Very nice!! Nice atmosphere.
[automerge]1572434231[/automerge]
Lots of these in Finland.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day October 2019
- Thread starter MDF314159265
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[automerge]1572434231[/automerge]
Another one from my afternoon out. Comments always appreciated.
Autumn approaches by another scotsman, on Flickr
Autumn approaches by another scotsman, on Flickr
In keeping with Halloween...a haunted lighthouse. It, and the keeper's house/museum, were featured on three episodes of Ghost Hunter.
Glad I’m not going to any Halloween activities.
One more infrared shot, bearing in mind it was a dull day and IR prefers lots of bright light to show it's best...
Cheers
Hugh
Cheers
Hugh
@Hughmac and @kallisti ..... This is meant in a curiosity manner, and definitely not a "WTH" manner....but is there a point to IR photography, other than making a different kind of look? I've heard of older cameras being hacked to shoot this way but I was suprised to read that people are buying brand new $2k cameras and then paying more to have them converted (the Z6 kit)....I am the *last* one to judge on camera expenditures and different kinds of looks in photography - I think everything has its place. So can one or both of you educate me on this? ?
They are certainly interesting images to look at. I find them fascinating.
[automerge]1572540041[/automerge]
They are certainly interesting images to look at. I find them fascinating.
[automerge]1572540041[/automerge]
Surprise find in a village nearby: they have a game reserve/deer pen of some sort and I had no idea all these years I've lived here.
Last edited:
The main uses of infrared are in star photography, plus medical and dental, where an IR picture can show differences in skin or tooth structure (see https://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-photography-primer/ch1-applications-uses-medicine ).
My first camera was a converted Nikon D70 and which worked in the 720nm spectrum; this one gave brilliant blue skies, white foliage and very black water when post processed. I sold it because of lack of use but soon regretted it and picked up a converted Panasonic G1, this time with a 680nm spectrum.
Personally I find I use the camera to give a different effect to the norm, so yes, there's no real point to it, but if you convert to B&W, it becomes a whole different ballgame with more intense tones which lend themselves to low key effects.
I've just done a Silver Efex conversion on the photo above, and will upload it tomorrow for comparison.
It's just a bit of fun really
Cheers
Hugh
Last edited:
It does give interesting effects. I have not tried it myself but I am intrigued and I respect those who branch out from the norm.The main use of infrared photography is medical and dental, where an IR picture can show differences in skin or tooth structure (see https://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-photography-primer/ch1-applications-uses-medicine ).
My first camera was a converted Nikon D70 and which worked in the 720nm spectrum; this one gave brilliant blue skies, white foliage and very black water when post processed. I sold it because of lack of use but soon regretted it and picked up a converted Panasonic G1, this time with a 680nm spectrum.
Personally I find I use the camera to give a different effect to the norm, so yes, there's no real point to it, but if you convert to B&W, it becomes a whole different ballgame with more intense tones which lend themselves to low key effects.
I've just done a Silver Efex conversion on the photo above, and will upload it tomorrow for comparison.
It's just a bit of fun really
Cheers
Hugh
Recently went on my first ever cruise and loved it. This is Atlantis Resort in The Bahamas.
Yesterday a rare eagle 
sighting in SE Michigan, 1 mile from my home.
Caught this at twilight with my 70-200 L lens, just took 2 when he flew off
sighting in SE Michigan, 1 mile from my home.Caught this at twilight with my 70-200 L lens, just took 2 when he flew off
Thank you for your reply!The main uses of infrared are in star photography, plus medical and dental, where an IR picture can show differences in skin or tooth structure (see https://www.lifepixel.com/infrared-photography-primer/ch1-applications-uses-medicine ).
My first camera was a converted Nikon D70 and which worked in the 720nm spectrum; this one gave brilliant blue skies, white foliage and very black water when post processed. I sold it because of lack of use but soon regretted it and picked up a converted Panasonic G1, this time with a 680nm spectrum.
Personally I find I use the camera to give a different effect to the norm, so yes, there's no real point to it, but if you convert to B&W, it becomes a whole different ballgame with more intense tones which lend themselves to low key effects.
I've just done a Silver Efex conversion on the photo above, and will upload it tomorrow for comparison.
It's just a bit of fun really
Cheers
Hugh
I had no idea it would be used in medical fields, but that makes a lot of sense. The point of converting to B&W makes soo much sense; in general I'm not much of a B&W shooter so it really wouldn't occur to me to shoot that way on purpose very often. But if that is the way you (general you) shoot often I can see how having a dedicated camera would be helpful, much like shooting only on B&W film.
There's not really much point to me owning three cameras or buying Lensbaby lenses with their weird blur, but that doesn't stop me from buying more. ? So I completely appreciate buying a piece of gear just for a specific look.
Thanks!
(PS - you guys should start an IR thread, where you could post more than one image a day. Just sayin'.)
No worries @mollyc. It's a valid question.
