 |
| |
| 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 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Robert
|
My shiny new D200 IR from Eric. Although I still have my D1 IR, I find the controls a bit antiquated and strange so I have tended not to use it as often as I would like. I enjoy exploring the invisible spectrum but having other interests it's been taking a back seat recently. I also feel the tonal range and low resolution are a bit limiting, especially if I want to be creative and combine IR and normal exposures into one image. Here is one of the first images I have made using Eric's 'old' camera. It's set up perfectly and seems very much better than the D1 in every regard. This is slightly cropped and mildly adjusted in Lightroom 3.6. Attachment: Apples IR.jpg (Downloaded 79 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
I thought I would have a little play... Created three layers, colorised the two back layers then drilled through with an eraser brush to reveal the apples and branch. Great fun! Attachment: Apples Green.jpg (Downloaded 80 times) |
|||||||||
MaxSouthOz
|
They look good enough to eat, Robert. :thumbsup: |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Thanks Max, I was tempted! Look out for the windfalls later... |
|||||||||
Eric
|
And I thought I had emptied that body of all it's good images!!!!!! Did I mention it was only a loan?  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Nice work Robert. Enjoy. I will need to get working with my D70IR again. I want to try and get a Fuji XE1 converted to IR use. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Looks really good, Robert. Yet more eye candy to push me to make a conversion... Cheers, Tom |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:Nice work Robert. Thank you Jonathan, I am really happy with my new friend! I think I have resolved a minor focusing issue too. :thumbsup: Don't you have a D300? I would think that would convert nicely. These tiny cameras are all very well but why not recycle...  |
|||||||||
Robert
|
TomOC wrote:Looks really good, Robert. Thanks Tom, I am currently editing another one and I can see flies legs at three yards plus. Amazing! Wouldn't have even seen the fly with the D1. <vbg> |
|||||||||
Robert
|
A bit lame but having spent my spare time today creating this I may as well post it... The black dots on two of the apples on the left are flies, at 100% magnification I can clearly see their legs. Windfall. Attachment: Apple Windfall.jpg (Downloaded 67 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
Robert wrote:jk wrote: The D300 is my underwater camera for macro, I have another old D70 for my wideangle underwater stuff. My D1x awaits your tender care for UV conversion. I am waiting to see what Nikon and Fuji have up their sleeves at Photokina in mid-September. If the D400 or the like comes then that works for me but if Fuji release the XPro2 then I may well dump almost all of my Nikon gear and go Fuji. To do that the XPro2 will need to have even better AF than the XT1 or as good AF speed as my Nikon D300 or D3 and also be 20-24MP, the XPro1 will then be converted to IR. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:My D1x awaits your tender care for UV conversion. My as new Philips 00 is at the ready! In the meantime having forgotten to save the 'Windfall' image I spent the morning creating this: Taken with D200IR with Nikkor 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR Attachment: Oakdale IR C.jpg (Downloaded 53 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
From this: Attachment: Oakdale as shot.jpg (Downloaded 58 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
100% Crop in PS. Please bear in mind this image has been reduced in size by the forum software by about 50%. I haven't done side by side but I think the IR conversion has increased the D200 sharpness due the absence of an anti-aliasing filter. Cows legs (Top left) just defined on my screen at about three miles seems pretty good to me. Attachment: Oakdale IR 100% Crop.jpg (Downloaded 58 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
The EXIF: Attachment: Oakdale EXIF.jpg (Downloaded 59 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
The pre-process settings in Lightroom 3.6: Attachment: Oakdale settings.jpg (Downloaded 53 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:The pre-process settings in Lightroom 3.6: Robert, if you adjust the tint to -80/84 you will get a more sepia, less red, starting image, more akin to the D70. It can give a bluer result to the blues .when flipping channels. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Thanks Eric, another tip for my edufication! I rarely, if ever, touch the tint settings in Lightroom (usually a last resort when all else fails!!!) but I will give it a try next time. I have often wondered about varying the channel swap slightly to influence the final tones especially the sky. Perhaps my Victoria sponge of layers needs the channels switching slightly differently for each layer. Bit more blue for the sky etc... Just to help things along. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Thanks Eric, another tip for my edufication! I rarely, if ever, touch the tint settings in Lightroom (usually a last resort when all else fails!!!) but I will give it a try next time. Sorry forgot to mention my starting point. I found that starting from the default d200 settings left the converted image more in the cyan/ green area of blue as the starting (opposite) colour is this slightly red/magenta hue. By shifting the tint closer to yellow you are instead starting from the complimentary colour of blue. The interesting thing is that you don't actually need to calibrate the camera WB. If you just shoot on auto...then set the temperature to 2000 and the tint to -80 it should give you same result. I just remembered this discovery.... I should do this on Fuji!!!!!!!!!!!  |
