Isn't nature just marvellous

[Donald]

This is in my garden. I'm afraid I don't know the name, but it's 100mm (4") diameter. This it it after flowering. I just think the structure of the head is a thing of beauty.

This is my second effort at infrared photography (well, the second one that I'm prepared to show to the world). This is an example of how infrared can help you tease out the tones in an image. It is split toned. Like everything, when I first tried split toning I was being far too aggressive with the saturation levels on both highlights and shadows. I have now railed that way in and hopefully am presenting something much more subtle.

Any thoughts, comments and critical analysis will be welcomed.

[Manfred M]

Donald - in my IR work (a long time ago), the focus was on scenes that had significant elements that reflected IR wavelengths, notably the chlorophyll in leaves. This was enhanced by using a red filter (Wratten 25A) to emphasize that end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

This shot doesn’t really say IR to me mostly because it looks like the shot could have been made with a normal camera. The IR component is not all that obvious without a reference in the shot to what this technique might have changed from a normal B&W shot.

[Donald]

Donald - in my IR work (a long time ago), the focus was on scenes that had significant elements that reflected IR wavelengths, notably the chlorophyll in leaves. This was enhanced by using a red filter (Wratten 25A) to emphasize that end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

This shot doesn’t really say IR to me mostly because it looks like the shot could have been made with a normal camera. The IR component is not all that obvious without a reference in the shot to what this technique might have changed from a normal B&W shot.

Thank you Manfred. To say that it "doesn't really say IR" is the best compliment you could pay to me. The stereotypical IR of white leaves and dark skies is what stopped me even thinking about IR in the past. But when I saw Paul Gallagher's IR images earlier this year, I saw that it could be far, far more than that. And I was sold.

You say that it looks like a shot that could be made with a normal camera. But the tones in the image would have been quite different. The background, for example, was a green bush. It's the greater subtlety of tone that can be brought out with IR is what I'm after and hope that I am presenting.

Once I get over the first wave of making IR images, then I hope I will present images not announcing them to be IR or otherwise. Just B & W images. If people do not see them as obvious IR, then I will have achieved a goal.

[JBW]

Here comes the obvious question from yours truly: Can you hook up a macro lens to your new camera? Mind you, even without a macro lens you are getting beautiful detail. I'm getting intrigued... please keep posting these shots.

[Cogito]

Looks like an allium...

[DanK]

A very nice image indeed. (I am no expert, but I think the plant may be an alium, or something related to that.)

I have avoided IR for precisely the same reasons you had, but your images and Gallagher's (which I had not seen--thanks for the pointer) have me very much intrigued. I have even started thinking about which camera I might sacrifice on the alter of IR. Do you have any suggestions of sources to read? I would have no clue how to create images like yours or his.

Please do keep posting these.

Thanks

Dan

[Donald]

Dan, I am going on a 3-day masterclass with aspect2i in October. That's Paul Gallagher's training company, but it's not Paul leading the course, it is his business-partner, Michael Pilkington. But ahead of that I have watched a Justin Reznick course on lynda.com called 'Infrared Photography: Nature and Landscapes'.

It is a bit dated (Photoshop and Lightroom have developed beyond what he says about White Balance), but is a very, very useful course.

Thank you for your encouragement.

[Donald]

Here comes the obvious question from yours truly: Can you hook up a macro lens to your new camera? Mind you, even without a macro lens you are getting beautiful detail. I'm getting intrigued... please keep posting these shots.

Yep. It's just like shooting normally. That's the beauty of having a camera converted as opposed to fitting a filter to the front of a lens.

The thing you need to be careful about with lenses is Hot Spots. Some lenses are fine, some are awful and some sit somewhere in the middle. These are lists of which lenses are good with IR and which are not.

[Donald]

I should have said, re lenses, that of my 5 lenses, the only one that seems to give problems is the EF 70-200 f4 IS L. The 70-200 f2.8 IS L is rated as good in lists that I have seen.

The other lenses I have are:-
Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS Mark II USM


I have checked them all in sunshine and shade and at f5.6 and f16. The only one presenting any problem is, as stated, the 70-200. There is a large hot spot in the centre of the frame, no matter the setting and whether it's sunshine or shade. So, I just decide that I don't use it for IR, rather than worry about painting out the hotspot.

[DanK]

Thanks very much. I am in a work crunch now, but later this fall, I'll look at the Lynda.com course.

Dan, I am going on a 3-day masterclass with aspect2i in October. That's Paul Gallagher's training company, but it's not Paul leading the course, it is his business-partner, Michael Pilkington. But ahead of that I have watched a Justin Reznick course on lynda.com called 'Infrared Photography: Nature and Landscapes'.

It is a bit dated (Photoshop and Lightroom have developed beyond what he says about White Balance), but is a very, very useful course.

Thank you for your encouragement.

[Rufus]

I very much like the two IR images you have posted so far, Donald, and look forward to seeing more. The technical explanation with the first posting was bit beyond me at present, but I quickly put that to one side to simply enjoy the two images. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said to Manfred "...To say that "it doesn't really say IR" is the best compliment you could pay".

As an amateur of limited experience I am always interested in how and why photos have been taken/processed in order to develop my knowledge and understanding, but ultimately I aim for an image to be taken and processed in such a way that no one would notice the hardware or processing used. You have definitely acheived this.

David

[Cogito]

Donald, as a matter of interest, have you tried taking an image with your IR setup and again with a"normal" camera/lens set to the same exposure figures and tried converting the normal one in you PP application to IR? just to see if there's a difference?

[Donald]

just to see if there's a difference?

Tony, there will be a difference. It is a question of how much of a difference. I haven't done that yet, but I'm sure I will come across a scene where I will do that just for the sake of comparison.

The difference will be in relation to how the tones are rendered.

[Manfred M]

Are you compensating for IR at all in your focusing Donald?

The old manual focus lenses often had a red IR focus mark and when I shot IR I would focus normally and then add that tiny bit of focus offset to correct for IR use. The alternative is using a smaller aperture setting, but that also forces one into a longer exposure with an IR filter in place and that might be good enough. Have you tried using LiveView to focus as that might hit the mark better than phase detect focus that is set up for visible light wavelengths? I suspect that with contrast detect and the IR filter in place, this might give a more accurate focus.

[Donald]

Are you compensating for IR at all in your focusing Donald?

No, because the conversion includes a recalibration of the autofocusing settings. If you were using just the one lens they would recalibrate it as well, but I, like many others, use a number of different lenses, so it is just the camera that is adjusted.

Did you think there was a problem with focus on the image?

[Manfred M]

Did you think there was a problem with focus on the image?

I don’t know Donald. I just remember the issues I ran into while shooting IR. Unfortunately, I am on my tablet right now, so can’t be certain of the image quality. I’ll have a closer look when I get home and have access to a good computer screen.

[rudi]

....

Did you think there was a problem with focus on the image?

At first I thought it was slightly softer in the middle. I am not sure though, can be the compression, my older eyes... Looking at it for a few days now, the outer circle still grabs more off my attention than the center