Nice video, David -- as always. Informative, understandable, easily digested sequence of ideas. I bought a Sigma Quattro with the Foveon sensor (I chose the APS-C version rather than APS-H). Sigma has a user-removable/re-insertable IR filter. I get some lovely images, but I go ahead an use the HoyaR-72 as well, to ensure that the sensor only receives the IR light. I then, like David Bergman, work in Capture one, usually with Silver Efex Pro. No images to share readily -- I just wanted your viewers to read about the Quattro. And look into the Foveon sensor -- you can get an amzing camera that then converts to IR in about fifteen seconds!
Some corrections: First, IR conversions are definitely reversible in most cameras (the companies that do the conversions also can convert them back). It's literally the same procedure, but taking off the IR filter and putting a hot-mirror filter back on (and calibrating AF if it's a DSLR). Conversions are a fair bit of money, though, so I'm not sure why you'd want to reverse it. Second, there's always the option of a full-spectrum conversion, which replaces the hot mirror filter with clear glass. This gives you the ability to use specific-wavelength IR filters like the R72, hybrid "color" IR filters, hot mirror/cut filters (for normal visible light), uv-only filters, and custom astrophotography filters. The main downside being that, if you have lenses with many different filter sizes, you may be buying a lot of filters (though you can use step-up/-down filter rings to help). This is what I do, though, and it's been more than worth it since it gives you the flexibility of different types of filters and you get all the light (no need to do super-long exposures in daylight, focus/compose without the filter, etc). Lastly, it's not that R72 filters have a red "tint", it's that the red pixels on the sensor are more sensitive to IR light than the other pixels. This causes IR light to be strongest in the red channel. (This also causes unfiltered full-spectrum-converted cameras to take pictures with a strong red cast -- hence the need for filters)
Depending on the camera brand, you can "solve" the second point with clip-in filters. But it's preferable to stick to one per session (ie, swapping them on the field is doable but maybe not very practical).
Hey, thanks for your comment! I have a question, I have a full spectrum converted camera (I replaced the IR cut filter with a clear class) and now I shoot with a clip-in filter of 742nm from astronomik. The problem with this clip-in filter (the filters clips in between the lens and the camera) is that I cannot use my 18-55mm lens because of the mount, it just doesnt fit. I can use all my EF lenses from Canon but not this 18-55mm EF-S lens. So my question is: If I have a full spectrum converted camera, can I use a R72 lens filter on my 18-55 and shoot with it without a tripod? Am I gonna get the same results as with the clip in filter? Will I get the same results if I remove the clip in filter and put the r72 instead? Thanks, I cant find answer to this question....
R72 filters have a red tint. Look through one from inside towards a window. The human eye can faintly see near infrared and it appears a deep red colour
Good video but you missed the most important point: Infrared light focuses at a different position to visible light. Not that important if you're shooting wide angle lenses at small apertures, but crucial for shallow depth of field work. Good lenses have an IR marker on the focus scale.
I just discovered this today using the filter he was talking about. My live view mode can produce a preview image on a wide aperture if I set my shutter long enough. Good thing I checked my focus AFTER I put the filter on!
Unfortunately, modern zoom lenses omit IR focus offset, as well as hyperfocal distance range marking as well. So, I guess we've gone back to the, "f8 and be there", era. Autofocus is somewhat treacherous when attempting spatial relationship shots.
Great video I thought I would mention that you can get your camera full-spectrum modified. If you do, you can now use multiple different infrared filters. You also can get a visible light bandpass filter so your camera can shoot normally. It really makes your one camera able to do everything without having to have multiple camera bodies.
If the modification is full spectrum, where the IR-UV blocking filter is removed, the camera can be used for normal photography with an IR-UV blocking filter on the lens, or a Kolari drop in body filter. So it is reversible in this case.
Awesome filter I've been using couple weeks now and a great reason is you can do long exposure in full daylight. So if at sunrise once the sun is too high I swap to the IR filter and can keep taking pics instead of heading straight home.
