This infrared photography tutorial will guide you to your personal IR solution by identifying and explaining the most relevant and important choices.
- You are interested in infrared (IR) photography in general, but you would like to understand the topic better before you get started?
- Maybe you are already considering infrared photography, but you don’t know what to expect?
- Do you feel simply overwhelmed by some of the technical details or concepts?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, this infrared photography tutorial might be exactly what you were looking for.
1.Why do we need an(other) infrared photography tutorial?
In reviewing many of the resources available on the internet, I found that many of them:
- cover only a certain aspect of infrared photography
- are too technical, thus limiting their audience
- are simply outdated, for example they cover only film photography
To address this, I wanted to create a structured introduction to the world of digital infrared photography. It should not be too technical and it should make the reader aware of choices and limitations. At the same time, it should provide useful guidelines for decision making.
Now that we have clarified the purpose, let’s jump right in!
2.What is digital infrared photography?
The first thing we will cover in this infrared photography tutorial is: “What is this all about?”. In a nutshell, infrared photography is about recording images using a spectrum of light beyond what we can see with our naked eyes.
What makes infrared pictures so attractive to many of us? Most would say it is the unreal look of bright white foliage – as if covered with snow, combined with a dark sky and ethereal glow around contrasty edges. Often, infrared pictures are also presented in black and white, with strong contrasts.
One of the nice things about infrared photography is that it works best in strong, direct sunlight. This is usually when all the other photographers complain about “bad” or “too harsh” light.
3.Two ways to get started
This infrared photography tutorial covers the two major options you can start with. You can either use an infrared filter or you can have your camera converted to infrared:
3a.Infrared filters
The most cost-efficient way to try out if digital infrared photography is something you like or not, is to buy an infrared filter. When you screw the filter on your lens and look through your viewfinder / at your rear display, you will see… pretty much nothing. Since the visible part of the light is blocked out, only a fraction of the light that would normally reach the sensor passes through the filter. In this regard, using an IR filter is like using a very strong neutral density (ND) filter. As a consequence, you need to either increase the exposure length, open up the aperture and/or increase the ISO value. When using an IR filter, you will need a tripod and be able to shoot only static subjects.
- Pros: rather inexpensive; no camera modification required
- Cons: the filter might fit only some of your lenses; no autofocus after mounting the filter; very long exposure times (you will need a tripod and a static subject); focus issues (see below)
3b.Camera conversion
This modification will make your camera much more sensitive to infrared light, compared to using an IR filter. After the conversion, usually you can take handheld pictures the same way as with an unmodified camera. In technical terms, the low pass filter in front of your sensor is replaced with a different piece of glass. This lets infrared light pass but also cuts out at least part of the visible light spectrum.
You have an older digital camera sitting in the corner collecting dust? You may want to convert it into your brand-new digital infrared camera. Low resolution is usually not an issue, and noise at higher ISO values will actually add to the mood of your pictures.
- Pros: autofocus works; “normal” exposure times; usually no tripod required
- Cons: rather expensive; camera dedicated only to IR photography
Once you have decided to have your camera converted, your next question will likely be: Where can I have my camera converted? You can read the answer in my article Infrared Camera Conversion Service: The Complete Provider Overview.
4.Now you need to make a decision
This is probably the toughest decision you need to make in this digital infrared photography tutorial. Think about the following question: What attracts you when you look at IR pictures? Is it the false colors? The white foliage with a blue sky? Or do you prefer black and white IR? Because with one exception, you cannot have it all at the same time.
In the “good old days” of film photography, your choices were very much limited by the type of IR film available. With digital infrared photography, you have many more options available to you, especially when you convert a camera.
To support your decision making, I have added a separate article where I perform an extensive infrared filter comparison, along with visual examples of how the results will look like. I recommend reading this article if you need some guidance with your filter choice.
4a.Full Spectrum conversion
This is your choice if you don’t want to limit your options. The filter lets the entire light spectrum pass, from Ultraviolet to Infrared. You can then select the desired output by placing a filter on your lens. This approach is a combination of using infrared filters and camera conversion. While this is the most flexible option, it is also less convenient. You will need to carry multiple filters or at least step-up rings for all your lenses.
