Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

IR black and White photography

Sooty_1 7 1.5k 221 United Kingdom
5 Jul 2010 1:13PM
Or you could pick up an old d50/d70 body secondhand...? I know you can get a d50 for about 150 and just use an opaque IR filter on the front, with a middling aperture to sort the focus discrepancy.

I use a d50 with (I think) a 700 nm filter - I get pink images, but it is sensitive enough to only be a couple of seconds exposure in sunlight at middling apertures. Convert to b+w, adjust the contrast, and Robert is your mother's brother!

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

RichBrew 8 151 England
5 Jul 2010 2:22PM
Nick, this link should enlighten you about conversions.


5 Jul 2010 2:44PM
LOL - I never got to try IR until I went digital.
Pesky frame counter in my two film SLRs both used IR to count the sprocket holes.

And you get back into a world of pain regards focussing and exposure.
The instant feedback you get with digital is so handy when doing anything odd / unusual like tilt/shift or IR or very long exposures or mixed white balance - or even seeing how studio flash turns out.
Pete Plus
17 18.8k 97 England
5 Jul 2010 3:38PM
Nick I've uploaded a quick snap shot using an R72 filter on the D700. It's not as good as shooting with a converted camera but it's not bad. You need to play around with the contrast and sharpness, but it looks like you'll be able to pull decent stuff off using that combination.


The file is in the epz downloads area and is the original RAW so you can have a play and see if it will suit you.
The exposure was 30 seconds and it's really windy here at the moment so there's a lot of movement, hopefully it might give you an indication of what you can get.
User_Removed 8 4.6k 1 Scotland
5 Jul 2010 5:18PM
Dug out this old photo and scanned the print.

I took it about 25 years ago and used Kodak Infra-Red film in a Canon A1. I used IR because I needed to take pictures of flying geese about 40-50 minutes before sunrise and, in those days, ISO ratings like 6400 were not even dreamed about.

From memory, this photo was taken at around 1/60 at f/1.4. Because I was wanting infra-red to augment, rather than replace, the visible spectrum, no filters were used.

As you can see, it didn't really work!!


Nick_w Plus
10 4.3k 99 England
5 Jul 2010 5:49PM
Thanks everyone - I will download the image Pete - A UV filter will be a lot cheaper to start with.
cattyal Plus
13 8.5k 6 England
5 Jul 2010 6:28PM
If you're not too worried about file size for starters you could always pick up a Sony DSC-P72 and convert it yourself ? Admittedly I was a bit heavy handed with the conversion to B&W on this one but you get the idea......


Nick_w Plus
10 4.3k 99 England
5 Jul 2010 6:46PM

A had a very quick look at the RAW file Pete, uploaded. Ran it through one of my mono actions - no real mods sharpened etc (done on poor laptop screen so sorry if any of the tones are blocked out). I may just get a filter and have a play. Though I think I will need a completely new workflow for IR.

If this were "for real" I would have done some selective dodging and burning, added selective gradient maps etc. to get the tonality I would like.

Whoops just noticed in the last post I said UV filter - of course I meant IR !!!
Nick_w Plus
10 4.3k 99 England
12 Jul 2010 12:04AM
I have now got the Hoya R72 filter. TBH my first impressions are not too good. I'm getting an interference pattern that looks like reflections from the shutter curtain - its more prevalant the longer the exposure (>2mins) has anyone else experienced thi
Pete Plus
17 18.8k 97 England
12 Jul 2010 12:07AM
I've had problems with gel filters but never the Hoya Glass. Some lenses don't work too well. Is it happening on all lenses?
Nick_w Plus
10 4.3k 99 England
12 Jul 2010 12:12AM
I've only got it for 62mm filter Pete (Nikkor 20mm F2.8 is my only lens that takes the size) when I did some reading it appears to be excellent for IR - I will download one on here tomorrow to show what I mean but its horizontal banding and look very similar to the pattern if you mess up the flash sync.

If I had of thought on, I would have covered the lens before opening the shutter, and again just before closing it - to prove one way or the other.
Nick_w Plus
10 4.3k 99 England
16 Jul 2010 1:36PM
This is what I meant (Straight out of lightroom no adjustments) Could the banding be internal reflections from the shutter ??


I'm wondering if theres some UV contamination???

Nikon D700
Nikkor 20mm F2.8
162 secs
R72 Hoya filter

Focus set to hyperfocal point
Oh and no UV filter

The blob in the Sky I assume is the sun...The cloud layer was very thick !!! cant understand why it looks like a moving tourch tho.

I did a very quick conversion to see if theres potential - a LR preset, not my normal conversion method.


And yes the Nikkor 20mm has some wicked barrel distortion (not corrected here .. would for a serious upload).

I will be getting the D80 converted when I return form holiday and hopefully write a review. So any help resolving this would be addreciated.
Pete Plus
17 18.8k 97 England
16 Jul 2010 1:58PM
Oh I see, no I've nothing like that...but then again I don't shoot at such long exposures...I tend to use IR in sunlight when the effect is more dramatic so speeds are much faster.
Nick_w Plus
10 4.3k 99 England
16 Jul 2010 2:03PM
Pete It was about an hour before sunset !!! Cant believe I even went out as it was so dull.

It was more exagerated the longer the shutter speed, although it was still there on the 30 second exposures.

If I get chance I will go out with it this evening, if I get the packing done that is!
SueEley 12 279 96 Wales
16 Jul 2010 2:17PM
I know my old uncoverted Canon could take ir with long exposure but can't remember what kind of Canon it was. D20 maybe??? D30? Not much help. Conversion gives great results and the D70 need not cost too much. But go by personal recommendation - heard a total horror story from someone who had one done recently by a supposedly reputable company - the camera he got back wasn't the one he sent, was a lot older and broken. Got back two cameras which weren't his. Take a careful record of all the exif data from the camera (frame count etc) he recommends.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.