@@typeraver With the R72 filter, you’re restricted to only shooting long exposures and composing your shot beforehand (Very time consuming) and shooting at 720 nm which is the base level for shoot infrared vs a converted camera that could have different ranges up to full spectrum (the best you could have), at which point you could put on any infrared filter (all ranges) to get those shots. Simply put, Hoya R72$ Converted Camera at a set nm$$ Full Spectrum converted camera with each filter$$$
Tried this for a college project a few years ago - was great fun! The learning materials I used were similar to this, but suggested a custom white balance setting :-)
Hey David - Thanks for the video...I'm just now learning about IR photography. It would have been helpful if you could have taken the same shot using an IR converted body and shown it beside the photo that you took with the Hoya filter to see the difference.
The Hoya ir filter on my Sony rx 10 m4 I discovered they absolute most crucial factor in getting something that I want in my head is besides pre focusing( which I do in auto or manual ) is doing a custom WB pre shot setting it too anything green .. the camera struggles and sometimes either calls error or gives it a terrible horrible green instead of horrible red .. but it’s so cool when the camera read the green the right way and the live view as dim as it is reveals the white foliage the learning curve was longer than I wanted and stepped away from it but man I seem to have really grown within the niche and am looking forward to getting an actual convert .. I have watched your video like 10 times .. thanks it’s one of my faves
Love the look on your face when you said "Artsy" look 🤣🤣🤣 The IR image you took of the bridge looks cool, actually I feel it looks better than the original color image👍👍
you need to change the temperature of the image. But its outside what your software understands so you need to set a white balance in camera first then use DNG profile editor to set the temperature.
Some of the early Sony digital cameras have infrared capabilities. If I remember right, the cybershot dsc f707 and f717 both can do this. It requires a magnet to move the ir filter out of the way for daytime infrared shots. There is a video on youtube on how to do it, but I'll leave it to you to find it!
Well, it's not necessarily always a 1-way trip. If you get a full spectrum conversion (which I did, for maximum flexibility) you can use what's called a "band pass" filter which will block IR light and allow Visible light so the camera can be used for normal photography. While the cost of doing a full spectrum costs more in terms of you have to buy a filter in addition to the conversion. Since full spectrum allows all wavelengths of IR, you have to buy filters to block out certain IR wavelengths to achieve certain results, so this can increase the cost of ownership, but it does give you the most flexibility and you do have the option to install the band pass filter and shoot normaly (non-IR) photography with the camera. It's also a great option if you're not 100% sure which filter or IR look you like because you can basically buy filters, and have the best of both (or all) worlds in terms of IR. This is probably beyond what David is going to cover here, but something people should be aware of as an option, so if you have a camera you want to be able to also shoot regular non-IR stuff with, get a full spectrum conversion. The only downside to this is you have to have th band-pass filter, or pretty much any filter on the camera to get any type of real usable images (some people do shoot full spectrum IR cameras without a filter and do a lot of the work in post, but this is generally more complicated in post production). So having to always use a filter of some sort is a drawback (IR cameras converted to specific wavelengths don't since the camera is converted for that specific wavelength internally) but it does ovver the most flexibility at a bit of a price premium.
You can convert your camera to a full spectrum. This means that you with the correct filters can use it as a regular camera, while also use the different IR/UV filters. Much better than the permanent IR conversions.
I carry a ultra cheap 4k go pro copy with 720-860nm filters that work surprising!, the angle of view of170 degree is interesting. If I forget a camera this is always in my pocket.
nice tuto. I have a d5600 full spectrum modified by Lifepixel and external 590, 665, 850, 720nm filters. i focus in liveview or viewfinder with filter installed. i am surprised capture one can set WB directly at 1500K. For lightroom, slider is blocked at 2K so you need to load a dng IR image in dng profile editor and create a dcp profile for your camera allowing to have WB below 2K for all your images. it works fine. on your cyan foliage image, you can tune in lightroom with dehaze, white, black,... and send to photoshop to make a red-blue color swap with channel mixer to have yellow foliage and beautiful blue sky. Then you can further edit yellow into red to simulate aerochrome Kolari red trees,...
Fantastic video. I have always liked the look but believed the only way to achieve it was like you said have the ir filter in camera removed. I didn't realise it was possible to get a filter to block visible light as I didn't know that some ir light gets through.. Definitely something for me to look into now 😊. What would happen if you used a high iso above 10,000 instead of a slower shutter speed?
