Infra Red Photography

Infra Red photographs are taken using only infra red light. Since human eyes cannot see infra red light we are then taking photos with invisible light. The first question that occurs is "How do we do that?". Before digital photography it was done with specially created infra red film. Because the film was sensitive to invisible light we had to load the film into our cameras in total darkness. I carried a light proof bag with sleeves for my arms. The camera and film were zipped into the bag, then I would insert my arms into the sleeves, open the camera, and load the film by feel.

With digital cameras it is both easier and more difficult to create infra red images but before that description let's take a look at the result. The first image shows the basic idea of what you get. First the image is usually a black & white or monochrome image. In film days that was the only possibility. The chlorophyll in green plants reflects a lot of infra red light and the blue sky shows very little therefore, as you see, the sky is nearly black and the trees appear to be snow covered. White clouds also reflect infra red and they appear very bright. The overall effect is a high contrast dramatic image.

So, how do we do this with a digital camera? Well working on our side is the fact that digital sensors are very sensitive to infra red light. This creates a problem for camera manufacturers because the sensors are so sensitive to infra red light that the camera's photos would not be good at all, so the maker has to put a filter in front of the sensor to block infra red light. This is great for regular photography but not for us if we want to take infra red (let's say IR from now on) images, so what do we do?

We need to purchase an IR filter which allows IR light to pass through and blocks almost all visible light. I can take my IR filter and hold it in front of my eye on a bright sunny summer day and I see nothing at all. It is completely black. If I look directly at the sun (very briefly please) I can see the sun but that is all. IR filters vary widely in price depending on quality and upon exactly which areas of the IR light are blocked and which are allowed through. Here my advice is to start with a less expensive one since you may find it works better for you than a very expensive one. That is difficult to explain but still true. My first digital IR images were created using a Kodak gelatin filter that I got for about $30.

With the filter on your camera you can see nothing through the viewfinder or the live view screen so you will have to focus first (oh, you MUST have a tripod). Once you have focused and put the filter in place you will have to experiment with exposure. My first shots using a small point-and-shoot camera were about 30 seconds long on a bright sunny day. The blocking filters on cameras have gotten better so you may have to go 45 to 60 sec. Your first test exposures are a "crap shoot" strictly a guess. If it's dark go longer if it's too light go shorter. In a few minutes you should have a decent shot.

Now here comes a surprise. The photo is not black & white. Since we are using a camera that separates red, green, and blue, the infra RED light we are using exposes the red pixels more than the green and blue so we have a very pink image.

Before we go any further I'll mention another way to create IR images. My first digital camera was a Nikon D100. When I upgraded to a D200 I kept my 100 as a backup and found I didn't use it. It laid in my camera case but never came out. An internet search revealed that there were quite a few companies and individuals out there who would convert digital cameras to IR cameras. They remove the IR blocking filter from the sensor and replace it with a filter that blocks visible light (similar to the one you use in front of the lens). Now that the blocking filter is removed your exposures are almost the same as a normal color camera and you no longer need a tripod and extremely long exposures. Remember you cannot take normal color photos with this camera any longer; it's IR only. Another warning: your meter will work but it will not necessarily be as correct as it used to be and you will find yourself compensating for images too dark and too light as you go. I found the cost of this conversion ranged from $100 to $400 and I advise you to research the provider before you send off your valuable camera and money. I would highly recommend the guy who did mine but he no longer does the modifications so you are on your own there.

Back to pink images. because infra red is closer to red than green or blue there is an over all pink cast to the images. There is more exposure to the red pixels than the green or blue BUT the green and blue get some exposure also and you can leverage this to create "false color" images. This is way beyond this post but fun to do.

Any photo editor will allow you to reduce saturation and create a black & white image. In Lightroom I adjust contrast highlights, shadows, blacks, and clarity, but in any editor you will be able to create a decent monochrome image. I chose the image you see here for a couple of reasons. First you can see that IR does not penetrate fog and by shooting this particular image in IR the grass and the sky are both light and the dark slacks and hair on my model stand out clearly.

If you like the effect, give it a try. There are many websites devoted to IR photography with detailed advice on how to get 'er done. As usual comments and questions are welcome. I promise to read and answer but I am sometimes slow so please excuse me if I seem unresponsive.

'Til next post: Keep Shooting.
Jim

How High is Your Camera?

No, I'm not asking if your camera has been exposed to cannabis or some other hallucinogen, I want you to look at some of your photos and estimate how far your camera was from the ground when you took the shot. Now take a tape measure and see how far your eyes are from the ground. Do you notice a similarity to your photo estimate?

Bottom line here is that most photos including a very high percentage of amateur  photos are taken by a standing photographer with the camera held at eye-level. With the advent of cell phone cameras there has been a jump of photos shot by a sitting photographer but I think you'll find most of those taken at the eye-level of the person sitting across from them at the table.

