than my 860nm one.
Likewise the transition from visible to IR can be a bit blurred In bright light I can see through my 760nm & 960nm filters (probably the 860 too I just don't remember checking). Sources tend to vary somewhat on where visible becomes IR, with 700nm often chosen because it's a nice round number falling within the range of estimates. Human sensitivity to Electro Magnetic radiation falls off from about 550nm (green) might drop to around 1/10 by 650nm but there is some trace sensitivity left beyond 750nm...
For some reason nature doesn't stick to our definitions

 

[Baloo]

The three colours of the Bayer matrix do perform slightly differently at shorter IR wavelengths so colours like those can be achieved from a 720nm conversion, but I think they rule out anything above 800nm where all 3 channels tend to perform very similarly. It is certainly possible that a slightly more permissive conversion has been done on your camera, perhaps a 690 or 650. I don't think it's down as far as 590
It's worth pointing out that transitions are not as distinct as people tend to think. Filters called 720nm have roughly 50% transmission at 720nm but will transmit a little from 20-30nm below this & take another 20-30nm to reach full transmission. Some longer wavelength filters have particularly extended transmission characteristics. My 960nm filter starts transmitting at a lower wavelength than my 860nm one.
Likewise the transition from visible to IR can be a bit blurred In bright light I can see through my 760nm & 960nm filters (probably the 860 too I just don't remember checking). Sources tend to vary somewhat on where visible becomes IR, with 700nm often chosen because it's a nice round number falling within the range of estimates. Human sensitivity to Electro Magnetic radiation falls off from about 550nm (green) might drop to around 1/10 by 650nm but there is some trace sensitivity left beyond 750nm...
For some reason nature doesn't stick to our definitions

Again thank you for all your help and information, I have found it very useful.
I have some ideas for the summer, expect to see lots of hairy bikers on pink Harleys with green hair