@@DavidBergmanPhoto I missed the obvious there 😂. I forgot that part! Thank you for your reply 😊, great informative video as always and I really enjoy them. Never too long and genuinely useful, helpful and interesting. Stay safe and I look forward to the next one. Simon (UK)
The IR conversion is not necessarily a one way trip. I bought a converted Nikon D70s and when I am not using the R72 filter, I replace it with a BG40 Visual Bandpass 320 - 700nm Schott glass filter which only lets visible light (and some UV) pass. It can be bought online.
As with any camera, the slower the shutter speed, the brighter the image. Since the R72 blocks so much of the light, you need the shutter open much longer to let in enough light.
@@DavidBergmanPhoto thanks but my question wasn't about the IR hoya as I have it and use it regularly. The question was about the Meter Timer in camera settings in general why and when the need to be changed.
If you put a filter with a higher nm value on the lens than the ir filter on the sensor it works well, and about the same as if the camera had been converted to that higher value. Using a lower nm value filter does not make sense.
Best way is to get a converted camera. I have a converted (470nm ) Nikon D800. I also have a full set of screw on filters for different looks. THE BIGGEST piece of advice I’d give on converting... is to go with a MIRRORLESS camera. When you put a filter on the lens such as the R72 or a 850nm filter... IF you are on a DSLR... you can’t see thru the viewfinder....BUT you will see everything on live view which is what a mirrorless real is... a full time live view and that way you can still use the viewfinder. My next conversion will be a mirrorless camera
Pay attention with the focus! If you set the focus without filter, you will get a blurry picture. Most of the lens need to be shifted to get a sharp picture. On some lenses, if have a red line on the ring
Depends on the camera. If you have a camera with on-sensor contrast detection auto-focus then it will work fine with any adjustment to the lens necessary.
@@geoffreypiltz271 You're right he is talking about a DSLR with a mirrorless camera you can see the and auto focus will work just One other thing he forgot to say is that on some lenses it has a white hotspot right in the middle my Fuji zx18 55 has my other lenses are fine I usually shoot it using the Fuji acros r to get a be image through the viewfinder
Nice introduction to IR photography. I've tryed a Hoya 72R on my camera and failed in love with this kind of photography. Then I modified in full spectrum my second digital camera and I use IRChrome Kolarivision filter, a Hoya 25A, a Hoya 72R. I swap red and blue channels to get the IR classic colours and they I play around to get something that looks nice to me.
My Nikon D40 does a poor job of blocking IR light compared to my D7100. So l use the D40 with the R72 filter because l get much faster shutter speeds with it. l recommend a DSLR that does not do a good job of blocking IR.
I'm confused because he says that he wouldn't modify a camera for IR because you can't use it for normal photography, however, all the people I contacted before getting my camera convert to see who I wanted to pick and how they'd deal with my questions said you could use it for normal photography you just needed a UV/IR cut filter which just blocks that light but lets in normal visible light.
You can only do normal photography if you get a Full Spectrum, then you can photograph in UV, IR and every wavelength in between. David was speaking about conversions to a specified wavelength meaning the camera will only shoot in that wavelength and above: Say if you converted it to 720nm, if would be having a permanent R72 camera but you can use higher wavelengths over the lens, but not lower ones and you would be able to do regular exposures. But, if you get say that Ultra Colour from Life Pixel or the 550 ( Kolari Chrome ) filter then you could use higher wavelengths than those filters.
In a long exposure camera sensors heat up, which makes IR light that the sensor then detects that by accident, it's an issue in Astrophotography too and needs a few tricks including image stacking to counteract, it's an interesting insight into the limits of common camera sensors
How would the dynamic range differ on an image taken with a infrared filter compared to a compared to a converted infrared camera or a non-infrared image?
Dynamics is a sensory thing. It says how many electrons (excited by the lights photons) you can store in one pixel photodiode. Has nothing to do with filter or no filter
Good question. The sensor does not change so the dynamic range of the camera doesn't change from a technical standpoint. However, keep in mind that bright and dark as we usually know it are quite different under IR light so trying to visualize an HDR image, for example, might be quite challenging! Maybe I'll have to try that next time I'm in the park. :)
@@DavidBergmanPhoto a mirror less viewfinder shows what the sensor sees. If you can take a picture, you can see it. Sure, if you need a 2 minute bulb you would need a high iso for the preview, but changing that is probably easier then screwing and unscrewed the filter.
