Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

D70 & Infrared

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:58:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi there, have just been googling for various methods / filters on how
to take near infrared photos with the D70. Would anyone like to suggest
a starting filter for me ?( the square Cokin slip in type )

One of the methods appears to involve playing around with the WB as well
as using various filters. I was hoping to be able just to put the camera
on the tripod, compose, slip in the filter and review each take.
Bernard

More about : d70 infrared

Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:58:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bernard Rother wrote:

> Hi there, have just been googling for various methods / filters on how
> to take near infrared photos with the D70. Would anyone like to
> suggest a starting filter for me ?( the square Cokin slip in type )
>
> One of the methods appears to involve playing around with the WB as
> well as using various filters. I was hoping to be able just to put the
> camera on the tripod, compose, slip in the filter and review each take.
> Bernard

Isn't there a filter just in front of the CCD in most/all cameras which
kills any sensitivty to IR ?

A
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:59:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:58:16 +0200, Bernard Rother
<bprotherREMOVEME@intekom.co.za> wrote:

>Hi there, have just been googling for various methods / filters on how
>to take near infrared photos with the D70. Would anyone like to suggest
>a starting filter for me ?( the square Cokin slip in type )

Cokin only make one IR filter, an 89B eqivalent. The Cokin
number is 007.

>One of the methods appears to involve playing around with the WB as well
>as using various filters. I was hoping to be able just to put the camera
>on the tripod, compose, slip in the filter and review each take.

Shoot raw, don't worry about messing with WB before you
shoot, just use AWB and meddle later :-)

--
Regards

John Bean
Related resources
August 27, 2005 6:50:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bernard Rother" <bprotherREMOVEME@intekom.co.za> wrote in message
news:D epdfq$dq6$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Hi there, have just been googling for various methods / filters on how to
> take near infrared photos with the D70. Would anyone like to suggest a
> starting filter for me ?( the square Cokin slip in type )
I am currently using a Hoya RM72.
>
> One of the methods appears to involve playing around with the WB as well
> as using various filters. I was hoping to be able just to put the camera
> on the tripod, compose, slip in the filter and review each take.
> Bernard
What I use for IR photography is an AI-S 50mm f1.4 (the only desirable
attribute is that it uses 52mm filters). I first compose and focus the shot
using the AI-S lens without the filter.
Next, I mount the filter on the lens and move the focus point to the IR
mark. None of my AF lenses have an IR mark.
Now comes the fun part.
I take shots in manual mode using the sunny 16 rule, except that this
combination needs lots and lots more exposure. I evaluate each shot with
the histogram and discard the many underexposed ones.
Eventually, I suppose that I will learn how much exposure to give and won't
need to go through all this.
At present, I can't see how to use this method with anything but landscape
shots with a very secure tripod.
It is also a good idea to use the self timer to cut down (but defintely not
eliminate vibrations).
There is a very small response on the blue and green channels. I just
convert a shot to grayscale and go on.
I can't see what you would accomplish by fiddling with WB.
Jim
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 12:34:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:40:28 +0100, Andy Dee <bill@microsoft.con>
wrote:

>Isn't there a filter just in front of the CCD in most/all cameras which
>kills any sensitivty to IR ?
>
>A

It absorbs most of the near IR as well as (usually) some red and
sometimes a little green too. However, there is enough IR passing
through to allow long exposure times with an IR-pass filter mounted on
the lens. So portrait and action are usually out of the question, but
landscape and still life are possible.

On most cameras, it is possible to remove the IR-cut filter (by
opening up the camera and voiding the warranty, of course), but it
must be replaced with a glass plate of a similar thickness, or precise
focus will be lost.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 1:01:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:58:16 +0200, Bernard Rother
<bprotherREMOVEME@intekom.co.za> wrote:

>Hi there, have just been googling for various methods / filters on how
>to take near infrared photos with the D70. Would anyone like to suggest
>a starting filter for me ?( the square Cokin slip in type )
>
>One of the methods appears to involve playing around with the WB as well
>as using various filters. I was hoping to be able just to put the camera
>on the tripod, compose, slip in the filter and review each take.
>Bernard

I get the best results with Fuji IR 82. The Nikon AF-2 gelatin filter
holder with matching lens shade is made of metal and is better than
any Cokin or other plastic things. I actually scratched an IR gelatin
filter inserting it into a Cokin holder, because it is made for rigid
square plastic filters, not thin flexible gelatin ones. Cokin holders
also leak light around the edges of the filter, which is not good.

