 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TomOC
|
Ok, so many of you have converted an old body to IR... I've been thinking about doing it to an old D2x but then I saw an article in last month's Popular Photography about how to make a conversion using Adobe Camera RAW. Here is my first attempt. Before I waste much more time, I'd like your thoughts on whether this really simulates IR or is just another "effect" that I probably won't do again  Attachment: xp1-2623.jpg (Downloaded 45 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
Looks good to me. B&W IR is one effect but there is also false colour IR that is provided by having the camera converted. Eric and Robert are more successful at this than I am! |
|||||||||
jk
|
Do you have a reference to the Popular Photography article. Which month and page? |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
It's on my desk at home...will get it tonight. Don't see it on their Web site, but may not be looking correctly |
|||||||||
Eric
|
TomOC wrote:Ok, so many of you have converted an old body to IR... I've been thinking about doing it to an old D2x but then I saw an article in last month's Popular Photography about how to make a conversion using Adobe Camera RAW. That looks very good Tom. Would also be interested in the technique. I think you need to try it on different lighting situations...try an overcast woodland....and also see how non natural elements are rendered. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Thanks... I'll try some more. I do see, though, that the color element is the big thing I missed in the concept duh |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
BTW, the process was VERY simple...took all of about 2 minutes |
|||||||||
Eric
|
TomOC wrote:BTW, the process was VERY simple...took all of about 2 minutes There is an IR filter option within Photoshop. I played with it some time back but wasn't impressed. Your result though is very realistic. It renders the shaded areas of the foliage as realistic greys. It also renders the two different tree types differently...which is realistic. I will be intriqued to hear the technique....it would reduce the weight of my lens bag significantly, not having to cart the D200IR body and lenses around!! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
While we are waiting with baited breath for Toms technique how about debating whether it's photography or not? I hear so many people talk about post capture manipulation not being 'real photography', I wonder if the converted camera mob will draw the same comparison with IR? Personally I stopped bothering about these 'differences' soon after getting my first digital camera. In fact my business slogan was 'creating a better image'. Whilst it was aimed at improving companies product and presentation appearance, the double meaning was always there. Have always subscribed to the belief that 'inside every good photo, there is a great image waiting to be released'. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
It looks good Tom, perhaps a little more contrast in the foreground but that's nitpicking. Is it possible to mask out the sky from the process on a separate layer? |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Actually, I did brush in a little more detail in the foreground. Masking the sky might not work...the changes are applied in ACR and I don't think I can mask first, but what do I know |
|||||||||
Eric
|
TomOC wrote:Actually, I did brush in a little more detail in the foreground. Open the file a second time as a layer, with different settings. You can then selectively erase or blend.  |
|||||||||
richw
|
Eric wrote:While we are waiting with baited breath for Toms technique how about debating whether it's photography or not? I totally agree Eric, the skill in producing the final image regardless of what techniques/tools you use to get there. |
|||||||||
jk
|
OK I have been playing with the method that Tom sent me. Download the attached zip file to your desktop and expand it to get 'False IR.xmp If you then open an image file (RAW or JPG) with ACR then in the Basic tab (right corner there is a funny icon) you then apply the XMP file, called 'False IR.xmp' (in the attached zip file), by doing a Load Settings. Voila.... The image is False IR processed by the method described in the magazine. You can then Open Image and play in Photoshop. Attachment: False IR.xmp.zip (Downloaded 5 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
The resulting Before/After is like this. Attachment: XP1-1-3153-colour-ir-web.jpg (Downloaded 29 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
Next stage is to tweak and play in Photoshop to get it just how you like it. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Eric wrote:TomOC wrote: Right...I was thinking of an ACR only solution. Thanks Tom |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Good work, JK !!! Now, would you mind doing one for IR color? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Ive managed to find an IR image with a corresponding colour shot that I could convert with the ACR method. Although the D7000 image has more detail (new sensor, more pixels, no internal IR glass?) and produces an interesting image, the ACR technique is causing artefacts at leaf/sky interfaces. (you may need to download the image to see it more clearly) The problem is, the rimlighting effect you get with leaves against the sky, bleeds colour as well as light onto the leaves. This then is neither green or cyan...but a colour somewhere between that the simple ACR sliders cant isolate and convert adequately. The ACR image has benefits ...I just wonder what a D7000 converted to IR would deliver? Attachment: DSCF0962.jpg (Downloaded 21 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