@@ChristianSamsel I don’t think the iso would go high enough. 102,400 is 10 stops darker than 100 ISO. Based on my exposures, the R72 was around 15 stops darker.
@@DavidBergmanPhoto so you used a 120s bulb at ISO 800 and got a picture. instead you could you do 1s shutterspeed at ISO 102,400, or 51200 at 2s to look at the view finder.
I had a Canon 40D converted. I have to use live view to focus, but I love the look of IR. Here is one I took at a local Arboretum. instagram.com/p/CBG2ocRgi4a/
I have to use really long shutter speeds with the R72, do I? Interesting. I use this filter with an unmodified Sony DSC-HX300 and it takes fully exposed infrared photos, handheld, 1/13 second shutter speed, ISO 800
If you don't want to modify your cameras and have a film camera laying around, you could always buy some infrared film. Of the ones that are available Rollei Infrared 400 extends the furthest into the infrared range.
All this makes me miss Kodak's HEI B & W film and their infrared slide film ever the more. With the B& W film, all you needed was a #29 red filter, some high contrast paper, and fire away. Of course, turning my kitchen into a darkroom was drudgery to say the least..
So, I made a couple IR cameras cheap. Used point and shoot cameras on eBay for $8 or 10 bucks each, carefully opened, saved all the screws, found the little piece of glass in front of the lens and removed it. One, glued a small IR filter to the lens housing (it's a point and shoot camera after all), and the other just left open to combine color with IR. They've been great fun, and for a couple hours of work and $25 or $30 for the camera's, Is it as good as a DSLR? No, but sure is fun
Your short video about IR filter made more sense and shared more knowledge than all previous videos on TH-cam I've seen! Thank you!
That was awesome. Exactly what I needed in order to get going
You simplified the whole process to be easily digestible than many of the others videos.
Nice video, David -- as always. Informative, understandable, easily digested sequence of ideas. I bought a Sigma Quattro with the Foveon sensor (I chose the APS-C version rather than APS-H). Sigma has a user-removable/re-insertable IR filter. I get some lovely images, but I go ahead an use the HoyaR-72 as well, to ensure that the sensor only receives the IR light. I then, like David Bergman, work in Capture one, usually with Silver Efex Pro. No images to share readily -- I just wanted your viewers to read about the Quattro. And look into the Foveon sensor -- you can get an amzing camera that then converts to IR in about fifteen seconds!
Some corrections: First, IR conversions are definitely reversible in most cameras (the companies that do the conversions also can convert them back). It's literally the same procedure, but taking off the IR filter and putting a hot-mirror filter back on (and calibrating AF if it's a DSLR). Conversions are a fair bit of money, though, so I'm not sure why you'd want to reverse it.
Second, there's always the option of a full-spectrum conversion, which replaces the hot mirror filter with clear glass. This gives you the ability to use specific-wavelength IR filters like the R72, hybrid "color" IR filters, hot mirror/cut filters (for normal visible light), uv-only filters, and custom astrophotography filters. The main downside being that, if you have lenses with many different filter sizes, you may be buying a lot of filters (though you can use step-up/-down filter rings to help). This is what I do, though, and it's been more than worth it since it gives you the flexibility of different types of filters and you get all the light (no need to do super-long exposures in daylight, focus/compose without the filter, etc).
Lastly, it's not that R72 filters have a red "tint", it's that the red pixels on the sensor are more sensitive to IR light than the other pixels. This causes IR light to be strongest in the red channel. (This also causes unfiltered full-spectrum-converted cameras to take pictures with a strong red cast -- hence the need for filters)
Depending on the camera brand, you can "solve" the second point with clip-in filters. But it's preferable to stick to one per session (ie, swapping them on the field is doable but maybe not very practical).
Hey, thanks for your comment!
I have a question, I have a full spectrum converted camera (I replaced the IR cut filter with a clear class) and now I shoot with a clip-in filter of 742nm from astronomik.
The problem with this clip-in filter (the filters clips in between the lens and the camera) is that I cannot use my 18-55mm lens because of the mount, it just doesnt fit. I can use all my EF lenses from Canon but not this 18-55mm EF-S lens.
So my question is: If I have a full spectrum converted camera, can I use a R72 lens filter on my 18-55 and shoot with it without a tripod?
Am I gonna get the same results as with the clip in filter?
