Infrared photography

[petrochemist]

Originally Posted by yelvertoft

For the benefit of John, and others, this is what a digital image looks like with an IR72 filter and no post-processing.

Hey Duncan I've got one almost identical to that but in landcape form.

With the 920nm I think I get more of a dark purple... (but still disparately needs PP). I think the only way to avoid PP is to shoot in B&W mode, unless some dedicated convertions avoid the requirement.

Sometimes I've been lucky and got interesting images with just a click on the 'auto WB' or 'autocolour/exposure' button but this is highly unpredictable
examples can be seen here
http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/photo/us...stalking-21511 (Now in Gallery)
& http://flic.kr/p/8YCTuY (nearly monochrome)
(I'll try and remember to post these to the gallery tomorrow, I've added one other tonight - but that reaches my daily limit)

[andy153]

Hi folks, I'm a bit late coming in on this thread but I use an IR converted Nikon D100 - done by ACS. And I use a Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 lens for almost all my IR work. Several of my shots in my gallery are from this camera. Some are B&W, some colour, some processed, others not. I find the main trick is the WB - my shots come out with a strong magenta cast in Auto WB but in Custom WB - usually set from bright green grass in strong sunlight - the pictures like this 1 & 2 have almost no processing. As a member also of Nikonians I posted this on their web site some time ago - it comes from the Advanced Camera Services (ACS) Web Site and I found them to be very helpfil when I had my camera converted. I think it is very useful for anyone trying out or taking up IR photography. LINK
This give you a basic guide to taking and processing IR pictures.

[Joe]

I would Echo Andy's method of achieving I.R photographic results. Some of the early Nikon sensors are very red sensitive so lend themselves well to a full conversion. We've had several D100's done, and a couple D1 and D70 aren't bad either