I have the IR 82 permanently attached to the front part of the AF-2
with double tape, so I can frame and focus with the AF-2 swung open
and the filter out of the way, then close it and shoot. The AF-2 has a
72 mm thread for mounting onto the front of a lens, so you may need a
reducing ring.

Fuji makes several red and IR-pass filters. I am not sure I remember
the filter numbers correctly, but I tried a deep red (maybe R 64),
which is no good for IR photography, and another IR (maybe IR 92)
which is more or less like the IR 82 in practice.

I can tell you a secret: you don't need an IR filter to do IR
photography. If you have two polarizers, of which at least one linear
(not circular), you can put the linear one in front and the circular
or second linear one at the back, and rotate them 90 degrees to each
other (i.e., until they turn black). In theory, all light should be
cut off. In practice, polarizers don't polarize in the near IR, so the
crossed polarizers work like an IR-pass filter. You can turn the
polarizers parallel before framing and focusing, then cross them to
shoot. You can also cross them not exactly 90 degrees but a little
less or a little more, and let some visible light through together
with the IR, so you will get some colour instead of just B/W. The down
side is that shooting with parallel polarizers still eliminates at
least half of the visible light but lets all IR through, which makes
for strange results with some subjects (e.g., black velvet usually
emits very strongly in the IR, so it may be rendered as dark purple
instead of black). So you should remove the polarizers for normal
shots.

According to my qualitative test shots, the Bayer filters of the D70s
(and probably D70 too) are all transparent in the near IR, so IR will
record in all colour channels, not only in the red one. Thus, IR
picures taken with this camera are effectively monochrome (although
they look magenta straight out of the camera). Removing the IR-cut
filter in front of the sensor -might- make things different in this
respect.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 8:08:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bernard Rother wrote:

> Hi there, have just been googling for various methods / filters on how
> to take near infrared photos with the D70. Would anyone like to suggest
> a starting filter for me ?( the square Cokin slip in type )
>
> One of the methods appears to involve playing around with the WB as well
> as using various filters. I was hoping to be able just to put the camera
> on the tripod, compose, slip in the filter and review each take.
> Bernard

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
Go to reviews -> D70 -> 6. Shooting in IR

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 3:02:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:34:25 +0900, Deedee Tee wrote:

> On most cameras, it is possible to remove the IR-cut filter (by
> opening up the camera and voiding the warranty, of course), but it
> must be replaced with a glass plate of a similar thickness, or precise
> focus will be lost.

Is it possible to get a screw on filter to block IR? So if the internal
filter is removed/replaced you could just screw on a filter to the end of
the lens to effectively return the camera to normal.

-SL
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 4:34:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:02:52 +0100, Sam Lowry
<No.Spam@Thank.You> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:34:25 +0900, Deedee Tee wrote:
>
>> On most cameras, it is possible to remove the IR-cut filter (by
>> opening up the camera and voiding the warranty, of course), but it
>> must be replaced with a glass plate of a similar thickness, or precise
>> focus will be lost.
>
>Is it possible to get a screw on filter to block IR? So if the internal
>filter is removed/replaced you could just screw on a filter to the end of
>the lens to effectively return the camera to normal.

Yes, it's called a "hot mirror".

Note also that the Sigma SD10 (a dSLR) has a user-removable
hot-mirror inside the lens throat and no filter on the
sensor itself, and that many Sony cameras have a "night
mode" which rechanically removes the filter internally
making these cameras especially useful for IR work.