if you cant download it this is a sectional enlargement from under the D200 (left) and D7000 (right) captions. Attachment: DSCF0962b copy.jpg (Downloaded 21 times) |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
My thought is that one should bite the bullet and have a sensor adapted to IR to make IR images...especially since you just may choose a COLOR image Interesting idea, but too limited to spend much time on.... Thanks for convincing me |
|||||||||
jk
|
I noticed the bleeding as well on my image. It is one of the reasons which the technique is OK to show a B&W IR effect but lacks the real touch of images produced from an IR converted camera. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric, thanks for doing this, may we see the original D7000 image please? I am interested why the shadow detail in the dark firs is so different between the two IR images. This seems to be similar to the apparent loss of highlight detail in the original image Tom posted. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote: Eric, thanks for doing this, may we see the original D7000 image please?yes of course...below I am guessing its exposure. As you know....but for the benefit of those who havent dabbled with IR ..... With IR you get a fluorescence from the foliage which is in effect extra exposure. The camera sensor cant 'see' this effect and therefore meters ONLY the visible light. When the overal scene lighting is high (bright sun) the fluorescence is a minor part and the meter sets exposure for the scene correctly (OK the highlights might be a tad over, due to this extra fluorescence, but that gives the IR some of that hazy dreamy look). But in shadow areas this 'invisible light' is a greater contributor and lightens these areas. The nett effect is a lower contrast image. The significance of this can be seen when you shoot on a cloudy day. The meter says 'its a bit dull' and opens up the aperture ...but the fluorescence is still there...so the image overexposes! I have to drop exposure when the sun goes in! This balancing of elements can be critical, as (from whats been said above) the shadow areas on inanimate objects will be darker than the shadow areas of a foliage subject in the same scene! You can see this in the windows of the building on the two IR images, where the D200 has rendered them darker than corresponding shadow areas of foliage in the same lighting. Of course, ideal exposure depends on what percentage of the image is taken up by foliage. If its only a supporting role ....then the exposure 'error' is less and keeping normal settings works ok. Which brings me to the second point. For those aspiring to take good IR shots. One of the most important points about an IR image....is the contribution of the parts that ARENT WHITE. Instinctively we try to shoot wooded valley, trees by lakes, trees and grass. IMHO this becomes too boring...there is no 'subject contrast'. You NEED inanimate objects...eg...a gate, a wall, a sign, a machine, a (dark) building to counter the overal whiteness. In fact, I feel the white foliage should be a supporting role! That being the case....when I tried to use a typical scene with a mix of natural and inanimate objects, I found the ACR method didnt recognise them as inanimate objects and rendered them on pure colour. It gave some weird changes to some (eg cars with coloured stickers) that were too distracting. The ACR method simply doesnt differentiate between things that need to be IR and others that are normally rendered just grayscale. I will now stop rabbiting on. Attachment: DSCF0962col.jpg (Downloaded 26 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Of course you can break the rule of 'not too much foliage' for an effect.... Attachment: _IR21463.jpg (Downloaded 26 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
TomOC wrote: My thought is that one should bite the bullet and have a sensor adapted to IR to make IR images...especially since you just may choose a COLOR imageI just convinced myself 'out' of leaving the D200IR at home when I go on holiday. More weight to carry!  Of course the other good thing about the IR sensor conversion, is there is some residual colour in the image (more or less depending on the filter choice). This subliminal colour can be worked on in CS to produce interesting effects with very little effort.... Attachment: _IR20666v2.jpg (Downloaded 26 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
or like this... This is an original IR shot... NOT merged with a colour shot! Ive just flipped the residual colour to blue on one layer ....and flipped it to red on another ....boosted saturation...then blended the two layers. OK ...Im getting weirder.  Attachment: _IR23679.jpg (Downloaded 26 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Thank you Eric, very interesting how the D200IR seems to record such good shadow detail compared with the D7000, I am not surprised. And please, keep Rabbiting on!!!  I have been looking at this from a simplistic point of view. Why would so many clever and specialised photographers dedicate a DSLR body, (or several) and invest heavily in modifying them and keeping dedicated IR friendly lenses, when there is supposedly a viable software alternative? The exposure is KEY. To that there is no alternative. Eric, have you assessed the process the software uses, is it an action? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