Will I get the same results if I remove the clip in filter and put the r72 instead?
Thanks, I cant find answer to this question....
R72 filters have a red tint. Look through one from inside towards a window. The human eye can faintly see near infrared and it appears a deep red colour
Good video but you missed the most important point: Infrared light focuses at a different position to visible light. Not that important if you're shooting wide angle lenses at small apertures, but crucial for shallow depth of field work. Good lenses have an IR marker on the focus scale.
I just discovered this today using the filter he was talking about. My live view mode can produce a preview image on a wide aperture if I set my shutter long enough. Good thing I checked my focus AFTER I put the filter on!
Unfortunately, modern zoom lenses omit IR focus offset, as well as hyperfocal distance range marking as well. So, I guess we've gone back to the, "f8 and be there", era. Autofocus is somewhat treacherous when attempting spatial relationship shots.
Thanks a lot David, nice valuable addition to my knowledge. God bless you🌷
Really helpful and my question about the pros and cons of using a filter versus a modified camera answered clearly. Grateful and big thank you David !
Great video I thought I would mention that you can get your camera full-spectrum modified. If you do, you can now use multiple different infrared filters. You also can get a visible light bandpass filter so your camera can shoot normally. It really makes your one camera able to do everything without having to have multiple camera bodies.
Also it makes it possible to shoot standard infrared handheld. No need for a tripod and you can actually see what you are doing.
If the modification is full spectrum, where the IR-UV blocking filter is removed, the camera can be used for normal photography with an IR-UV blocking filter on the lens, or a Kolari drop in body filter. So it is reversible in this case.
Awesome filter I've been using couple weeks now and a great reason is you can do long exposure in full daylight.
So if at sunrise once the sun is too high I swap to the IR filter and can keep taking pics instead of heading straight home.
Just about to get this lens and this is a great idea - can't wait to try it out!
Great guide. Thanks for the upload.
Purchased this filter from Adorama this past year. Then I upgraded to a 590nm converted camera. This filter is a great entry into Infrared.
What are some of the distinct differences between filter vs converted camera besides exposure time?
@@typeraver With the R72 filter, you’re restricted to only shooting long exposures and composing your shot beforehand (Very time consuming) and shooting at 720 nm which is the base level for shoot infrared vs a converted camera that could have different ranges up to full spectrum (the best you could have), at which point you could put on any infrared filter (all ranges) to get those shots. Simply put, Hoya R72$ Converted Camera at a set nm$$ Full Spectrum converted camera with each filter$$$
Tried this for a college project a few years ago - was great fun! The learning materials I used were similar to this, but suggested a custom white balance setting :-)
David, wonderful presentation TY
Hey David - Thanks for the video...I'm just now learning about IR photography. It would have been helpful if you could have taken the same shot using an IR converted body and shown it beside the photo that you took with the Hoya filter to see the difference.
The Hoya ir filter on my Sony rx 10 m4 I discovered they absolute most crucial factor in getting something that I want in my head is besides pre focusing( which I do in auto or manual ) is doing a custom WB pre shot setting it too anything green .. the camera struggles and sometimes either calls error or gives it a terrible horrible green instead of horrible red .. but it’s so cool when the camera read the green the right way and the live view as dim as it is reveals the white foliage the learning curve was longer than I wanted and stepped away from it but man I seem to have really grown within the niche and am looking forward to getting an actual convert .. I have watched your video like 10 times .. thanks it’s one of my faves
Love the look on your face when you said "Artsy" look 🤣🤣🤣 The IR image you took of the bridge looks cool, actually I feel it looks better than the original color image👍👍
you need to change the temperature of the image. But its outside what your software understands so you need to set a white balance in camera first then use DNG profile editor to set the temperature.
Very interesting presentation. Thanks for sharing
Some of the early Sony digital cameras have infrared capabilities. If I remember right, the cybershot dsc f707 and f717 both can do this. It requires a magnet to move the ir filter out of the way for daytime infrared shots. There is a video on youtube on how to do it, but I'll leave it to you to find it!
great and very informative video, many thanks.
Very nice Bergman!
