Ever tried blending IR with color ?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/17/2004 03:09:22 AM · #1

I took a color image and an infrared image from exactly the same position. In Photoshop, I pasted the infrared image (after auto levels) on top of the color image and then selected blending mode "luminosity".
So you get the color from the color image but the light distribution from the IR image, so the foliage shows up really light.

Because there was some time in between the images, the clouds had shifted, which creates the brownish patterns in the sky. But I like it, it adds to the painterish feel of the image.

I tried it on some other images as well, and I find it gives best results when there is a strong structure in the image which catches the eye (like the church here) combined with water and foliage.

Count

Canon EOS-30D

05/17/2004 03:17:13 AM · #2

That is really cool... lets see more!

Sammie

Olympus OM-D E-M5

Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/17/2004 03:17:49 AM · #3

Very nice, Willem, I like it. The picture has a very surreal look.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

05/17/2004 03:21:38 AM · #4

Definitely a great picture. Brought it up in one of the threads during the week for cool shots to check out. It would be nice to see a tutorial for the technique.

Message edited by author 2004-05-17 03:32:30.

dani22884

Canon PowerShot A70

05/17/2004 04:16:03 AM · #5

wow....i like it. very cool.

ghoti

Nikon D70

05/17/2004 05:07:18 AM · #6

Very good idea! There is another example near the bottom of this page, where they blurred the (non-IR) color channels before combining the images. Both images (yours and the one I link here) are fascinating, I need to try those things out too ;)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/17/2004 05:23:02 AM · #7

Originally posted by Count:

That is really cool... lets see more!

I have another one in my portfolio, here :

And you can see the color and infrared originals here.

I will develop a small tutorial on it.

agwright

Canon EOS-20D

05/17/2004 05:41:43 AM · #8

are you using a R72 filter ? what iso,F stop etc are you using ... amazing photos

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Canon

05/17/2004 06:50:16 AM · #9

Originally posted by agwright:

are you using a R72 filter ? what iso,F stop etc are you using ... amazing photos

No , I use a Heliopan RG780 filter, (Wratten 87), which has a higher cut-off point then the Hoya R72. Which means is passes less visible red light then the Hoya filter, it is more pure infrared.

I still want to get a R72 as well. I have seen great results where the visible red is swapped to the blue channel to create the infrared images which are largely B&W but then with a blue sky and water.

These infrared images were taken with the nightshot mode of my Sony (with IR filter and ND8 filter), which only works in fully automatic and is limited in shutterspeed. These are probably 1/60 s at F2, I did not check.

Jovi

Sony DSC-F717

05/17/2004 07:10:14 AM · #10

Amazing shots! Very surreal looking. I like it!

garlic

Canon EOS-10D

05/17/2004 07:19:20 AM · #11

Those are very nice images and interesting technique. Looks a bit like paintings.

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

05/17/2004 08:20:49 AM · #12

Man I wish my s602z could shoot in infrared.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

05/17/2004 08:35:49 AM · #13

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

Man I wish my s602z could shoot in infrared.

I think it can, check here.. Is that the same camera ?

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

05/17/2004 08:42:35 AM · #14

COOOL! I thought that you needed an infrared function on your camera, not a filter. Well, there goes my inexperience shining through again.

Thanks for the wake-me-up, Willem.

Oh and BTW, love your stuff. You rock!

Nikon AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D

05/17/2004 09:06:47 AM · #15

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

Thanks,

and just for info to many others :

Many digital camera's are sensitive to infrared and contain special infrared blocking filters because the image made of visible light would be worse without it.

If you then put an IR filter on the camera (which is an IR pass filter, so it passes IR light but blocks visible light) and use long shutterspeeds, then you still get sufficient IR light in to record an image. Some blocking filters in newer camera's are that good that the camera is not sensitive enough to do this anymore.

For this method of IR you just need an IR filter, a camera and a tripod. And then use long shutterspeed. (but it is of course a bit strange to block visible light with the screw-on filter and block IR light with the internal blocking filter, and still expect a decent image of the remaining light passing through).

The Sony also has a special nightshot mode, which removes the internal blocking filter, so the camera becomes very IR sensitive. This can only be done in auto mode with limited shutterspeeds because otherwise it could be used to see through certain types of wet clothing. Because of the limited shutterspeed you not only need to use an IR filter but also an ND filter, to limit the amount of light coming in and prevent overexposure.

The advantage is that shutterspeeds are much faster then the first method, so not a problem if it is windy. Also normal autofocus can be used, whereas otherwise you need to use manual focus. But you can't influence aperture and therefore depth of field.

DJLuba

Nikon D2Xs

05/17/2004 10:01:26 AM · #16

Thanks! Now I've gotta go out and buy something else for my camera.

This is really cool, and I have to try it. I was just in the camera store yesterday holding a circular polarizer in my hand (HOYA), and just couldn't pulll the trigger. Good thing for me..... because I have to give this a go.

Thanks for sharing...very cool.

Ok, I'm editing my own post to add this.

OMG this filter is expensive!

Message edited by author 2004-05-17 10:04:16.

ghoti

Nikon D70

05/17/2004 10:12:46 AM · #17

Originally posted by DJLuba:

OMG this filter is expensive!

Do you really need 77mm? And buy an R72, that's much cheaper too. I got one for 58mm for about EUR 45, iirc.

DJLuba

Nikon D2Xs

Nikon AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D

05/17/2004 10:24:26 AM · #18

Originally posted by ghoti:

Originally posted by DJLuba:

OMG this filter is expensive!

Do you really need 77mm?

I would have liked to use IR on my 17-35 and 28-70, which both are 77mm, but this isn't going too happen. I could buy a new lense with a smaller filter ring for cheaper. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Nikon AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D

05/17/2004 10:26:49 AM · #19

Originally posted by ghoti:

Originally posted by DJLuba:

OMG this filter is expensive!

Do you really need 77mm? And buy an R72, that's much cheaper too. I got one for 58mm for about EUR 45, iirc.

The RM90 version is the one with the high cut-off point. The R72 passes more visible red and is cheaper.

DJLuba

Nikon D2Xs

05/17/2004 10:31:44 AM · #20

Originally posted by willem:

The RM90 version is the one with the high cut-off point. The R72 passes more visible red and is cheaper.

Ok, cool. I didn't notice that. The R72 is a bit cheaper.

Thanks for the heads up on that. Next stop eBay!

ghoti

Nikon D70

05/17/2004 10:44:11 AM · #21

Originally posted by willem:

The RM90 version is the one with the high cut-off point. The R72 passes more visible red and is cheaper.

But that makes the RM90 only usable with cameras that actually move the hot filter out of the way, like the Sonys, right? Because in my case, for example (Canon G5), the camera's infrared filter will block everything that the RM90 lets through ;) At least it will be very difficult to get an exposure, I already have quite long exposure times with the R72.