|||||||||
jk
|
What was the replacement filter that was fitted to the D200 ? The RAW rendering looks different to the images from my D70 (720nm filter fitted) which seems to produce a browner result SOOC. Was it 720, 660, 590 nm or some other? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
720nm. The 'normal' IR pass filter as far as I know. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Hmmm.. When LifePixel first offered these filters did we all get the same ones? I think that we bought ours first then when Eric got his there was a new improved version that he got. Maybe I dont remember accurately the exact changes they made to the filter but I think it was a subtle change. I think we will need to meet up at Westonbirt again with the IR cameras and compare results. I will probably come across to UK late September or early October which should be perfect for the autumn colours there. Do you remember the special green and grey cards you made up many years ago ? Are you using these to WB the camera or are you using grass? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:What was the replacement filter that was fitted to the D200 ? It was supposed to be 720 as is my Fuji. Of course it depends on the custom wb you set. But it's my recollection that the temperature can't go any lower than 2000 in ACR ...so all IR shots are 2000. It's only the tint that varies ! I found all my D70 were -80ish tint whereas the D200 are-64ish. I've never tried it but arguably you don't need ANY wb in camera if you shoot IR in raw. Just use a preset in ACR to 2000/-80. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
This isn't a Lifepixel filter (I don't think). There are sources in Europe, Schott? Glass for one, where I think my 'Venus' UV band pass filter was sourced. Lifepixel started to make other wavelength filters available but I am not aware of a 'better' 720nm filter unless they widened the pass band, but that might not be an improvement? Just checked, David at ACS supplies 720 and 830nm filters but can supply others to order. The 830 images i have seen are way too stark and contrasty for artistic photography (unless of course that is the effect you want), more for forensic use I suspect. I may ask him for a spectrum graph of the ACS 720, just to see what I got but It works well, so in some ways there isn't much point except to guide others in the same direction and from an interest PoV. This is an interesting site for bandpass charts: http://rocoes.com.tw/2008e/optical/bandpass.htm And: http://rocoes.com.tw/2008e/optical/camfilter.htm This page may provide a springboard to further information, some understanding of German may be needed! LOL: http://www.baader-planetarium.de/sektion/s45/canon_astroupgrade-english.htm Westonbirt sounds great, just let me know when. I really enjoyed the last visit, I have a fresh car now so perhaps the exhaust won't fall off on the way home!!! LOL Yes I still have the green and grey cards, use the grey occasionally, The D200 is pre set by Eric but as he mentioned, it's all adjustable in processing by setting the WB to 2000 and tint to 80 or thereabouts. My D1 is set from brightly Sunlit grass. As an aside, I remember from when I first used Bibble 4 the WB seemed to adjust lower than 2000 which seems to be the lower limit in must software/hardware and that was one of the reasons I switched to Bibble for the IR photo processing plus I liked the subtle control of the light shades often found in UV images. I have found now I am getting more proficient with Ps that isn't such an advantage but I did like the way Bibble 4 worked. There is also focus the de-cluttering factor of just using one application, rather than having to learn the finer and complex controls of multiple deep application software. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
OK I am talking part rubbish here ....my memory needed sorting!!! I have just revisited the 3 generation raw files (D70/D200/Fuji) The image below shows the difference. On the left the 'as shot' settings D70 2000/-85, D200 2000/-64, Fuji 2000/-77 Alongside the D200 and the Fuji are their default files adjusted to -85. In doing this I have rejogged my memory. Firstly, there is less difference between the D70 and D200 as shot colours than I remembered. The Fuji is clearly a different glass source! But the reason why I adjusted the D200 back to -85 was NOT to get it closer to the D70 but to null out some of the magenta in the tint. I found the D200 images slighty (doesn't show on screen) more red/magenta When you try to play with residual colours I found Magenta a messy hue to have present...it makes things greeny when you do any channel mixing (without a lot of manual intervention) I shifted the hue back to -85 on the D200 because it gave a purer yellow overall cast which was easier to work with ...especially when flipping to the complimentary colour blue! There were less spurious colours creeping in. My memory was correct with regard to WHAT I did...not WHY!!!! Robert Its interesting that ACR is limited to 2000 temperature when you say Bibble allowed less. It seems to me THAT is what is required to null out residual colour on the files...be that magenta or yellow. Of course full or partial desaturation can do that. But having SOME colour there does make creative tinting easer. How do the D1X raws compare to the D200 and what numbers? Jonathan What are you using for p[rocessing the D70 IR shots? If ACR, are the numbers the same 2000/-85? Attachment: tints.jpg (Downloaded 28 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