Well, it's not necessarily always a 1-way trip. If you get a full spectrum conversion (which I did, for maximum flexibility) you can use what's called a "band pass" filter which will block IR light and allow Visible light so the camera can be used for normal photography. While the cost of doing a full spectrum costs more in terms of you have to buy a filter in addition to the conversion. Since full spectrum allows all wavelengths of IR, you have to buy filters to block out certain IR wavelengths to achieve certain results, so this can increase the cost of ownership, but it does give you the most flexibility and you do have the option to install the band pass filter and shoot normaly (non-IR) photography with the camera. It's also a great option if you're not 100% sure which filter or IR look you like because you can basically buy filters, and have the best of both (or all) worlds in terms of IR. This is probably beyond what David is going to cover here, but something people should be aware of as an option, so if you have a camera you want to be able to also shoot regular non-IR stuff with, get a full spectrum conversion. The only downside to this is you have to have th band-pass filter, or pretty much any filter on the camera to get any type of real usable images (some people do shoot full spectrum IR cameras without a filter and do a lot of the work in post, but this is generally more complicated in post production). So having to always use a filter of some sort is a drawback (IR cameras converted to specific wavelengths don't since the camera is converted for that specific wavelength internally) but it does ovver the most flexibility at a bit of a price premium.
You can convert your camera to a full spectrum. This means that you with the correct filters can use it as a regular camera, while also use the different IR/UV filters. Much better than the permanent IR conversions.
Good to know, thanks!
Thank you..👍
Thank you for another excellent video!
I carry a ultra cheap 4k go pro copy with 720-860nm filters that work surprising!, the angle of view of170 degree is interesting.
If I forget a camera this is always in my pocket.
I want to learn infrared using this and other ir filters above 720 nm. Do you have additional tutorials I could use? Great explanations on this one!
Very informative video, thank you so much.
nice tuto. I have a d5600 full spectrum modified by Lifepixel and external 590, 665, 850, 720nm filters. i focus in liveview or viewfinder with filter installed. i am surprised capture one can set WB directly at 1500K. For lightroom, slider is blocked at 2K so you need to load a dng IR image in dng profile editor and create a dcp profile for your camera allowing to have WB below 2K for all your images. it works fine. on your cyan foliage image, you can tune in lightroom with dehaze, white, black,... and send to photoshop to make a red-blue color swap with channel mixer to have yellow foliage and beautiful blue sky. Then you can further edit yellow into red to simulate aerochrome Kolari red trees,...
When using ultra wide lenses I always buy a filter with a larger diameter and then use step-up rings so the wide view does not vignette.
How would this be for astrophotography?
Thanks for all th useful info .... !!
Fantastic video. I have always liked the look but believed the only way to achieve it was like you said have the ir filter in camera removed.
I didn't realise it was possible to get a filter to block visible light as I didn't know that some ir light gets through..
Definitely something for me to look into now 😊.
What would happen if you used a high iso above 10,000 instead of a slower shutter speed?
It would get noisy. :)
I tend to think of IR work as “fine art,” so I’d prefer to keep my ISO low.
Remember that you also can’t see through the camera so hand holding would not be so easy to do anyway.
@@DavidBergmanPhoto I missed the obvious there 😂. I forgot that part! Thank you for your reply 😊, great informative video as always and I really enjoy them. Never too long and genuinely useful, helpful and interesting.
Stay safe and I look forward to the next one.
Simon (UK)
The IR conversion is not necessarily a one way trip. I bought a converted Nikon D70s and when I am not using the R72 filter, I replace it with a BG40 Visual Bandpass 320 - 700nm Schott glass filter which only lets visible light (and some UV) pass. It can be bought online.
When we used IR film. Was there not an IR focusing mark on the lens because IR focuses on a different point to visible light?
Digital IR still seems plain compared to false color film IR.
Is there a better way to get the Film IR look???
Just like traditional (visible light!) photography, there are many options in the conversion process so you can make it look however you want!
Can I assume the Hoya filter is different than film infrared filters? I still have my red film filter from the 70's. Is there a color to the Hoya?
You can remove & replace the IR filter in your digi camera in most cases so it isn't one way unless it's destroyed.
Just started with IR photography. I use Nikon D3400 with Hoya R72 filter.
Hi David
I have a question about the Meter Timer in camera settings.
Why and when is the time setting needed to be changed from say 4sec up to 20mins.
As with any camera, the slower the shutter speed, the brighter the image. Since the R72 blocks so much of the light, you need the shutter open much longer to let in enough light.
