Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   IR Converted EPL1 (photos) (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t732130-ir-converted-epl1-photos.html)

swandy 08-30-2010 07:12 PM

IR Converted EPL1 (photos)
 
http://www.pbase.com/swandy/infrared_photography

Recently had and Olympus EPL1 Pen camera converted for infrared
photography. (720 nm filter)
So far very happy with the results.
Comments welcome,
Steve

swandy 08-30-2010 10:45 PM

Re: IR Converted EPL1 (photos)
 
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:12:42 -0500, C. Werner <none@noaddress.com>
wrote:

>I feel that only one or two of your images work with the pseudo-color tints
>included.
>
><http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127804621>
><http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127890759>
>
>And should be toned-down a bit.

Well we each have our own opinions and I am sorry that you only felt
one or two worked as IR. But with regards to the "toned-down", I
always felt that IR (if not in B&W) that the colors don't look natural
anyways.

>
>Otherwise their posterized or splotchy and uneven distribution really
>detracts from the subjects, as-in, something went wrong.

Don't have a clue to what you are refering to here. Can you be more
specific because I dont see that "something went wrong".

Steve

swandy 08-30-2010 10:46 PM

Re: IR Converted EPL1 (photos)
 
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:05:27 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Very nice, I liked the images. I disagree with C.Werner's comments - in
>my opinion as a photographer it's your choice how you want your images
>to look like.


Thanks Alfred and yes I agree that while everyone might not like what
others do, it is up to the photographer how he wanted his image to
look. (Unless there is something techinically wrong, but that is
another discussion.)
Steve

Peter 08-30-2010 11:38 PM

Re: IR Converted EPL1 (photos)
 
"swandy" <swandy1@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vvco76tful8d23cm40f0i7t64hej8k4shr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:12:42 -0500, C. Werner <none@noaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I feel that only one or two of your images work with the pseudo-color
>>tints
>>included.
>>
>><http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127804621>
>><http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127890759>
>>
>>And should be toned-down a bit.

> Well we each have our own opinions and I am sorry that you only felt
> one or two worked as IR. But with regards to the "toned-down", I
> always felt that IR (if not in B&W) that the colors don't look natural
> anyways.
>



I don't think IR is supposed to look natural. When done right. it brings out
a nice abstract quality in the images.

--
Peter


Fred McKenzie 08-31-2010 12:47 AM

Re: IR Converted EPL1 (photos)
 
In article <s4do765q1vr3q6e9c719p5j7qtn5k9ir71@4ax.com>,
swandy <swandy1@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:05:27 +0200, Alfred Molon
> <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Very nice, I liked the images. I disagree with C.Werner's comments - in
> >my opinion as a photographer it's your choice how you want your images
> >to look like.

>
> Thanks Alfred and yes I agree that while everyone might not like what
> others do, it is up to the photographer how he wanted his image to
> look. (Unless there is something techinically wrong, but that is
> another discussion.)


Steve-

I liked the Bridge.

I don't think I could visualize how the infrared image will appear. I
would consider Werner's suggestion about making photos that are
fundamentally interesting, so it won't matter if the IR is a bit
splotchy!

I notice that green vegetation (chlorophyl) seems to reflect the most
IR. I'm reminded of a lecture by a researcher who found that solar
water heating pipes were more efficient if painted a certain shade of
green. It seems that he received so much harassment about not painting
them black, that he gave up. He painted them black and stopped making
the ridiculous claims about green!

Fred

Rich 08-31-2010 01:25 AM

Re: IR Converted EPL1 (photos)
 
On Aug 30, 3:12*pm, swandy <swan...@verizon.net> wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/swandy/infrared_photography
>
> Recently had and Olympus EPL1 Pen camera converted for infrared
> photography. (720 nm filter)
> So far very happy with the results.
> Comments welcome,
> Steve


The best way to do the fake colour thing is to leave the IR filter off
the sensor and use it on the lens when you want the pure black and
white IR images. When you shoot without it with the sensor's own IR
filter removed, folliage turns purple but most other colours stay
true, with some exceptions.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...81608/original

swandy 08-31-2010 03:25 AM

Re: IR Converted EPL1 (photos)
 
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>The best way to do the fake colour thing is to leave the IR filter off
>the sensor and use it on the lens when you want the pure black and
>white IR images. When you shoot without it with the sensor's own IR
>filter removed, folliage turns purple but most other colours stay
>true, with some exceptions.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...81608/original


That is a lovely picture, but if it was not titled as IR Sunset,
perhaps I would have just thought it was normal light for a sunset in
the area it was taken.
For me (personally) I prefer the faux colors you get when do do a
channel swap on an IR image. Though I have seen some beautiful work
where the folliage is a yellow/gold tint. (Forget what type of filter
was used.)

swandy 08-31-2010 03:28 AM

Re: IR Converted EPL1 (photos)
 
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:47:44 -0400, Fred McKenzie <fmmck@aol.com>
wrote:


>Steve-
>
>I liked the Bridge.

Thanks.
>
>I don't think I could visualize how the infrared image will appear. I
>would consider Werner's suggestion about making photos that are
>fundamentally interesting, so it won't matter if the IR is a bit
>splotchy!

When I shoot I have the camera set for Monochrome, so the view in
either the LCD or the EVF is a "normal" B&W IR image, so it is easier
to visualize the shot. It is afterwards, that I decide which shots
might look more interesting if converted to the faux color.
(And I still don't understand what he meant by "splotchy".)

Peter 08-31-2010 11:31 AM

Re: IR Converted EPL1 (photos)
 
"swandy" <swandy1@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iito76poncu1m7pauu3t2opn9fgut6qg71@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:47:44 -0400, Fred McKenzie <fmmck@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve-
>>
>>I liked the Bridge.

> Thanks.
>>
>>I don't think I could visualize how the infrared image will appear. I
>>would consider Werner's suggestion about making photos that are
>>fundamentally interesting, so it won't matter if the IR is a bit
>>splotchy!

> When I shoot I have the camera set for Monochrome, so the view in
> either the LCD or the EVF is a "normal" B&W IR image, so it is easier
> to visualize the shot. It is afterwards, that I decide which shots
> might look more interesting if converted to the faux color.
> (And I still don't understand what he meant by "splotchy".)



I too use a converted digital. I never use it in monochrome mode as I
usually frame my shot through the viewfinder. I am more concerned about
composition than color. The image in my LCD will appear as you suggest in BW
mode, but I prefer to tweak the appearance in PS.

--
Peter


Peter 08-31-2010 11:39 AM

Re: IR Converted EPL1 (photos)
 
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:05OdnSD-wPssEeHRnZ2dnUVZ5uednZ2d@giganews.com...
> C. Werner wrote:
>> swandy wrote:
>>
>>> (And I still don't understand what he meant by "splotchy".)

>>
>> The same problem occurring in this one
>> <http://www.pbase.com/swandy/image/127965457> , easily seen in the water
>> as
>> well as in the foliage. Like someone had taken a transparent cyan-blue
>> brush in their editor and not-too-carefully swiped it over areas they
>> wanted to be garishly cyan-blue.

>
> This one looks magenta in the center, especially the water. Could that be
> what they refer to has a 'hot spot' which some lenses show for IR?



IR images generally have a magenta cast. A digital image is more sensitive
to natural color variations that might not be noticed in a conventional
image. I have heard, though not observed, of situations where certain
clothing has become transparent to IR.

--
Peter



All times are GMT. The time now is 07:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.