hey I never said I didn't like it, they are pretty cool, I was just asking why you would use it, like HDR you use when you have bright and dark areas, I thought there might be instances where it would be a good idea to use this.
Sorry I wasnt referring to you directly. Others above were saying that it's kind of "out dated" or replaced by digital effects and what not. I just dont want the OP to be discouraged in something that he might really like doing.
I dont really know a specific use for infrared photography. I guess its just a "style." Just like you have macro or landscapes or portraits
EDIT: From Wikipedia:
When these filters are used together with infrared-sensitive film or sensors, very interesting "in-camera effects" can be obtained; false-color or black-and-white images with a dreamlike or sometimes lurid appearance known as the "Wood Effect," an effect mainly caused by foliage (such as tree leaves and grass) strongly reflecting in the same way visible light is reflected from snow. There is a small contribution from chlorophyll fluorescence, but this is extremely small and is not the real cause of the brightness seen in infrared photographs. The effect is named after the infrared photography pioneer Robert W. Wood, and not after the material wood, which does not glow under infrared.
The other attributes of infrared photographs include very dark skies and penetration of atmospheric haze, caused by reduced Rayleigh scattering and Mie scattering, respectively, compared to visible light. The dark skies, in turn, result in less infrared light in shadows and dark reflections of those skies from water, and clouds will stand out strongly. These wavelengths also penetrate a few millimeters into skin and give a milky look to portraits, although eyes often look black.
.