--
Regards

John Bean
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 5:59:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Deedee Tee wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:58:16 +0200, Bernard Rother
> <bprotherREMOVEME@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi there, have just been googling for various methods / filters on how
>>to take near infrared photos with the D70. Would anyone like to suggest
>>a starting filter for me ?( the square Cokin slip in type )
>>
>>One of the methods appears to involve playing around with the WB as well
>>as using various filters. I was hoping to be able just to put the camera
>>on the tripod, compose, slip in the filter and review each take.
>>Bernard
>
>
> I get the best results with Fuji IR 82. The Nikon AF-2 gelatin filter
> holder with matching lens shade is made of metal and is better than
> any Cokin or other plastic things. I actually scratched an IR gelatin
> filter inserting it into a Cokin holder, because it is made for rigid
> square plastic filters, not thin flexible gelatin ones. Cokin holders
> also leak light around the edges of the filter, which is not good.
>
> I have the IR 82 permanently attached to the front part of the AF-2
> with double tape, so I can frame and focus with the AF-2 swung open
> and the filter out of the way, then close it and shoot. The AF-2 has a
> 72 mm thread for mounting onto the front of a lens, so you may need a
> reducing ring.
>
> Fuji makes several red and IR-pass filters. I am not sure I remember
> the filter numbers correctly, but I tried a deep red (maybe R 64),
> which is no good for IR photography, and another IR (maybe IR 92)
> which is more or less like the IR 82 in practice.
>
> I can tell you a secret: you don't need an IR filter to do IR
> photography. If you have two polarizers, of which at least one linear
> (not circular), you can put the linear one in front and the circular
> or second linear one at the back, and rotate them 90 degrees to each
> other (i.e., until they turn black). In theory, all light should be
> cut off. In practice, polarizers don't polarize in the near IR, so the
> crossed polarizers work like an IR-pass filter. You can turn the
> polarizers parallel before framing and focusing, then cross them to
> shoot. You can also cross them not exactly 90 degrees but a little
> less or a little more, and let some visible light through together
> with the IR, so you will get some colour instead of just B/W. The down
> side is that shooting with parallel polarizers still eliminates at
> least half of the visible light but lets all IR through, which makes
> for strange results with some subjects (e.g., black velvet usually
> emits very strongly in the IR, so it may be rendered as dark purple
> instead of black). So you should remove the polarizers for normal
> shots.
>
> According to my qualitative test shots, the Bayer filters of the D70s
> (and probably D70 too) are all transparent in the near IR, so IR will
> record in all colour channels, not only in the red one. Thus, IR
> picures taken with this camera are effectively monochrome (although
> they look magenta straight out of the camera). Removing the IR-cut
> filter in front of the sensor -might- make things different in this
> respect.

I never had a linear polariser but I tried 2 circular ones. Composed and
then rotated one polariser until the viewfinder went completely black. I
then exposed for 30 sec. Everything came out a magenta colour which I
converted to greyscale.. looked sorta IR but I wasn't too impressed with
my first attempt. Before the conversion the sky was still dark blue, was
hoping for a nice black.
Is this where the linear polariser would come into play .... giving me a
straight B&W on the LCD review screen ?
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 5:59:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:59:43 +0200, Bernard Rother
<bprotherREMOVEME@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>Is this where the linear polariser would come into play .... giving me a
>straight B&W on the LCD review screen ?

You'll always get colour even if you use a proper IR filter
- you're using camera with a colour sensor... ;-)

You need to convert to greyscale either by setting a B&W
mode on the camera (if it has that feature) or by
post-processing with an image editor.

--
Regards

John Bean
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 12:06:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In case of the D70, the IR blocking filter lets enough IR through to allow
the D70 to be used successfully for IR photography. This is not the case
with the 20D, 350D, 300D and Nikon D2X. BTW, Canon produced a special 20D
with the IR blocking filter removed.

Useful for IR photography are the Nikon D70 and D2H.

When doing IR work, use an IR filter in front of your lens that blocks
higher frequencies.

Gregor

"Andy Dee" <bill@microsoft.con> wrote in message
news:D epfum$f9i$1$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk...
> Bernard Rother wrote:
>
>> Hi there, have just been googling for various methods / filters on how to
>> take near infrared photos with the D70. Would anyone like to suggest a
>> starting filter for me ?( the square Cokin slip in type )
>>
>> One of the methods appears to involve playing around with the WB as well
>> as using various filters. I was hoping to be able just to put the camera
>> on the tripod, compose, slip in the filter and review each take.
>> Bernard
>
> Isn't there a filter just in front of the CCD in most/all cameras which
> kills any sensitivty to IR ?
>
> A
>
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:25:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:34:08 +0100, John Bean wrote:

>>Is it possible to get a screw on filter to block IR? So if the internal
>>filter is removed/replaced you could just screw on a filter to the end of
>>the lens to effectively return the camera to normal.
>
> Yes, it's called a "hot mirror".
>
> Note also that the Sigma SD10 (a dSLR) has a user-removable
> hot-mirror inside the lens throat and no filter on the
> sensor itself, and that many Sony cameras have a "night
> mode" which rechanically removes the filter internally
> making these cameras especially useful for IR work.

yes but is there a filter that can be screwed onto the lens that will make
the camera act as if the internal block had not been removed? And if so how
much do they cost?

