Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > IR Converted EPL1 (photos)

Reply
Thread Tools

IR Converted EPL1 (photos)

 
 
swandy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2010
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
swandy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2010
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:12:42 -0500, C. Werner <(E-Mail Removed)>
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
swandy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2010
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:05:27 +0200, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2010
"swandy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:12:42 -0500, C. Werner <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred McKenzie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
swandy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:05:27 +0200, Alfred Molon
> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2010
On Aug 30, 3:12*pm, swandy <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
swandy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2010
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Rich <(E-Mail Removed)>
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.)
 
Reply With Quote
 
swandy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2010
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:47:44 -0400, Fred McKenzie <(E-Mail Removed)>
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".)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2010
"swandy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:47:44 -0400, Fred McKenzie <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2010
"Paul Furman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Managing a converted 1232 AP by the WLSE kjalabhay@axians.com Cisco 1 02-10-2006 06:52 PM
'The expression can not be converted to type' error A. Kong VHDL 4 10-10-2004 07:37 AM
Slave Drive converted to a Master Drive Dennis Richards Microsoft Certification 1 07-29-2004 04:24 PM
product of real and (integer)(after converted to real one) value - vhdl found fatal error senthil VHDL 5 01-24-2004 04:37 AM
Converted to Mozilla but one thing missing - key macro/substitution no-spam Firefox 5 07-29-2003 08:07 PM



Advertisments