@@DavidBergmanPhoto thanks but my question wasn't about the IR hoya as I have it and use it regularly.
The question was about the Meter Timer in camera settings in general why and when the need to be changed.
Why couldn't you convert your camera, then use a sensor IR filter (like from STC) to use it as a normal visible camera?
Could you, should you, would you, use an IR filter on a IR converted camera?
If you put a filter with a higher nm value on the lens than the ir filter on the sensor it works well, and about the same as if the camera had been converted to that higher value. Using a lower nm value filter does not make sense.
@@kbqvist Thank you!
Try once with and once without this combo... and its up to you and no one else to decide if you use athat combo or lens only...👍👍👍🤗🇨🇭
What Karsten said. :)
You would on a full spectrum converted camera.
Instagram @billypeacefromtheeast for my IR shots and more pictures.
Top five looks good!
Your works great billy … inspiring
I just bought my Hoya R72 for the Nikon coolpix p1000 but everything looks red? Is there something I'm doing wrong??
Best way is to get a converted camera. I have a converted (470nm ) Nikon D800. I also have a full set of screw on filters for different looks. THE BIGGEST piece of advice I’d give on converting... is to go with a MIRRORLESS camera. When you put a filter on the lens such as the R72 or a 850nm filter... IF you are on a DSLR... you can’t see thru the viewfinder....BUT you will see everything on live view which is what a mirrorless real is... a full time live view and that way you can still use the viewfinder. My next conversion will be a mirrorless camera
Thank you for your always interesting content! #CreateNoMatterWhat
You’re welcome!
Can I use an infrared filter on a bridge camera (canon SX60 )
That is so amazing David! Am I right I don't need to do a custom mod on my dslr camera?
Would this work on a monochrome camera?
For instance how well would this filter work on the Leica M10 Monochrom?
Hmm honestly not sure if the effect would be different. One way to find out! :)
Pay attention with the focus!
If you set the focus without filter, you will get a blurry picture.
Most of the lens need to be shifted to get a sharp picture.
On some lenses, if have a red line on the ring
Depends on the camera. If you have a camera with on-sensor contrast detection auto-focus then it will work fine with any adjustment to the lens necessary.
WITHOUT
@@geoffreypiltz271
You're right he is talking about a DSLR with a mirrorless camera you can see the and auto focus will work just
One other thing he forgot to say is that on some lenses it has a white hotspot right in the middle my Fuji zx18 55 has my other lenses are fine
I usually shoot it using the Fuji acros r to get a be image through the viewfinder
Great video! did I miss it, what processing program were you using for the color enhancement?
Nice introduction to IR photography. I've tryed a Hoya 72R on my camera and failed in love with this kind of photography. Then I modified in full spectrum my second digital camera and I use IRChrome Kolarivision filter, a Hoya 25A, a Hoya 72R. I swap red and blue channels to get the IR classic colours and they I play around to get something that looks nice to me.
Like to see the results. If possible?
My Nikon D40 does a poor job of blocking IR light compared to my D7100. So l use the D40 with the R72 filter because l get much faster shutter speeds with it. l recommend a DSLR that does not do a good job of blocking IR.
I'm confused because he says that he wouldn't modify a camera for IR because you can't use it for normal photography, however, all the people I contacted before getting my camera convert to see who I wanted to pick and how they'd deal with my questions said you could use it for normal photography you just needed a UV/IR cut filter which just blocks that light but lets in normal visible light.
You can only do normal photography if you get a Full Spectrum, then you can photograph in UV, IR and every wavelength in between. David was speaking about conversions to a specified wavelength meaning the camera will only shoot in that wavelength and above: Say if you converted it to 720nm, if would be having a permanent R72 camera but you can use higher wavelengths over the lens, but not lower ones and you would be able to do regular exposures. But, if you get say that Ultra Colour from Life Pixel or the 550 ( Kolari Chrome ) filter then you could use higher wavelengths than those filters.
Is there any advantage to shoot with a monochrome setting when shooting on an IR modified camera?
Would it help to put the camera into black and white mode first then add the filter and shoot the scene? Thanks Rick
I set my custom white balance to something g green to get the white effect
Actually a converted camera can still be used normally. There are external hot mirror filters.
It would be cool to print them on aluminum sheets.
Absolutely!