-SL
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:07:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:25:57 +0100, Sam Lowry
<No.Spam@Thank.You> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:34:08 +0100, John Bean wrote:
>
>>>Is it possible to get a screw on filter to block IR? So if the internal
>>>filter is removed/replaced you could just screw on a filter to the end of
>>>the lens to effectively return the camera to normal.
>>
>> Yes, it's called a "hot mirror".
>>
>> Note also that the Sigma SD10 (a dSLR) has a user-removable
>> hot-mirror inside the lens throat and no filter on the
>> sensor itself, and that many Sony cameras have a "night
>> mode" which rechanically removes the filter internally
>> making these cameras especially useful for IR work.
>
>yes but is there a filter that can be screwed onto the lens that will make
>the camera act as if the internal block had not been removed? And if so how
>much do they cost?

Erm... I already said 'Yes, it's called a "hot mirror"' when
you asked this the first time, so I don't really understand
why you ask it again. But the answer is still the same.

Try looking up "hot mirror filter" using your search engine
of choice.

--
Regards

John Bean
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:28:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:07:02 +0100, John Bean wrote:

>>yes but is there a filter that can be screwed onto the lens that will make
>>the camera act as if the internal block had not been removed? And if so how
>>much do they cost?
>
> Erm... I already said 'Yes, it's called a "hot mirror"' when
> you asked this the first time, so I don't really understand
> why you ask it again. But the answer is still the same.
>
> Try looking up "hot mirror filter" using your search engine
> of choice.

Sorry, I thought you meant that the camera with the IR block removed was
referred to as having a "hot mirror" something I had already looked up. I
now can find screw on filters now I know what they are called,

Thank you and sorry about the confusion.

-SL
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 2:43:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:28:19 +0100, Sam Lowry <No.Spam@Thank.You>
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:07:02 +0100, John Bean wrote:
>
>>>yes but is there a filter that can be screwed onto the lens that will make
>>>the camera act as if the internal block had not been removed? And if so how
>>>much do they cost?
>>
>> Erm... I already said 'Yes, it's called a "hot mirror"' when
>> you asked this the first time, so I don't really understand
>> why you ask it again. But the answer is still the same.
>>
>> Try looking up "hot mirror filter" using your search engine
>> of choice.
>
>Sorry, I thought you meant that the camera with the IR block removed was
>referred to as having a "hot mirror" something I had already looked up. I
>now can find screw on filters now I know what they are called,
>
>Thank you and sorry about the confusion.
>
>-SL

Probably it will not match the camera's white balance. The built-in
IR-cut filter usually looks light bluish/grenish, so substituting the
IR-cut filter with an external hot mirror probably will give you
pictures with a definite red/orange tinge.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 2:43:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:43:46 +0900, Deedee Tee wrote:

>>Sorry, I thought you meant that the camera with the IR block removed was
>>referred to as having a "hot mirror" something I had already looked up. I
>>now can find screw on filters now I know what they are called,
>>
>>Thank you and sorry about the confusion.
>>
>>-SL
>
> Probably it will not match the camera's white balance. The built-in
> IR-cut filter usually looks light bluish/grenish, so substituting the
> IR-cut filter with an external hot mirror probably will give you
> pictures with a definite red/orange tinge.

I normally shoot with custom WB, so that shouldn't be a problem. Being
brave enough to open the camera to replace the internal filter on the other
hand....

-SL
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 3:28:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sam Lowry wrote:

> I normally shoot with custom WB, so that shouldn't be a problem. Being
> brave enough to open the camera to replace the internal filter on the other
> hand....

Hello,

Google is your friend ;) 

I would suggest you study carefully the respective pages about hacking a
Canon 300D/Digital Rebel:
http://ghonis2.ho8.com/rebelmodnew.html

I suspect that converting a D70 to this should be very similar. Aha,
here it is:
http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/d70/ircut.htm

I think these pointers should be enough for a start.