4b.You are still undecided? Here is a bonus tip…
You still cannot make a decision because there are two ore more conversion choices you find really attractive? For example, you like the idea of creating nice IR blue sky effects using a 665 nm filter? But sometimes you would also like to create impressive black and white pictures using a 820 nm filter? And you don’t like the Full Spectrum idea of having to use a filter on your lens all the time?
I may have a solution for you: Go for the filter with the lower cutoff frequency. In the example above this is the 665 nm filter. You can now take infrared pictures using any lens you like. And if you would like to take Deep B&W pictures, buy an 830 nm filter for your favorite lens. With it you can take those impressive black and white pictures anytime you want. It is like having the best of both worlds!
Do you find this tutorial helpful? To show your appreciation, why not buy me a coffee? ☕ No subscription. No further obligations. Just a quick and simple sign of gratitude. 🙏
5.Issues you need to be aware of
One of the reasons why I wrote this infrared photography tutorial was that there are some important things you need to be aware of. You need to know about them before you start your personal journey into infrared photography:
5a.White balance issues
Depending on your infrared filter choice, the automatic white balance feature of your camera may no longer work as expected. So on your camera display, the pictures will show up with a strong red cast. For “Deep” and “Standard” IR filters, you can reduce the strong red cast by taking a custom white balance reading off an area of green grass or green foliage. For “Enhanced” and “Super” IR filters, you can try setting white balance using a standard grey card. Disclaimer: LifePixel provided this helpful information.
Infrared pictures in Lightroom
Especially if you are using Lightroom, prepare yourself for a shock when you import infrared pictures for the first time. The pictures will look nowhere near like on the display of your camera, but will show a strong red cast:
You can reduce the red cast somehow by setting the right white balance in camera. But usually what you will see right after the import is similar to the example above. This is true even if you did follow the the instructions above and the pictures on the back of your camera did not look bad at all. This issue is caused by limitations in the software. I wrote an article about how to fix this and set the proper white balance in Lightroom. If you use different software to edit your pictures, this issue probably does not affect you.
5b.Lens issues
Almost all the lenses produced are designed for optimal performance in visible light. Usually their infrared performance is not predictable. There are also no simple rules like “More expensive lenses work better in infrared light”.
In fact, I have often found the opposite to be true. See my Olympus MFT lens infrared performance review for a few examples. When the lens is not suitable for infrared photography, you will see a hot spot on your picture. A hot spot is is a circular area in the center of your picture, with a visible brightness (and often also a color) shift:
A hot spot usually shows up more prominent if the camera is pointed towards a strong light source, like the sun. A hot spot may also only be visible at certain aperture settings. The only reliable way to find out if a lens will produce a hot spot, is to test it. A good idea would be to rent a lens for a weekend, before you buy it for your infrared camera.
Having said that, the Internet is full of reports about the IR suitability of specific lenses:
- The Lens Hotspot Database by Kolari Vision, in my opinion currently the best resource out there.
- IR and Lenses by DPanswers
- IR Photography Intro on Ultraviolet Photography
- Jason Odell has a page specifically about Nikon Z Lenses Infrared Performance
- My own Olympus MFT lens infrared performance review.
If this is not enough, you can always google your lens name plus ‘infrared performance’.
Don’t underestimate diffraction
Especially with the more extreme IR filters – 820 nm or even higher – diffraction (your pictures get more and more blurry as you stop down the lens) can become a real issue in infrared photography.
You can check the diffraction limits for your desired combination of camera and infrared filter using my infrared diffraction calculator. Make sure you choose a lens with an aperture that allows you to take diffraction-free pictures.
5c.Focusing issues
Infrared light does not focus at the same point as visible light, this fact is called infrared focus shift. If you are the owner of an older lens, look at the distance scale. You will find a (typically red) mark – either a dot or an “R” as in the example below:
This is the infrared focus mark. It indicates how far you need to rotate the focus ring to achieve correct focus in infrared light. With an infrared filter in front of your lens, this is your only choice to get the correct focus. First, you focus using visible light. Then you screw the infrared filter on the front of your lens and turn the focus ring according to the infrared focus offset. Reality is that most of the newer lenses do not have this mark anymore. Without this mark and using an infrared filter, you can only guess the correct focus distance. You can use a small aperture to increase the depth of field. Or you can take a series of pictures with slightly different focus distance settings and check for correct focus on the camera display.
Focusing with a converted camera
With a converted camera, focusing is a lot easier, as your camera’s autofocus system will be usable. But it will not always focus correctly, depending on the type of autofocus system it uses:
- DSLR cameras typically use phase detection autofocus systems. They are very fast, but their accuracy depends on the wavelength of the light. That means, during the conversion, the DSLR needs to be calibrated to a specific lens. This is because each lens has a different infrared focus shift. Or you can have your DSLR calibrated to visible light and use the infrared focus marks on your lens for correction.
- In “Live View” mode, your DSLR will use contrast detection autofocus. This is also the autofocus system used by most mirrorless cameras on the market. This autofocus system is generally slower, but more precise. Its biggest advantage is that it works independent from the wavelength of the light. As such, it does not need any form of calibration if you want to use the camera for infrared photography.
In summary, mirrorless cameras have an advantage over DSLRs when you convert them to infrared. There is no need to calibrate them to a specific lens. Their contrast-detection autofocus system works as good in infrared light as in visible light. With a DSLR, make sure to use the “Live View” feature for precise infrared focus.
6.Conclusions and checklist
After going through this infrared photography tutorial, I hope you are now aware of your choices, but also the limitations. Summarizing the information above, this is your infrared photography checklist:
- First, decide if you would like to try out (get an infrared filter) or get serious (have a camera converted) about infrared photography
- Next, decide on your choice of infrared filter, based on what you like about infrared pictures
- Make sure your pictures are as neutral as possible by ensuring proper white balance – in your camera and in your photo editor
- Research the lenses you are planning to use – they should not produce visible hot spots
- Finally, be aware of the infrared focus shift. Address it by using the infrared marker on your lens or by using contrast-based autofocus with your DSLR
With that, I wish you good light and a lot of success with your infrared pictures! If you have any questions about this digital infrared photography tutorial, please leave a comment below and I will be happy to reply.
Can you support this site?
Do you find this article helpful? To show your appreciation, why not buy me a coffee? ☕ No subscription. No further obligations. Just a quick and simple sign of gratitude. 🙏
Read about the important difference your contribution makes. 😊
Thanks for the nice tutorial, Robert!
I have an Olympus E-M1 Mark II with the Life Pixel full spectrum conversion, and I use behind-the-lens filters from STC.
How do you keep track of what filter you have used? Is there a reasonably standard place to note it in EXIF data?
Thanks!
Hello Jan, unfortunately I don’t have a solution for this problem, either. While I am using different White Balance presets for each of the filters, this information is to my knowledge not available in Lightroom, which is what I use by default. Using exiftool, it is possible to extract this information, though. So – in theory – you could write a script that uses exiftool to extract your White Balance information, and then write a plain text comment into the file about which filter was used. But this is all VERY technical, and tbh I would not want to write to my original RAW files…
Having searched about a bit, it seems the `UserComment` field is used by some IR photographers for saving filter information. So I’m now using that for all manner of such information that isn’t automagically recorded, such as polarizer, tripod, etc.
`UserComment` shows up in extended EXIF data in numerous programs that provide complete access to metadata. It is viewable (but not editable) in `Preview`, `Affinity Photo 2` and `XnViewMP`, but not in `Finder`. So it needs to be set some other way, like `exiftool`.
exiftool -overwrite_original_in_place -preserve -UserComment=”850 nm IR filter” *
Thanks also for the tip of using foliage for in-camera white balance. I had been colour-balancing in post, which is tedious and inconsistent. I now have a custom white balance set up in-camera for 850nm. (Above is for MacOS and OM-1.)
Well, if that works for you, very good. I have some converns regarding writing to my original RAW files, but maybe that’s just me – I would still prefer a solution where the WB data used shows up in Lightroom, so you can seach and filter for it.
Hallo i have a Sony a7r2 converted with 850 ir filter can i still set my white balance my self using a exspo disk or gray card .
Thank you.
The short amnswer is yes, the longer answer is here: An In-Depth Infrared Filter Comparison -> 820 nm
Hi Robert,
Your sharing of your knowledge of IR photography is much appreciated. I hope you can help me with a project I am about to undertake. I want to compare the halation effect found in the Kodak HEI film as well as other IR films to digital IR methods such as using the Orten Effect. I am also evaluating the use of the Lensbaby Velvet 28mm to see if it can produce similar effects. My question is at what position of the sun to capture IR images that include a small pond so that the water is black (no IR reflection)? Should I keep the sun to my back, in front or to the side? Or would high noon be the best? I know about the 90 degree rule for dark or black skies, just not sure about water.
Thank you for your sharing of all your IR photography knowledge and experience, much appreciated.
Hi Dave, thank you for the very interesting question. I had a reply in my mind, but I went back and looked at my library of IR pictures to confirm it. The answer is pretty easy, if you think about how IR photography works: Everything that reflects infrared light will end up as a bright or white object in the picture. Everything that does not reflect infrared light, will end up as a dark or black object in the picture.
So, to answer your question: I don’t think it matters too much where the sun is located – what you want to do is to avoid reflections of IR light in the water. Reflections of foliage, a clear sky or direct sunlight is what you want to avoid getting a dark water surface. You refer to the 90-degree rule – this is for using a polarizer. And this might actually be a good idea: use a polarizer to minimize or get rid of reflections in the water surface. To be honest, I haven’t used a polarizer with a digital IR camera so far, but I don’t see a reason why it shouldn’t work the same way as with visible light. The one caveat I can see is that a polarizer usually also cuts down reflections of foliage – and this is definitely not what you want. You may have to experiment by rotating the polarizer until you are happy with the result. I might try that at some point in the future, just because your question made me curious :-)
Good luck with your project, perhaps you can keep us updated once you are finished?
Thank you Robert for the fast reply to my question about IR light reflection and keeping water dark. I have had that experience of IR reflected off of foliage, then visible as reflection on the water that is between the camera and the foliage. I can’t remember where the sun position was, most likely close to meridian and possibly a little behind me. Penelope Taylor posted some tips on the Kolari web site and her examples were with the sun behind the photographer, but no mention of keeping the water dark. This will be a fun exercise, if only I could find some Kodak HEI film that I can trust. I am comparing the Rollei IR film to digital, but I will be using a metallized, mirror like mylar tape on the film pressure plate to reflect as much IR light back into the film base.
Thanks again for your reply and sharing your IR photography skills.
Dave
Hi Robert, wonderful article! Is there an iso advantage to converting to full spectrum? Similar to the iso advantage of monochrome only sensors? Appreciate any insight.
Hi Daniel, thanks for the question. The real question is: an ISO advantage compared to what? With a full spectrum converted camera, you will most likely never take pictures without a filter. With a UV/IR blocker filter, you add what you have removed with the conversion, so there is likely no advantage. For any IR filter, there is usually a huge advantage compared to using an unconverted camera, especially in the area of 720 to maybe 850 to 900 nm. The advantage decreases the closer you get to ca. 1000 nm, as the sensor sensitivity decreases. Hope this answers your question.
Good evening, I would like to ask how many stops does the 750nm.how many stops does 850nm.and how much is the 950nm
thank you very much!!
Unfortunately this is not possible, site it depends on both the filter and the sensitivity of the sensor at a specific wavelength, especially with the longer wavelengths. As a rough guideline, some examples are given in my Infrared Filter Comparison article.
Terrific and thorough handling of the subject. I am going to be testing some manual legacy lenses (Rokkor) and modern ones as well on a 720nm converted Fuji mirrorless camera to see which ones don’t have a hotspot. Is the hotspot plainly visible in the viewfinder or the LCD when playing back images on the back of the camera?
It would be great to make a hotspot determination on the spot rather than uploading and reviewing.
Thanks Robert. Excellent resource.
Bob
With a mirrorless camera, you should be able to clearly see the hotspot in the viewfinder. It might help to switch between normal and Black & White preview (if your camera offers this feature), because sometimes the hotspot is more of a hue shift (which you can see better in color mode), and sometimes more of a brightness shift (which you can see better in Black & White mode). Just be aware that even if you cannot see the hotspot in the viewfinder, it might still be there and post-processing activities like contrast enhancements will make it visible.
I have a converted Nikon D7100 in super color 590nm. Is there any benefit to adding other filters to the front of the camera? Can it change the nm sensitivity at all using filters ? I’m just experimenting with that idea.
Sure – as I wrote here, you can put filters with a longer wavelength cutoff frequency in front of your lens.
Thanks!
Hi Robert,
First of all, great page and articles! Really appreaciate your work. I have one question, as I am preparing to convert Canon Eos M6 to full spectrum (did a nikon 5100 before and it went well). Do you think that if I remove the low pass filter and not replace it with quartz or anything, it will function ok with Lens screw on filters? I would assume that since the camera adjust the focus “on sensor” the pictures should not be out of focus (same as with Live view on nikon). Do you have any experience with this type of conversion? Thanks in advance for the reply!
I don’t think this is a good idea. The reason that even for full spectrum conversions the low pass filter is replaced with a piece of optical glass, is that this piece is a part of the optical path. Removing it may lead to heavy diffraction or the inability to focus at certain distances. I would definitely consider a full spectrum conversion instead.
Thanks Robert! I’ve browse around for few days, and found information that without the glass/quartz element it will not focus to infinity – so pretty much will have to organize a piece of glass :)
Best
P.
I tried a 950 Filter on my 720 converted fuji xa 5 ,but the results are dreadful,so my advice,avoid problems in b/w infrared by using 720 or 590,the benefit of stronger filters is marginal….and again,the 16-50 works great in b/w up to f 8,0,sharp and no visible hotspot,maybe in color ir things are different
Thank you for sharing this. The 950 is really an extremely dark filter, for special purposes only.
Hello Robert,
thank you for all the information you shared with us.
do you know about infrared film cameras as well? I’m starting to shoot infrared images with a Rolleiflex camera and I was looking for advice about which filter I should use and also about the focus issue.
Thanks a lot in advance
Dora
Dora, I am sorry but I never used infrared film. However, from past researches I know that there is still a lot of information on the Internet which applies to IR film. Good luck!
Hello,Dora,I shot ir film for many years and always used dark red filters instead of ir filters,you can focus on the screen and shoot hand-held,the results are very close to a strong ir filters,you have to add contast in post processing( printing),that‘s it.Stick to the ir mark on the lenses,enjoy!Best greetings Fritz
Hello! I’ve got an 720nm IR conversion. I was wondering about illumination that works with this in low light, do those IR lights such as this one https://www.amazon.co.uk/ORDRO-LN-3-Rechargeable-Illuminator-Replacement/dp/B088K77B34/ actually work, I’m not entirely sure from what ive been reading! Thanks in advance!
I am sorry, but I have no experience with artificial IR lighting. You may want to try it out and report back here?
Thanks! If I do I will report back!
Robert, the information you shared here is helpful and it seems that my question may have been answered a few times in the comments. But I want to make sure! I have a 590 Schott (Zeiss) optical glass filter on my Nikon D610. It works great. But I want black skies at times with the drastic contrast of white trees. I don’t care much about color in these darker images quite honestly. Would the 720 or 830 filter placed on my lens suffice on this camera? I understand focus and all the processing but want to be sure before I order a filter.
Anita – yes, a 720nm or a 830nm filter is what you are looking for. Assuming you have an unmodified camera, be aware that your exposure times will increase – the part about influence on exposure in my infrared filter comparison article may help. Like already mentioned a couple of times, I recommend the 720 over the 830. You can always add contrast in post-processing, but the blue sky effect is simply not possible with the 830.
Hi Robert, what a fantastic resource for folks interested in infrared. I’ve been playing with a LUMIX and Hoya 720 filter for a while and have struggled to get the desired results, particularly when processing. This has given me a new angle on so many questions that I have so I’m newly enthusiastic once more! One question, I don’t mind going out with tripod etc, would I gain much if I bought a converted camera over the standard+filter I currently use?
Best wishes
Martin
Thank you Martin, I am glad you find this site useful. To your question: The answer is – as always: it depends. There is nothing wrong with using your filter together with a tripod. But let me get you a different perspective: On my vacation in Southern Africa, there were a lot of pictures I took handheld from either a (moving) vehicle or a boat. With a filter instead of a converted camera, these pictures would not have been possible. So – you need to think about how often you may find yourself in a similar situation.
Robert, many thanks for sharing your insights. Very helpful. I’ve recently purchased a Fuji X-T20 for conversion. I absolutely HATE having to spend time in post production (Lightroom Classic) so was planning to go with ~830 for Deep B/W. Yet I’m seeing many influencers going with the ~720. I understand the 720 option allows for blue skies (which I really like). Question: if I go with the 720, will I need to spend much time in LR to turn the yellow foliage white, OR is it possible to obtain jpegs with blue sky and WHITE foliage directly from the 720 converted camera without processing and additional filters? If not possible, then I’ll proceed with the 830 conversion cuz I want to shoot and post – not spend an afternoon in Lightroom! Thanks for your advice.
On the fence.
John
John, this is an excellent question. Let me try and answer it from a different perspective:
In summary: For B&W, the conversion effort is the same for both filters, with a slight contrast advantage for the 830nm version. The reason why many people (including myself) prefer the 720nm version is that you can create the blue sky effect (described here: How to Create the Infrared Blue Sky Effect in Lightroom) if you want, which is not possible with the 830nm filter. So – unless the slightly better contrasts of the 830nm filter is all you want, I would choose the 720nm because it provides you with more options.
Then 720nm it is. Thanks again. Coffee on it’s way!
Regards, John
You are welcome John, have fun with your converted camera. The coffee probably got lost somewhere on the way… 😉
THIS!!! This was what I was looking for. Thank you for taking the time to write this out! You’ve definitely helped me and I’m sure tons of others.
Thank you Piotr, I am glad this article did help. It is always nice to see people getting excited after reading it 🙂
An excellent tutorial. I had two cameras converted to IR many years ago, a Fujifilm S7000 and a Pentax K100D. I dusted them off last week and they both work perfectly still. However, I do not know what filter the camera was adapted with….too long ago. My query is, is there a way to discover what filters were used when the cameras were converted. There was about 5 years in between converting the Fuji and then the Pentax and I cannot remembered who did the conversion except that it was in the States.Both seem to give a slightly different image when taken with no WB correction and when WB corrected. It obviously does not show in the EXIF data.
Hello Sandi, thank you for the feedback. To your question: I would try the following:
With each camera, take three JPEG pictures of the same landscape scene, which should include lots of foliage and the sky. The first picture with automatic WB, the second one with custom WB on foliage, and the third one with custom WB using a grey card. Do not import them into Lightroom, as Lightroom will change the visual appearance. Use a standard picture viewer to look at the JPEGs and compare them to what LifePixel shows on their Infrared Filter Comparison page.
Look at the rightmost column of the LifePixel page, which shows the Automatic WB result and compare it with your Automatic WB result. Then, compare the leftmost column with both your custom WB results, one of them should match. This should give you an idea of which IR filter was used in your cameras. If you say it was very long ago, it is very likely that they are of the Standard IR (~720nm) or Deep B&W IR (~830nm) type, as these were the most common conversions.
Anyway, good luck and let us know if it worked out!
Thanks a lot for that Robert. Both cameras show similar redness to 720nm, 665nm and 590nm with auto WB. The manual WB ( attempting to get manual WB from types of foliage or varying types of grey) on both cameras is still slightly pink (when viewed in Preview) and show no similarity to any on the left hand side of the page. When using the auto WB image SOOC from the Pentax and choosing the WB with Affinity Photo, the result is similar to the 665nm image on Lifepixel. I have yet to experiment with the Fuji.
I think I will get hold of a 18% grey card and see if there is any difference.
Thanks for your help and I will continue to experiment.
Thank you for letting us know the results so far Sandi. Good luck with the grey card results and please let us know the outcome!
Thank you SO MUCH for this great article. I just started using an 820nm filter this week and it’s been driving me crazy trying to figure out why I can’t get colour photographs. Your other great tip was about focus becoming more blurry as you stop down the lens. I like my b/w shots so far but will get a standard IR filter now I have this new information.
Kathy, I am glad you found this article useful. You are right, there is no more color information left in the picture when shooting with a 820nm filter. This filter can only be used for B&W photography. Since you already own a 820nm filter, maybe you might want to look at an Enhanced IR filter (around 650nm) instead of a standard IR filter? Anyway, good luck with your choice!
Thanks Robert, I’ll take that advice. I’m just about to go online and buy one. Also congratulations for having a blog site which you actually monitor and reply to readers, it make a refreshing change 👍
Thank you for the flowers Kathy :-) I try my best to respond timely, and it is good to hear it makes a difference. Cheers!
What a shame that I didn‘t read this before jumping in digital IR…..I woundn‘t have messed arround with Nikons and chosen Fuji as best IR cameras and lenses.Thanks for your splendid information,best greetings Palmer
I am glad you found this article useful! Just curious, what was the issue with your Nikons? I am asking because I have owned several IR converted Nikons and was quite happy with the results.
There were no serious issues…but the fuji lenses are phantastic for ir,and the cameras are lightweight,the results are stunning,that having said,some of my best ir work was made with Nikons..😀😀😀
P.s. The fuji xc 16-50 works very well in b/w at 720 nm with even well closed apertue.
Well, thank you for sharing this! Personally, I have never shot with a Fuji, but I am sure other readers will be glad to hear!
This is insightful, thorough, and explained well — thanks Robert.
Thank you Alexander, I really appreciate your feedback.
I have recently changed 35mm systems from Pentax to Sony mirrorless. I have an opportunity to purchase an older Sony body that has already been converted to a color conversion. One of my former camera bodies was converted to a black and white infrared. Will I also be able to shoot black and white infrared along with color infrared with this new body? I did read you article and appreciate your help. Thank you.
Yes, this is possible. You will have to put a B&W IR filter on your lens, this will enable you to shoot B&W infrared pictures. I have described this here: https://robertreiser.photography/infrared-photography-tutorial/#you-are-still-undecided.
Hello and thank you for this article, which is the best. You definitely thought of every aspect ;)
Well, thank you for this comment! I try my best to keep this article updated whenever something new comes to my mind… :-)
Hi Robert,
The most interesting tutorial l have ever read on IR photography and learnt a lot especially relenting to hot spots and diffraction problems. I must say I have no problem with either issues but it’s nice to know.
Have you done any IR tutorial for PS Elementals?
Many thanks for your wonderful articles on IR related information.
Jaffer Bhimji
Hello Jaffer, thank you for the kind comment! I am glad you liked it, and maybe there is something you can get out of it for the future.
I have not done any tutorials for anything but Lightroom, because this is what i use for more than 95% of my pictures.
Cheers!
Many thanks Robert for your reply very much appreciated. You maybe shocked to learn that l don’t have Lightroom just PSE 14 which does all l need with Nik plugins.
Cheers!
Jaffer
Not shocked at all… a pretty good combination of you don’t need the library functionality!
Thank you Robert. I am considering converting my Olympus em5mkii to infrared; haven’t yet decided to go with a straight conversion or full spectrum. I like the effect of the 590 nm Super Color IR. If the camera is converted to the 590nm, can I add lens filters to achieve other effects like 705 nm Super Blue, 720 nm Standard IR, or 830 nm Deep Blue?
Hello Patricia – this will probably not work as expected. If you convert your camera to 590 nm Super Color, it will work with a 720 nm Standard IR or a 830 nm Deep B&W filter (I am not aware of a 830 nm Deep Blue filter). But it will block out visible blue light, which is required for the 705 nm Super Blue filter to work as expected. If the 705 nm Super Blue filter is a must for you, you will have to do a full spectrum conversion.
well Robert,hello again
that is what i was thinking doing since its easier to try different IR filters
thanks again for your time and your advises .
hello Robert .
my name is Anastasio,i have taken the infrared and uv sensor filter out from my nikon d70 .I want to ask you if i can add a filter to the lens? instead of adding a filter to the sensor and how efficient this would be, in matter of exposure time is this important ,meaning faster or slower and how; and also in matter of focus?
thank you in advance
anastasio
Hello Anastasio, did you remove the filter yourself? Was the filter just taken out or replaced with optical glass for example? You can add a filter to the lens, for sure. Exposure times will always be slower when compared to visible light, since the sensor is not designed for Infrared light. It depends on the IR filter you plan to use. On focus, this article does explain it here and here.
Hello Robert ,thank you for your answer.
Yes i remove the filter myself and i didnt add anything in front of the sensor .So the question was,what is the best to do ,add the IR filter to the lens or to the sensor? or is it the same?thanks in advance.
My understanding is that the filter in front of the sensor is part of the optical system – removing it it may or may not work, depending on your camera. You will have to try if putting an IR filter in front of the lens leads so satisfactory results.
Hi Robert
I have just converted my olympus em5 to full spectrum, i am familiar with using infrared but there doesnt seem to be any clear or concise tips etc for full spectrum. I. E can i use full spectrum at night with no filters? What can i expect results wise? Do i need a special filter for astrophotography /landscapes.
Many thanks liam
Hello Liam, thanks for the question! To be honest, I was so far using Full Spectrum cameras only in the context of Infrared photography, meaning I waas using either an Infrared or a Visible Light filter on the lens. You can definitely use the camera without additional filter, but I would expect the result to be reddish, because of the high amount of Infrared light which is normally cut out. For astrophotography, you might want to look at H-Alpha filters, but there are other people out there who know a lot more about Astrophotography than I do. Good luck!
Hello
Thanks for your tutorial. I like it very mutch.
Let me ask this: I have a ff modified camera for astrophotography so I dont use filters. But I take photos with a SMC Pentax A 28mm 2.8 lens. The photos have very nice colors, Thiesen colors are what you call “false colors”? Thank you.
Hello Antonio – if your camera has been modified for astrophotography, your pictures will for sure look different when compared to “standard” pictures. In this regard, you can say that what you get are “false colors”. The colors are just different from what you would get with an 650nm Enhanced IR filter, for example. But there is no definition of “false colors” – it is just a description of anything different from what you can see with your bare eyes.
Thanks for your replay
Another thing, I bought a Hoya 72R filter, I presume that converts my FS camera to infrared one. That is correct? Should I do swap the colors?
Regards
Provided the sensor works well with the Hoya filter, you will certainly be able to take nice IR pictures. Whether you prefer to swap colors or not, is totally up to you :-) What might help are these two articles: How to Set Proper Infrared White Balance in Lightroom and How to Create the Infrared Blue Sky Effect in Lightroom. Good luck and enjoy the results!
I have recently gotten my camera converted by lifepixel. I chose the Super Blue option not the Full Spectrum. Can I use a filter on the front of the camera to change colours even more? Say for instance the 590 filter?
Hi Justin, thanks for the great question! According to Lifepixel, their Super Blue Filter appears to be a 705nm filter with additional blue light sensitivity between 285nm and 465nm. So, you will be able to use any IR filter in front of your camera with a pass frequency of 720nm or higher, for example a 830nm filter for deep BW IR. Unfortunately the 590nm filter you mentioned won’t work as you would expect, effectively it would give you the same result as an 705nm filter.
Great article. Informative and unpretentious! Thanks so much for taking the time to write it.
Thanks a lot Rob for the feedback, I really appreciate it.
Thanks, I will try with the 720nm, and see what happens
Hi I´m looking for some answers for my problem that probably I can get from you
I recently bought a FUJI XT2 and a B+W IR FIlter #093 but when I shoot with them it ALWAYS apears a white circle in the midlle of the photos, sometimes bigger than others
What Im doing wrong?
Please help me!
Thanks a lot in advance
Isaac Mizrahi
Hi Isaac, good question. I don’t think you are doing anything wrong. The way you describe the issue it appears that the lens produces a hot spot when used for IR photography. If you read the article above, there is a section “Lens issues” – does the photo depicted there look similar to what you see in your pictures? If yes, then you have two options:
In general, you should always always try out the lens/filter combination before you buy it. Good luck!