Thanks Robert and Eric. That information is very useful. I need to work out what the Tint slider really does. Those Fuji images look really delicate, subtle. This is getting more and more tempting but I need to see what is released at Photokina. I will then decide if to convert my XE1 or XPro1. I like the size of the XE1. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
One other point about colour casts. As you know when taking recent holiday shots with the Fuji I struggled with hotspotting on my available lens. The Fuji shot shows a hotspot despite my attempt to minimise it with aperture and focal length choice. If you bang the saturation up to maximum you can more clearly see this central anomaly and more annoyingly, its a blue colour. This anomaly therefore not only introduces an optical flaw but a chromatic shift...which when you start messing with colours can reeeaaally slew the result across the image. Its also puzzling why the hotspot IS blue? Does this mean the anomaly happens at the sensor rather than in front of the IR filter? Why would it respond differently in colour if it was just internal lens glass reflection????  I saw this phenomena some time ago and incorporated this knowledge into my hotspot removal sequence. FYI KNOWING the hotspots are blue-magemnta I first try to eliminate these colours from the image (hence the desire to shift to a yellower overall tint). Essentially that is nothing more than using hue/sat set to blue and then magenta channels, decreasing saturation AND modifying the lightness to balance some of the exposure difference to the rest of the image. Once that's done I can mask to correct the slight over exposure in the centre of the image. Only then I can get on with the normal messing about. :thumbsup: Attachment: hotspot.jpg (Downloaded 28 times) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Thanks Robert and Eric. The tint slider is the green -> magenta The temperature slider is the blue -> yellow |
|||||||||
jk
|
Getting more what I visualize and want from my IR photos these days. Attachment: D70IR-1-0758-2.jpg (Downloaded 25 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
And then really messing with it. Attachment: D70IR-1-0758.jpg (Downloaded 25 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
And then there was Kodak Ektachrome IR. Attachment: _IR23232-2s.jpg (Downloaded 24 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
I have edited the thread title to be more appropriate to the content of this thread for any possible searches in the future. I had not envisaged the feedback and discussion. It's refreshingly welcome, keep it coming. Many thanks for the interest. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:And then there was Kodak Ektachrome IR. Interesting how that process has brought up the boat's name plates correctly as red with white letters... |
|||||||||
jk
|
OK a question. When I Export from Lightroom then I get my image EXIF saved into the JPG image. When I do the same from Photoshop CS6 it always strips the EXIF. What setting do I need to change in Photoshop CS6 to get it to save the EXIF data to the image?. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:OK a question. When I Export from Lightroom then I get my image EXIF saved into the JPG image. When I do the same from Photoshop CS6 it always strips the EXIF. Without looking I can't say.... All mine in the gallery have their exif and they were done in photoshop. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Getting more what I visualize and want from my IR photos these days. You seem to have a different result from that filter, Jonathan. Was that a Lifepixel filter conversion (by them or you) ? |
|||||||||
jk
|
The D70 images of mine that I posted is using some actions I have gathered over the years and modified and developed onwards in an attempt to make my IR processing easier/better. These images were taken in a D70 with the LifePixel 720nm filter replacing the Nikon HotMirror filter. The pseudo Ektachrome IR film effect on Robert's shot is something I have been trying to achieve and finally managed it. I have the XMP for it so it should be reproducible. I will try and make a Photoshop Action over the next week or so. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:The D70 images of mine that I posted is using some actions I have gathered over the years and modified and developed onwards in an attempt to make my IR processing easier/better. Ah ...so the first one isn't directly from the camera? I thought it showed a colour temperature below 2000 and wondered if your filter was causing it...and how? |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric, it may have been through Bibble 4 which I seem to remember does go below 2000, although I don't think it's calibrated as such... in the same way as ACR is. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric, it may have been through Bibble 4 which I seem to remember does go below 2000, although I don't think it's calibrated as such... in the same way as ACR is. The whole process of WB calibration against green is really only relevant if you are shooting jpeg or need some help visualising the image on the LCD. If you shoot on auto wb the image is invariable horribly red. But using an ACR or Bibble preset of c. 2000/-75 brings the image back closer to 'normaility'. I suspect 1500degK would be better, if it is attainable. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote:Robert wrote: I hadnt realised this until one of your earlier posts.  I also found an article about using the DNG Profile Editor and followed it but it was like everything DNG a heap of DuNG! Adobe have really completely mis-sold DNG to the general public. Fortunately I never bought into their idea. However there are people out there who now shoot in RAW import into Lightroom, convert the RAW into DNG and dump the RAW file. If there is a more stupid workflow then it can only be to delete the DNG as well once you have the jpg. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