David, how did you estimate your exposure at 2 minutes?
I am using this time of filter and I set the exposure time like a 12 or 13 ND filter
Trial and error! Started at 15 seconds and my image was underexposed.
Thanks David!
🤗
Does this work with a Monochrom Digital camera?
It is not "one way", you can always mount an IR blocking filter on the lens.
Yes - you can now have it converted “full spectrum” which allows you to use filters to capture only the specific wavelengths you want. Cool stuff!
Sorry you can use filters to let you shoot regular color on an infrared converted camera.
Just ordered a 720 filter from aliexpress, only 15 euro's, great way to start i guess
Why do the images of some lenses have hot spots when shooting infrared?
In a long exposure camera sensors heat up, which makes IR light that the sensor then detects that by accident, it's an issue in Astrophotography too and needs a few tricks including image stacking to counteract, it's an interesting insight into the limits of common camera sensors
Dark backgroud dark shirt dark lenses... I need a negative video converter to see you...😢😢😢😂🤣😂🤣👍👍🤗🇨🇭
How would the dynamic range differ on an image taken with a infrared filter compared to a compared to a converted infrared camera or a non-infrared image?
Dynamics is a sensory thing. It says how many electrons (excited by the lights photons) you can store in one pixel photodiode. Has nothing to do with filter or no filter
Good question. The sensor does not change so the dynamic range of the camera doesn't change from a technical standpoint. However, keep in mind that bright and dark as we usually know it are quite different under IR light so trying to visualize an HDR image, for example, might be quite challenging! Maybe I'll have to try that next time I'm in the park. :)
I found an IR filter (67mm) on ebay for £25.
Why not just use a mirror less camera, so you can still use the view finder?!
The filter cuts out all visible light so I don’t think a mirrorless would show anything either.
@@DavidBergmanPhoto a mirror less viewfinder shows what the sensor sees. If you can take a picture, you can see it. Sure, if you need a 2 minute bulb you would need a high iso for the preview, but changing that is probably easier then screwing and unscrewed the filter.
@@ChristianSamsel I don’t think the iso would go high enough. 102,400 is 10 stops darker than 100 ISO. Based on my exposures, the R72 was around 15 stops darker.
@@DavidBergmanPhoto so you used a 120s bulb at ISO 800 and got a picture. instead you could you do 1s shutterspeed at ISO 102,400, or 51200 at 2s to look at the view finder.
I had a Canon 40D converted. I have to use live view to focus, but I love the look of IR. Here is one I took at a local Arboretum. instagram.com/p/CBG2ocRgi4a/
Very cool!
@@DavidBergmanPhoto Thank you!
Maybe I've missed something but isn't this basically like using a ND filter with extra steps???
Tom Savini? :)
I have to use really long shutter speeds with the R72, do I? Interesting. I use this filter with an unmodified Sony DSC-HX300 and it takes fully exposed infrared photos, handheld, 1/13 second shutter speed, ISO 800
You showed him
IR hotspotting tho
Chato
If you don't want to modify your cameras and have a film camera laying around, you could always buy some infrared film. Of the ones that are available Rollei Infrared 400 extends the furthest into the infrared range.
can I use an infrared filter on a bridge camera ( canon sx 60 )
One easy way to shoot IR, if you have a 35mm film body, is just to get IR film.
All this makes me miss Kodak's HEI B & W film and their infrared slide film ever the more. With the B& W film, all you needed was a #29 red filter, some high contrast paper, and fire away. Of course, turning my kitchen into a darkroom was drudgery to say the least..
It’ll be interesting to composite the IR long exposure with a regular long exposure.
Maybe some kind of IR HDR.
I have done it with my Sony rx 10 m4 and Hoya … fun when I can get the focus right !
And wb
So, I made a couple IR cameras cheap. Used point and shoot cameras on eBay for $8 or 10 bucks each, carefully opened, saved all the screws, found the little piece of glass in front of the lens and removed it. One, glued a small IR filter to the lens housing (it's a point and shoot camera after all), and the other just left open to combine color with IR. They've been great fun, and for a couple hours of work and $25 or $30 for the camera's, Is it as good as a DSLR? No, but sure is fun
Very inspiring. I use an old Nikon D70 with 720 or 860nm filter not converted.
kinda interesting but a bit costly to try
What is the editing software you are using sir