Regards from hot Athens,
N.Fotis
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 4:11:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Purchase an IR filter and shoot that way.
I just looked the links about taking the camera apart and you know what.
Most people are so ham-fisted, the result will be a trashed camera.

rtt


"Sam Lowry" <No.Spam@Thank.You> wrote in message
news:1ak280ucrpf9j.1ioa8xt34k6e4$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:07:02 +0100, John Bean wrote:
>
> >>yes but is there a filter that can be screwed onto the lens that will
make
> >>the camera act as if the internal block had not been removed? And if so
how
> >>much do they cost?
> >
> > Erm... I already said 'Yes, it's called a "hot mirror"' when
> > you asked this the first time, so I don't really understand
> > why you ask it again. But the answer is still the same.
> >
> > Try looking up "hot mirror filter" using your search engine
> > of choice.
>
> Sorry, I thought you meant that the camera with the IR block removed was
> referred to as having a "hot mirror" something I had already looked up. I
> now can find screw on filters now I know what they are called,
>
> Thank you and sorry about the confusion.
>
> -SL
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 4:06:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:11:32 -0400, Richard Tomkins wrote:

<re-ordered for clarity>
>> Sorry, I thought you meant that the camera with the IR block removed was
>> referred to as having a "hot mirror" something I had already looked up. I
>> now can find screw on filters now I know what they are called,
>>
>> Thank you and sorry about the confusion.
>
> Purchase an IR filter and shoot that way.

I have a Hoya IR filter, but because of the internal block the only way I
can get an image is with a very long exposure (>10 - 15 secs) if you want
to have a human or an animal in frame and have them sharp (or if you want
to hold the camera in hand) this is too long, removing the internal block
would allow for normal exposure times.

> I just looked the links about taking the camera apart and you know what.
> Most people are so ham-fisted, the result will be a trashed camera.

I'm not ham-fisted, but I do still baulk at the thought of opening an
expensive piece of equipment and poking about inside.

-SL
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 9:34:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I set my 5700 to 400 ISO or even 800 ISO and get exposures that are less
than 1 second or better. My Hoya is an R72.


"Sam Lowry" <No.Spam@Thank.You> wrote in message
news:cb6lyb40x3n8$.blfmqsltvwqm.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:11:32 -0400, Richard Tomkins wrote:
>
> <re-ordered for clarity>
> >> Sorry, I thought you meant that the camera with the IR block removed
was
> >> referred to as having a "hot mirror" something I had already looked up.
I
> >> now can find screw on filters now I know what they are called,
> >>
> >> Thank you and sorry about the confusion.
> >
> > Purchase an IR filter and shoot that way.
>
> I have a Hoya IR filter, but because of the internal block the only way I
> can get an image is with a very long exposure (>10 - 15 secs) if you want
> to have a human or an animal in frame and have them sharp (or if you want
> to hold the camera in hand) this is too long, removing the internal block
> would allow for normal exposure times.
>
> > I just looked the links about taking the camera apart and you know what.
> > Most people are so ham-fisted, the result will be a trashed camera.
>
> I'm not ham-fisted, but I do still baulk at the thought of opening an
> expensive piece of equipment and poking about inside.
>
> -SL
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 2:56:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sam Lowry wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:11:32 -0400, Richard Tomkins wrote:
>
> > I just looked the links about taking the camera apart and you know what.
> > Most people are so ham-fisted, the result will be a trashed camera.
>
> I'm not ham-fisted, but I do still baulk at the thought of opening an
> expensive piece of equipment and poking about inside.

Fortunately, the D70 is much simpler in opening than the equivalent
Canons.
At any rate, I would propose you get an used D70 (these should be cheap
by now) in order to experiment on it (a used Canon 300D should be a good
idea for people like me who own EF lenses, despite the much higher
complexity in assembling/disassembling it).

N.F.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 5:47:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Deedee Tee <abuse@localhost> writes:
> Probably it will not match the camera's white balance. The built-in
> IR-cut filter usually looks light bluish/grenish,

So do all the external hot-mirrors I've seen and used.

> so substituting the IR-cut filter with an external hot mirror
> probably will give you pictures with a definite red/orange tinge.

No, you the camera works quite normal with respect to WB.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
!