I have had one A2 print made of the 'Oakdale' image (the boat), after a quick examination I am very pleased with the result, need to get it mounted and framed before I can really assess the image properly. As for DNG and deleting the NEF, I can only liken that to making prints then burning the negatives. Fine if you only need the prints but madness if you ever want or need to revisit the processing. I lost all my negatives from my early photography which I had carefully stored, I still have some prints but only poor small ones, if I still had the negatives I would now be in a position to re-photograph them and bring them into the digital age. You can never know what new technology is around the corner, nor what will happen with proprietary formats. Who knows, Corel, Google or Facebook may buy Photoshop next, then where would we be??? Stuffed. OK that may never happen but it could, or something equally unthinkable. At least with the original NEF format you can always go back to square one. After loading the image files into Lightroom I fairly ruthlessly 'X' any image which is oof, has issues or is repetitive, then I delete them from the drive. The cost of large hard drives is very low nowadays, there is no need to delete good image files simply to save space. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Had a quick look back and I think the cleanest image from the D200 files is at 1666K / -75Tint |
|||||||||
jk
|
This discussion has been very insightful and helpful to me. I have managed to identify that in fact I need to concentrate more on the pseudo-WB in the post processing stage and then the Tint and then the Channel Swapping. Once all those are correct for the image then you can really mess with the HSL to get whatever IR effects. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Bump! |
|||||||||
jk
|
Well I am now out of NDA so I can say that i have been testing the new Phase One Capture One Pro version 8 (COP8) software. It processes IR RAW very nicely and I am very happy with the results I am getting. The process in COP8 is much easier than using Photoshop ACR and actions to swap channels etc. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Thanks for posting JK, now I am better used to the channel mixer in Ps I like the it because I use it to adjust colours on differing layers using the channel mixer rather than hue-saturation. It seems to go deeper and get more detail into the unsaturated highlights and the lights, in comparison with the hue-saturation tool. That was how I applied the colours to the Apples and the sky in the Oakdale image. I will download the software and try it, but not just yet, I have enough on my plate right now. http://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Software/Capture-One.aspx I still miss Bibble, I felt it allowed more subtle control of the whites than Ps. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
When I called on my buddy yesterday to tell him I didn't want the D3 right now, he offered me a tempter! He went into the loft and produced a box of 'older' lenses mainly film lenses. Without itemising them all, I picked out two which particularly fancied, a Nikkor 28mm f2 and a Nikkor 85mm f2. The 28mm f2 has a close focus of 250mm which is nice, with CRC (close focus correction). It seems like a very nice lens, according to Bj¸rn it may be a very good IR lens. I need to try it on the D200 IR. Not so sure about the 85mm f2, looking at the test images it seems to have a colour cast. Thinking back I seem to remeber the w/b being adjusted at that point, but it wasn't reset after that so remained for the 28-70mm test images which seem OK... I also tried a 'broken' Nikkor zoom 28-70 AFS, which cosmetically could be new but only focuses by hand. This is a heavily cropped test image taken from about 18inches in very poor lighting, one central 'economy' ceiling light in late afternoon. D3, Nikkor 28mm f2.0 @ f2 1/100Sec ISO1000 Attachment: 28mm @ f2.8.jpg (Downloaded 16 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
This image, also heavily cropped was taken with the Nikkor 85 f2. I feel it seems to have a cast. Unfortunately they were all taken in JPEG so there is reduced scope for adjustments. These images are all 'As shot', straight from the card into Lightroom, then a selective screenshot. D3, Nikkor 85mm f2.0 @ f4.0 1/50Sec ISO1000 Attachment: 85mm @ f4.jpg (Downloaded 14 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
D3, Nikkor 28-70 mm f2.8 @ 70mm, f3.2 1/40 Sec ISO1000 This seems a nicely balanced colour probably very close to reality, same w/b settings as the above image. Attachment: 28-70mm @ 70mm,f3.2.jpg (Downloaded 12 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
The WB on the D3 works pretty flawlessly for me. If I use anything other than Auto in natural light or Flash in the studio, even then I can leave it on Auto and then there is a 'blue moon'! |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Had it been my camera JK, that is what the setting would have been and saved to NEF, possibly saving a JPG to a second card? Although I am yet to be convinced about that methodology. Increases complexity and why would I need duplication? I have never lost an image from a card yet. (Kiss of death there!). |
|||||||||
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. |