for those who want to see the transition...... Attachment: _IR23679.jpg (Downloaded 27 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote: Thank you Eric, very interesting how the D200IR seems to record such good shadow detail compared with the D7000, I am not surprised.It seems to me that the major adjustment is just done with the colour sliders. see screengrab This is my point. Sure its a clever bit of optimisation but with only 8 colours to adjust the pallette control is limited. And its when the colours fall between that the artefacts show up. It needs a dithering alorithm...which the ACR interface doesnt offer. Attachment: Untitled-1.jpg (Downloaded 25 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote: TomOC wrote:I really do like this image (EVENTIDE). Everything about it is great! Love the crows in the sky the lines of the landscape, the light in general.My thought is that one should bite the bullet and have a sensor adapted to IR to make IR images...especially since you just may choose a COLOR imageI just convinced myself 'out' of leaving the D200IR at home when I go on holiday. More weight to carry! I would love to have the original NEF so I could see the original and then see how you have managed to get to the final image. |
|||||||||
jk
|
OK I'll try and dig out the text of the how from the Popular Photography article. Have to make it an image rather than just text. Attachment: False IR Steps.jpg (Downloaded 26 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: OK I'll try and dig out the text of the how from the Popular Photography article. Okay there is more adjustment in that sidecar than I previously thought....confess I didnt look at the Basic sliders. Having worked through the worded steps, I still maintain that the problem is limited, stepped colour adjustment of a continuous tone image. You HAVE to drop the sky tone down to black to hide the banding of colour steps. Its almost posterising! here's halfway.... Attachment: banding.jpg (Downloaded 24 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
I made the xmp file but I followed the article steps and then did a Save Settings. So any deficiencies are either a mistake I have made or a miss in the article content. It may be that I didnt use the actual value from the article as I was testing it for my image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I made the xmp file but I followed the article steps and then did a Save Settings. So any deficiencies are either a mistake I have made or a miss in the article content. I don't think it's the content of your file Jonathan...I just think with this method you blitz all the element colours, irrespective of whether they would respond naturally to IR. But it's the steps that concern me. |
|||||||||
jk
|
OK. One aspect seriously worried me was the conversion to greyscale. This destroys all colour info. I dont lke this as I like to have colour in my IR. I also tried taking the B&W and the original colour image and combining this produced some really false colour IR images that I am still experimenting with. I am sure that the 'kooky' images look very 1970s psychadelic and strange but would cause heart failure for many purists! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:OK. One aspect seriously worried me was the conversion to greyscale. This destroys all colour info. I dont lke this as I like to have colour in my IR. I had wondered about the grayscale conversion BEFORE the colour adjustments. You effectively drop to a lot less (128) shades of 'grey' and then try to work on them????? Its the opposite to the established logic for grayscale images ... When you scan a photo, you should always scan in RGB and then convert to grayscale rather than scanning in grayscale from the outset. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:I also tried taking the B&W and the original colour image and combining this produced some really false colour IR images that I am still experimenting with. I am sure that the 'kooky' images look very 1970s psychadelic and strange but would cause heart failure for many purists! Me, Purist? Attachment: Screen Shot 2013-04-24 at 23.23.51.jpg (Downloaded 18 times) |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Holy tomales...what have I started. Now I'm convinced I need an IR converted D2x Great stuff, guys...this thread should be archived |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:jk wrote: Robert.....you are going to have to stop eating those mushrooms! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: I really do like this image (EVENTIDE). Everything about it is great! Love the crows in the sky the lines of the landscape, the light in general. Just to shatter the illusion of rural tranquility. It was taken on a busy East Yorks road. The foreground is so tightly cropped to exclude a crash barrier! Was just driving along, saw the landscape, pulled over...shot out of car window in between passing lorries! |
|||||||||
jk
|
 But the illusion is of evening in the tranquil countryside. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: Sorry!  |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:Robert wrote: |
|||||||||
jk
|
Robert I think you must have some druid blood working there. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
jk wrote:Robert I think you must have some druid blood working there. Just when I thought all the hippies moved to California |
|||||||||
jk
|
If you take a standard JPG and then use this Khromagery action then you get some false IR effects. http://khromagery.com.au/resources.html http://khromagery.com.au/FalseColoursAction.zip Depending on the image and your change settings the effects can be quite interesting but not true IR. Attachment: XP1-1-3153-small-kir-pair.jpg (Downloaded 37 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:If you take a standard JPG and then use this Khromagery action then you get some false IR effects. Is that (right) effect classed as fake IR? |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think that true IR is when the image is capture with an IR converted camera like your D200 or my D70 or Robert's D1. Then the image can be processed on to get similar but different effects which look more like the old film IR Ektachrome. To me if you use a standard colour image and mess it around you get pseudo IR. |