So what difference does it make? Elevation is a key to controlling the background. In the included image I found myself with a very photogenic boat filled with flowers, a nice piling arrangement and a beautiful blue sky with fluffy white clouds.

My problem was including all of those items in the same photo. Shooting from the aforementioned eye-level would have created a shot of the flowers but not much of the boat and a not-very-pretty shot of the pilings. The background would have been the lawn which at this time of the year was not a lush green.

By lying on the ground and using the 24mm end of my zoom I was able to feature the pilings, include the boat from an angle with included both the form of the boat and the flowers without more green than flowers, and include the sky as a primary background with visible clouds but a plain blue sky behind the pilings.

In this case I chose to create an HDR image with 5 shots but since I had a polarizer on my lens to pop up the sky I have a nicely exposed image that would stand well without the HDR. Comparing the two shots side by side I thought the HDR shot had the edge so I included it here.

I remember a shot I took several years ago in Ottawa, Canada that I can't seem to locate now in which I was shooting one of the beautiful government buildings from across the street in front of it to get the building arranged as I wanted it. A standing up shot included the street and its traffic, but at the edge of the grass area on which I was standing was a border of a flowering hedge.  By sitting on the ground I was able to hide the street and the traffic behind the hedge and create a nice bottom border of flowers for the building and hide what I didn't want in the photo.

At the other end of the scale there is the hail Mary shot which is taken with your arms extended above your head and the camera aimed (by guess and experience) at your subject. With this you can get over people and objects near you and if you are aiming down use the ground as a background which may be a nice uncomplicated way of simplifying your image.

Remember try higher and lower instead of always shooting at eye-level, and... good shooting. Again comments and questions are welcome, but sometimes I forget to check for a few days so don't panic.

The Camera is Wrong Again

 Touring a reproduction U.S. Civil War display I spotted a tent in the style of the times and tried a camera metered exposure shot. I wanted the fence in the photo and this first image is what I got. The tent was in brighter light than the fence and the surrounding foliage. While the tent was near the center of the photo it occupied a much smaller area than the remainder and look what happened. The tent is very washed out looking and has very little detail. The fence and foliage look fine but the tent was my main subject. There is no single, best way of approaching the problem. Let's look at one way.








Move in and isolate the tent. Now try an automatic exposure and see how it looks. In this case it was still too bright so I noted the shutter speed, 1/60 switched to manual mode and set it faster, 1/250 and got the exposure of the tent that I wanted and here is that shot.











Now I back up and use the same exposure and I have my original scene with nice detail and texture in the fabric of the tent.

Now a new issue is that the fence is a little darker than I would like so lets examine some possible corrections. An on-camera flash could provide fill, but the closer part of the fence on right would be brighter than the more distant fence portion on the left. So let's do the simplest solution in post (that's shorthand for post processing).

And, here we have the final version. Using Lightroom 5. (Earlier versions and most any RAW converter will work also. Even Photoshop Elements has a shadows/highlights control that will work fine.) In Lightroom I just lightened the shadows and most of that effect was on the fence. Left is what came from my decisions.

It took longer to write it and even longer for you to read it that the taking process actually took. The shot was taken in less than a minute and worked quite well.




Again comments and questions are welcome.

Jim

What Your Camera's Meter Doesn't Know

Your camera does not know what the scene looks like to you.

In the first example I set my camera in P mode. If you are not familiar with the various settings on DSLR cameras "P" mode is almost fully automatic. However unlike the Auto, or Green Camera mode found on many DSLRs the P mode allows you  to control ISO settings and it allows what is called, exposure compensation. Usually controlled with a small button marked with plus/minus signs like this [+/-]. Let's look at the first shot, fully automatic, and it's not bad. Notice the light range is so great that the trees and foliage are rendered as silhouettes. It is obviously sunrise/sunset (actually, sunset I'm not usually an early riser) there is good color in the sky and as I said before it's not bad, but it's not what I saw. By the time I shot this photo the world, locally, was pretty dark, the sky was not the pale blue you see here and the reds and oranges were much more vivid.

So, let's get back to "exposure compensation". The scene I wished to photograph was the one I saw before me. It had richer colors than the automatic one and more texture in the water. In manual exposure mode I could have used a faster shutter speed or a smaller lens opening. In the "P" mode I can use the +/- button and dial in the amount of over or under exposure that I wanted. Here in the second version I dialed in -2 also referred to as -2EV (Exposure Value). It is now 2 stops underexposed from the meter reading.

Please keep in mind that the meter reading does not give you a correct exposure, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CORRECT EXPOSURE. I do not even claim that the exposure in the second version of the shot is better than the first one, my only claim is that I like the second one better. I am the photographer and I get to decide what exposure I like best. Had you been standing beside me at the time this shot was taken and taken your own it might look quite different. Hey, I might even like yours better than mine.

Photography is based on artistic decisions. Knowledge of photographic techniques equips you with the tools you need to get the shot you want.

It's been awhile since my last post and it feels good to be back typing. Comments are always welcome.