Comparing IR with visual B&W

Welcome to the forum Mike.

I's nice to see these two shots together to compare and it's interesting to see how IR has rendered most of the buildings the same shade of dark grey. I'm not a massive fan of IR but used judiciously it can produce some lovely pictures, unfortunately, to my eye, this doesn't really work although this forum version doesn't do it justice.
 
Thanks Keith,
I can easily get carried away with infra red having multiple converted bodies & numerous filters etc.
Many of the results I get are artistically useless, instead perhaps helping build up my knowledge of how certain components /subjects work in IR (or IR+ many of my shots are colour including IR & portions of visual). Lots to keep to myself!

I'd often heard of effects shooting IR that I don't normally see in my everyday IR photography so when presented with this dramatic view that includes distant details getting lost in haze I thought I had a chance of showing some of them, the overcast sky prevents showing the typical IR skies.
It's not overly noticeable in such a wide shot but the IR version does indeed see through haze better, as well as converting foliage to whites...
 
I like both, in their own way, but two points. The one shot without IR conversion would be better (My opinion) if there was more contrast and the clouds brought out a little more.
With the one that is obviously IR, the brightness of the leaves is too much and needs toning down, because it takes your eye away from the remaining part of the picture. The tones of the remaining part of the picture is very good.

I was a user of the original Kodak HIE and that was magical something that is missing from any IR picture created with any film or digital
 
John King said:
I like both, in their own way, but two points. The one shot without IR conversion would be better (My opinion) if there was more contrast and the clouds brought out a little more.
With the one that is obviously IR, the brightness of the leaves is too much and needs toning down, because it takes your eye away from the remaining part of the picture. The tones of the remaining part of the picture is very good.

I was a user of the original Kodak HIE and that was magical something that is missing from any IR picture created with any film or digital
Click to expand...
I agree with both those suggestions, for the images when separate but the idea of showing the two together is to demonstrate how IR differs. Doing editing that reduces those differences rather defeats the point.

I guess a different wavelength IR (or full spectrum) shot might incorporate the changes you're suggesting toning down the foreground while bringing out the clouds. I've never tried converting full spectrum shots to B&W (& only very rarely for 590nm shots). I'll try to remember to include those options next time I'm in a suitable spot for comparisons. :)
 
I tend to think that IR works best with simple subjects, trees, landscapes etc into which the element of surreality can make the picture dreamlike. I'm not sure that it works so well on this kind of scene, which has too much human 'reality' and clutter, and just looks a bit weird.

The horizon is sharply off in the first, incidentally.
 
John King said:
I think you may find the lack of sharpness will be down to haze, whereas with the IR image that has cut through the mist and rendered it sharper.
Click to expand...

You missed my meaning. I didn't say that it wasn't sharp, I said that it was sharply off. To put it in simpler terms, the horizon isn't straight.
 
Sorry I cant see that. With the islands in the background the actual horizon is all but invisible. If it is, it is so little 'out of kilter. that personally I would not worry about it.

If you had said the horizon isn't straight at first I could have understood.
 
Does it really matter? The topic was IR V plain image rendering, not the matter of +/- of a degree or two either way or none at all.
 
Interesting comparison, and I tend to like the infrared version better. I know the white foliage in the foreground should be distracting, but for me it's not, I like it.
 
beyondvisible said:
Hi Mike...... nice comparison example. It's been a while since we communicated on other forums.:)
Click to expand...
It has indeed. I remember beyond visible as an informative website that hasn't been updated in ages. (I'd really like to see the promised bit on spectra of light sources, something the spectrometers at work don't measure) rather than as a username & haven't been able to spot it on the forums I currently frequent. Having rechecked the website I assume you're Shane then :)

I'm very slowly getting my large format kit into use, which should increase the amount of B&W I shoot. Most of my IR is currently false colour stuff. I doubt I'll ever try IR the analog way, but I might use it to explore UV where IR leakage makes digital a little more awkward. First of all I have to get to grips with processing the visual stuff...
 
royphotog said:
Interesting comparison, and I tend to like the infrared version better. I know the white foliage in the foreground should be distracting, but for me it's not, I like it.
Click to expand...
Thanks Roy. If it was full on white rather than pale I think it would prove a distraction, like this I hope it works more as a frame :)
I prefer the IR too, one of the reasons I shoot lots of it. The IR picking out cloud detail so much more does make it more difficult to tell the distant hills from the sky, If I could shoot it with less cloud that would possibly work better, but in the week we were there this was about the clearest it got (lots of rain - ideal for camping). Over 10 hours drive to reach Oban makes it impractical to pop back based on a forecast :(
 
petrochemist said:
It has indeed. I remember beyond visible as an informative website that hasn't been updated in ages. (I'd really like to see the promised bit on spectra of light sources, something the spectrometers at work don't measure) rather than as a username & haven't been able to spot it on the forums I currently frequent. Having rechecked the website I assume you're Shane then :)

I'm very slowly getting my large format kit into use, which should increase the amount of B&W I shoot. Most of my IR is currently false colour stuff. I doubt I'll ever try IR the analog way, but I might use it to explore UV where IR leakage makes digital a little more awkward. First of all I have to get to grips with processing the visual stuff...
Click to expand...
Yes, it's Shane. Unfortunately, all the website stuff and subsequent spectral analysis went on hold for a (long) while when one of my Ocean Optics spectrometers died. I finally got the spectrometer board replaced and needed to calibrate it but then life priorities took over. Will be in England a couple of times this year....maybe we can get together for some IR photography.....not sure where you are located.
 
beyondvisible said:
Yes, it's Shane. Unfortunately, all the website stuff and subsequent spectral analysis went on hold for a (long) while when one of my Ocean Optics spectrometers died. I finally got the spectrometer board replaced and needed to calibrate it but then life priorities took over. Will be in England a couple of times this year....maybe we can get together for some IR photography.....not sure where you are located.
Click to expand...
That would be good. :)
I'm on the east coast about 80 miles from London, but should be able to travel to any of East Anglia relatively easily. About the only place my immediate area seems to be on the way too is Holland (ferries run from within sight of my work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top