|||||||||
Judith
|
Eric wrote:
I agree. I'm fed up listening to people looking down their noses at the mere mention of Photoshop, as if you are somehow "cheating". I see it as part of the arty farty process of arriving at the final image and at the end of the day, it's what it looks like that matters not how you got there. So, they can continue looking down their snotty noses for all I care. I just see them as lazy for not learning how to apply the finishing touches to their pics.  Have downloaded the xmp file. Looks interesting. |
|||||||||
Judith
|
Oops, didn't notice there were another two pages of posts - I am behind the times!! Bloody hell, Robert, I had to put my sunglasses on to look at that psychadelic number! :-O Eric, rabbit on as much as you like - all very interesting. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Judith- It's not that they think you worked for an hour to make a cool image, they think you have some secret sauce app that makes all the improvements with a single click - and they don't know where to buy the app!!! |
|||||||||
Judith
|
I think people really do think that photoshop is some kind of magic app. As you say, one click et voila!! Sigh... |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Well, it IS magic... But I haven't found the "viola" command yet... |
|||||||||
jk
|
I have a whole box of secret sauce apps but unfortunately you need to make sure that the genie doesnt get out of the bottle too often? Like everything I think everyone has their own opinion of how much is right or wrong but ultimately it is a personal choice. If you dont like it then dont use it. I will say that since cameras dont have a curves app built in then using Photoshop or some other similar application is a must if you want to have a particular tonal range other than a straight line flat (monotonous) tone! |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Didn't the Old Masters paint with a variety of home made pigments, oils and toners to get the exact shades they wanted, what's the difference? |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Robert wrote:Didn't the Old Masters paint with a variety of home made pigments, oils and toners to get the exact shades they wanted, what's the difference? REALLY??? You mean that Rembrandt CHEATED??? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Well didn't Ansel Adams use a tripod? I'm told that's cheating... Where do we stop? Studio lights? Reflectors? Flash? Filters? I think the only true was it to BE THERE! LOL |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote: Well didn't Ansel Adams use a tripod? I'm told that's cheating...Its a valid question...at what point does 'manipulation' of the scene start. (Not sure even the most devout purist would condem a tripod as the devil's spawn. )But using fill in flash/reflectors.... adjusting exposure selectively in the darkroom .....doing the same in photoshop, to me are all the same. Its just optimising the tonal range of the image to better reflect what the eye sees as opposed to what the limitations of the film/senor capture. Taking this argument further... What is the difference between selective cropping in the darkroom (we have all done it to better frame the subject and exclude distacting background detail we missed when shooting!) and cloning/airbrushing distracting detail from a photo? Personally I draw the line here..... After this there are all manner of manipulative 'degrees' but they are all fake 'photos'. Nothing wrong with that ...its artistic license. Its ok to change colours and add items not in the original scene for specific reasons but these cannot be regarded 'as seen'...just like most paintings! I include IR shots in this category. Whether done in camera or in photoshop they are distortions of the observed scene. Just as adding ANY filter on the front of the camera (with the possible exception of polarisers, NDs and haze filters???) is a distortion of the real scene. To this end I have always drawn (at least) a descriptive distinction between photos and images. Maybe semantics, but we capture photos ...and create images. my 2 cents. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think that there is also another a point for consideration. This is where a photo is changed or has elements added (like your table and chairs in dappled shade) to show a potential result of buying the product. I think this is acceptable use of Photoshop. However the unacceptable side is where news or other journalistic images are deliberately changed in order to mislead the viewer to either make the photo more shocking or saleable. However the end game is deception. We also need to be aware that some people are more easily deceived than others! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: I think that there is also another a point for consideration.Indeed. My dappled shade image isnt a photograph ...in my eyes....but the customer is happy to call it one! But I suspect its more about when a spectacular CS adaptation is shown alongside the best efforts of an in camera version that people cry 'foul'. Apples and Pears. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I guess as long as the customer pays your invoice he can call it what ever he wants! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: I guess as long as the customer pays your invoice he can call it what ever he wants! Very true. As the saying goes " It doesn't matter what you call me....as long as you call me for dinner" |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |