PhotoWalkPro

Last week I received a question from a reader about shooting IR photos with their digital camera.  The question was, do they need to get their camera converted to IR to get good results?  The problem is that there aren’t any definitive answers for this one.  It’s possible to shoot IR with your unaltered digital camera but it will be a different experience than shooting with a converted camera.

Digital cameras are extremely sensitive to infrared light.  The fact is that they are so sensitive that camera manufacturers put an IR blocking filter in front of the sensor to cut down on the effects of IR on your images.  This is also known as a hot mirror or IR cut filter.  The filter doesn’t completely eliminate all IR light so by using an IR pass filter, you can still achieve a good result but your exposures will be extremely long in duration.  For example, take a look at this IR image I shot at Great Falls, VA.

The shot was made on an unaltered digital SLR.  Using an 87 IR pass filter, I had to raise the ISO to 640 and shot wide-open at f/2.8 for 30 seconds to get a decent image.  The long exposure is a result of the IR blocking filter trying to filter out the IR light.  The pass filter, on the other hand, is only letting through IR while blocking visible light.  This push and pull is the reason for the extended exposure times.  The other problem with this method is that you risk added noise in the image due to the long exposure times.

You other alternative is to get your camera altered by having the blocking filter removed and having a pass filter installed in its place.  There are multiple advantages to this option.  The first is that, since the filter is installed in front of the sensor, you will be able to see perfectly through the viewfinder when shooting.  If you are using a filter in front of your lens on a non-converted camera, you will have to set up the shot and focus prior to putting on the filter.  This is because the IR filter is so dark that you won’t be able to see through it.  Another advantage to using the converted camera is that it let’s you use fairly normal exposure times and settings, much like you would with a regular DSLR.  In the example below made with a converted camera, the ISO was set to 200 and the camera was set to f/16 at 1/60 of a second.  This makes it possible to shoot IR images without the trouble of lugging around a tripod.

The problem with the converted camera is that you can’t use it for regular photography.  Once it’s converted you will only be able to use it for shooting IR images, which is why so many photographers have their spare cameras converted.  If you choose to use a filter on your unaltered camera, you can always use your camera to take regular images by just removing the filter.

So how much will it cost to start shooting IR?  Well, a filter like the 87, 89B, or the R72 will run anywhere from $85 to $150, depending on the size of the filter (you need to get one that will fit the thread diameter for the lens you want to use).  If you want to go with the converted camera, you will pay around $350 for the filter and conversion service (prices are dependent on the type of camera you are getting converted).  Conversion isn’t just for DSLR cameras either.  You can have older point-n-shoot cameras altered as well.  My choice for conversions is Life Pixel but there are others out there that are doing the same type of work.

Which ever method you choose, I am sure that once you start shooting in the IR spectrum, you will be forever hooked.

Whenever I come back from a shoot I usually head straight to my computer and download my images.  Like most of you, I can’t wait to see all of the great shots that I got.  And like many of you, I find that the majority of my shots kind of suck.  They aren’t necessarily bad, they just aren’t great.  But here’s the deal, I don’t just round up all of those bad shots and send them to the round file, I let them alone for awhile to marinate.  It’s not that I think they will get better over time, in fact the opposite is usually the case, when I look at them down the road and wonder, “What the hell was I thinking when I took that?”  But that’s sort of the point.

By leaving them for a while, I can separate the emotion from the photograph and start looking at it from a more analytical perspective.  What is it that made that shot so sucky.  Was it the light?  Was it my choice of lens?  Maybe it was the angle that I chose or perhaps the lens.  Perhaps I would have done better had I used less depth of field or maybe more.  There are so many reasons that an image can fall down the scale from great to just so-so but by taking some time to really look at the image you can start to develop that mental checklist for the next time you are standing behind your camera.  I’m reminded of some great advice I heard Joe McNally give during a presentation, which really brings it all home.  Joe said that you should “embrace your failures, take them out to dinner and really get to know them.”

If you ignore the shots that didn’t turn out the way you had envisioned and just send them to the trash, you are missing out on an opportunity to learn from your experience.  And it’s not just the things that didn’t work but also the elements that did.  A great photo is made when a combination of things all go right so it’s not fair to say that your “bad” images didn’t have their good points as well.  The point is that you should spend some time to really look at all of your images so that you can constantly evolve and create that internal database of experiences so that when you are presented with a similar situation in the future you will have the knowledge to know what didn’t work the last time.  I think Thomas Edison said it best when he said, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”

So what do I mean by this?  Well let me try and explain.  This weekend I was doing some research at one of my favorite places, my local Borders book store.  As per my norm, I started at the Photoshop section and then on to the Photography section.  I was looking for books that dealt with photography, more specific, digital photography.  But here’s the funny thing, every book that I opened had about half of its content dealing with cameras and photo taking and the other half on processing the images in Photoshop.  Sometimes it was more like 30/70 with Photoshop taking up the lions share of the information.  Now don’t get me wrong, I am sure these are all great books (which is why I don’t want to use any title names here), but these books should be titled Digital Image Processing, not digital photography.

This kind of reminds me of when I took a college class called the History of Photography.  I thought “This is great, I’ll learn all about the development of cameras and such.”  Wrong!  What I got was the history of photographers, not photography.  Okay, so I did learn something from this class but not what I was expecting.

When I pick up a book about how to take great digital photographs, I want camera techniques, exposure advice, even a little science to back things up.  The last thing I want is a Photoshop book disguised as a photography book.  Also puzzling is why Scott Kelby’s Digital Photography books are always filed among the Photoshop books.  They deserve to be in the Photography section more so than any of these other books I was looking at.  They are all about camera and flash and exposure and not image processing.

Now before everyone starts firing off comments about how digital processing is part of the photographic process now, let me say that I don’t totally disagree.  On the other hand, it is not part of the photography process.  The number of people that actually do their own Photoshop processing is very low.  I would hazard a guess that the majority of people using digital cameras are taking their cards to Costco or sending their images to Mpix and not doing their own post-processing.  So does this mean that they aren’t really doing digital photography?

So that’s my 2¢, feel free to give me yours.

I received an excellent question from one of my readers who asked what type of camera I use for shooting landscapes and flowers and the like.  I think it’s an excellent question because most folks associate great images with the camera used. The reality is that there are two factors that have more impact on your final image than which camera you shot it with.  The camera really is only going to help you out with one factor in landscapes and that is with your resolution.  Ok, that’s really a simplification of things, but in general, fast frames per second and low noise at high ISO really aren’t factors (all of you camera-holics out there may now begin bashing me in the comment section).  If you are shooting in RAW, then it doesn’t really even matter how good the camera white balance settings are since you will adjust that in software after the shot.

No, the biggest factors for shooting landscapes and flowers or any still-life type subject are the same as they have been for decades and they are; use a high quality lens, and use a solid tripod.  Truth be told, some of the best landscapes I have ever seen have come from 6 megapixel cameras.

Lenses -

First of all I always like to use fast glass because it just gives you more exposure options.  Something in the area of f/2.8 or larger would be nice.  The other advantage to a large aperture is the ability to get more selective depth of field to really isolate a subject.  If, for instance, you are going to shoot some flowers out in the wild, you may not want to include the background (unless it plays a part in your composition).  The best way to really isolate your subject is to use a wide open aperture to get that nice narrow depth of field and render your background blurry.

If you go the route of a zoom lens, you should still try and get that highest quality you can.  You also want a lens that will maintain the aperture throughout the entire zoom range.  This will also add to the expense of the lens but it is very much worth it.  As an example, a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 lens will set you back around $1700 where as the 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0 lens is only $565.  There are other factors that increase the cost of the lens including the type of glass, the coatings on the glass, the number of elements, etc.  The general rule of thumb is that the quality of a lens is directly proportional to its cost.  This isn’t always the case but it’s not far from the truth.

While we are talking about lenses, consideration should also be given to what range of lenses you will need for the shooting that you will do.  Here are my choices of lens to cover a pretty wide shooting range:

• A very wide lens, possibly a zoom like the 12-24mm – This is almost a necessity when shooting landscapes.
• A wide to intermediate zoom like the 24-70mm f/2.8 – Of course we also need to pay our mortgages so something like the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 would also work well.
• A macro lens is indispensable when shooting close-up subjects like flowers – I prefer prime macro lenses such as the 60mm or the 105mm.  They are easier to use than a tele-zoom with macro but the zoom macro will still get the job done.  Less expensive options include close-up filters and or extension tubes.  Either of these will convert your regular lens into a macro/close-up lens.
• A telephoto or tele-zoom like the 70-200 f/2.8 – Sometimes you just need to reach out and get those far away subjects and nothing does the job like a good tele-zoom.  Once again, having that wide f/2.8 aperture can really help to isolate your subjects by blurring the foreground and background in your image.  Remember that good glass is expensive for a reason.  To maximize your options, consider buying a tele-extender like a 2X.  You will lose a stop or more but double the reach of your lens.
• Super Telephoto lenses are the last item on the list but only to be considered if you are a doctor, lawyer, or Bill Gates.  Seriously though, super tele lenses are the only way to go if you want to shoot wildlife like Moose Peterson or Laurie Excell but they don’t come cheap.  A 400mm f/2.8 lens will set you back around $9000 and it just goes up from there.

Tripods -

The other piece of equipment that is essential to creating beautiful landscapes is a good tripod.  Make sure that it is large enough to handle the weight of your camera and lens.  There are numerous manufacturers and it would be silly for me to even try and recommend one but I can tell you what I look for when considering a tripod.

• Light weight – to carry, not in its load capacity.  Try some of the really great new carbon fiber models.
• Good height – I am pretty tall so I want a tripod that doesn’t make me crouch all the time to use it.  But try and get one that is tall enough without extending the center column up.  You should always try and shoot with the camera as close the the tripod legs as possible.
• Legs that lock securely but don’t require a pipe wrench to loosen.
• Versatility – I like a tall tripod but sometimes you need to shoot low to the ground.  There are several that will let you extend the legs out at very wide angles to get your camera close to the ground.  If you want to shoot flowers, you have to be down on their level.
• A removable tripod head, or better yet, none at all.  You should choose the head for your tripod separately from the legs.  Most pan heads that come on tripods aren’t that great and should be replaced.  I prefer ball heads for their versatility but you should choose something that feels secure and comfortable.  Also, consider something with a quick-release so that you can go from hand-holding to tripod quickly.

So there are my recommendations for equipment for landscape and flora photography.  Whether you choose to use a Canon 30D or 40D or 1Ds Mark II, or a Nikon D3, or D100, or D40, it all comes back to the same thing.  Buy yourself a couple of nice lenses because it doesn’t matter which camera your image ends up in if the lens isn’t worth a damn.

Also, you might be the strongest guy in the world and have great IS or VR lenses but if you want the ultimate in sharp images, get yourself a sturdy tripod.  Nothing beats the stability of having a solid tripod under that really nice glass you just bought.

*As a little side-note, go out to your local professional camera store and try out the latest and greatest lenses.  You really need to see them and feel them in your hands to appreciate them.  Then buy them from your local guy.  A lot of times they will match the major online vendor prices and you will be supporting a resource that you can return to time and time again.

Infrared or IR photography used to be the domain of specialty films that were sensitive to the IR spectrum of light.  They were ultra-sensitive to visible light and needed to be handled in complete darkness including loading and unloading the film in the camera.  Nowadays, you can obtain IR results by using your digital camera.  The sensors in your digital cameras are extremely sensitive to the IR spectrum, so much so that camera manufacturers place a special IR blocking filter in front of the sensor to block the IR from reaching it.  But just because there is a blocking filter doesn’t mean you can’t capture stunning IR.  Most of the blocking filters in today’s digital cameras still allow some IR to pass and it is within these passing wavelengths that you can capture your IR images with very little expense.  All it takes is an IR pass filter, a tripod, and a little trial and error.  The IR pass filter, such as the Hoya 72, blocks the visible spectrum of light and allows just the IR wavelengths to pass through to the sensor.  To properly capture IR, you will need to mount your camera to a tripod.  This is because the exposures you will have to use will be to long for hand-holding.  Also, the IR pass filter will be blocking your visible light which means that you won’t be able to see through your camera.  To properly capture an image you will need to pre-focus the camera on your scene and then afix the filter to the lens.  Now it’s just trial and error on your exposures.  IR light is most abundant using sunlight as your light source so you will get your best results from fully sunlit scenes.  The beauty of the digital camera is the instant feedback that you receive from your camera’s LCD screen.  Start of shooting around 5 second exposures and work your way up from there until you achieve the proper exposure for your scene.  Since IR focuses at a different plane than visible light you should shoot around f/8 which is near the sharpest f-stop of most lenses.  Also, if you can, adjust your camera for maximum sharpening and vivid color.  Your images will not be color but the vivid setting will give you your best results.

If you really want to get serious with your IR photography and want more flexibility in your shooting, you should consider getting a digital camera altered for IR photography.  In this process the IR blocking filter is removed and replaced with an IR pass filter.  The benefits of this are two-fold.  First, since the blocking filter is removed, exposures are much more akin to standard digital photography.  The IR light will render proper exposures at f/8 with shutter speeds ranging from 1/60 to 1/1000 of a second depending on your atmospheric conditions.  The second benefit is that since the filter is placed directly in front of the sensor, there is no filter blocking your lens and you can use your viewfinder to compose and focus your images.

The only drawback to using a converted camera is that once converted, it will only shoot IR so you won’t be able to use this for regular photography.  But if you happen to have an older DSLR in the closet gathering dust, you are half way there.  So, what if you don’t have an extra body lying around?  You might want to consider buying an older model camera for conversion.  One of the best cameras I have seen for shooting converted IR is the Nikon D70.  A quick check on eBay will show you that you can pick up a good working body for about $250.  Not a bad price for a very good camera.  You might also consider getting your old CoolPix converted.  The coolpix 950 was one of the best early point-n-shoot models made by Nikon and sells for around $50.  If you’re thinking that you won’t be able to take great images with a CoolPix, I invite you to check out the work of Carl Scholfield.  All of his stunning IR images were produced with nothing more than a CoolPix 950 and various IR pass filters (the CoolPix 950 sensor had a much higher IR sensativity than later models).

So what do you do if you are ready to take the plunge and get a camera converted?  Try heading on over to LifePixel.  There you can do one of two things, you can buy the filter and they will give you the step-by-step instructions to replace your internal sensor filter.  If you aren’t that adventurous, and not many folks are when it comes to dismantling their digital cameras, then you can have the folks at LifePixel do the conversion for you.  The prices vary depending on what type of camera you are getting converted.  A Nikon D70 will cost about $350 for the filter and conversion for the standard color IR.  The CoolPix conversion will run you about $300.  LifePixel also offers an Enhanced Color IR and a Deep B&W IR, each will add $50 to the cost of the conversion.  If you would like to convert your own, the cost of the filter is $145 for the standard and $195 for the enhanced versions.  To see the differences in the different filters and information on other camera conversion rates head on over to LifePixel.  If you just want to try out the IR technique without springing for a camera conversion you can pick up a Hoya 72 for about $150.  Other filters to try out are the Wratten #87, #87c, #88a, and #89.  I would try to purchase a used one on eBay to see how I like it before actually spending the $150 plus for a new filter.

No matter which way you decide to go there is one thing you won’t be able to deny, once you starting shooting digital landscapes, you won’t ever want to stop.