I can't speak for others. For me it's another creative tool in the toolbox. A niche tool, but one that can be useful. Not all subjects look good in IR (just like some subjects look better in color, others in B&W). One particular reason to take photos can be to make the ordinary seem not ordinary. Or stated differently, to force the viewer to see the subject differently than they normally would. Making the mundane seem less so.
None of us see the world in B&W, but B&W images can be much more powerful than a color photo. Long exposure pics can make the stars, clouds, ocean, waterfalls, etc. surreal to various degrees. Macro photography can make the tiny world around us suddenly big and noticeable. IR can do something similar. Not ideal for every subject (just like B&W or long exposures or macro aren't appropriate for every subject), but IR is another creative option.
The cost is a separate issue. Usually people convert old bodies that they aren't going to use anymore to give them access to IR and for a nominal cost extend the life of their old body. I've done that in the past. One of the more challenging aspects of IR photography is getting the focus right. With very rare exceptions, an OVF will not get focus in IR. LV is almost mandatory. For me, I've been wanting a mirrorless IR camera for some time as it makes focus significantly easier. I may convert one of my Sony's to IR at some point, but the big question mark has been how will the Sony lenses perform in IR? If they do well, then awesome. If they don't, then the converted Sony camera is basically worthless. I know that some of my Nikon lenses are acceptable in IR, some better than others. So the Z series was less of a risk.
One final comment on the cost: $2k+ for a professional lens isn't a crazy purchase (assuming you can afford it and will make use of its quality). Nikon professional f/2.8 zooms are often in that price range. Some niche lenses (like tilt/shift) are also in that price range, something you may not use everyday, but which give you options you wouldn't have otherwise that can justify the price (at least for some people). Thought of in that light, $2k+ for a body that gives you creative options otherwise not possible for you isn't totally crazy. Again, assuming you can afford it and plan to make use of it.
I like IR. Not for everything, but for some things. I have pics I've taken in IR that I much prefer to pics I've taken with a standard camera of the same subject at the same time. One of my IR pics has been published (Brown Medicine, a publication of the Brown Medical School--so not the most prestigious journal
). Here is an old IR pic from 2017 that I'll use as my pic for today. For this pic, I like the ethereal quality that shooting it in IR provided. It has a look that may not appeal to others, but I like it.
Last edited:
I can't speak for others. For me it's another creative tool in the toolbox. A niche tool, but one that can be useful. Not all subjects look good in IR (just like some subjects look better in color, others in B&W). One particular reason to take photos can be to make the ordinary seem not ordinary. Or stated differently, to force the viewer to see the subject differently than they normally would. Making the mundane seem less so.
None of us see the world in B&W, but B&W images can be much more powerful than a color photo. Long exposure pics can make the stars, clouds, ocean, waterfalls, etc. surreal to various degrees. Macro photography can make the tiny world around us suddenly big and noticeable. IR can do something similar. Not ideal for every subject (just like B&W or long exposures or macro aren't appropriate for every subject), but IR is another creative option.
The cost is a separate issue. Usually people convert old bodies that they aren't going to use anymore to give them access to IR and for a nominal cost extend the life of their old body. I've done that in the past. One of the more challenging aspects of IR photography is getting the focus right. With very rare exceptions, an OVF will not get focus in IR. LV is almost mandatory. For me, I've been wanting a mirrorless IR camera for some time as it makes focus significantly easier. I may convert one of my Sony's to IR at some point, but the big question mark has been how will the Sony lenses perform in IR? If they do well, then awesome. If they don't, then the converted Sony camera is basically worthless. I know that some of my Nikon lenses are acceptable in IR, some better than others. So the Z series was less of a risk.
One final comment on the cost: $2k+ for a professional lens isn't a crazy purchase (assuming you can afford it and will make use of its quality). Nikon professional f/2.8 zooms are often in that price range. Some niche lenses (like tilt/shift) are also in that price range, something you may not use everyday, but which give you options you wouldn't have otherwise that can justify the price (at least for some people). Thought of in that light, $2k+ for a body that gives you creative options otherwise not possible for you isn't totally crazy. Again, assuming you can afford it and plan to make use of it.
I like IR. Not for everything, but for some things. I have pics I've taken in IR that I much prefer to pics I've taken with a standard camera of the same subject at the same time. One of my IR pics has been published (Brown Medicine, a publication of the Brown Medical School--so not the most prestigious journal
Here is an old IR pic from 2017 that I'll use as my pic for today. For this pic, I like the ethereal quality that shooting it in IR provided. It has a look that may not appeal to others, but I like it.
View attachment 874053
oh I know that the expense of a single lens can rival (or vastly exceed #noct) what you paid to convert your Z6.
I do have lenses that cost that much. It isn’t the actual cost but more the purpose. ? I'm totally not judging anyone's desire to convert and shoot for IR. If you love it, then have at it! I just honestly don't know much about IR photography so wanted to learn more.Thank you.
Well, Mr Darmok has his first Leica lens on the way (12-60). It should hopefully replace two other lenses, keeping his burden light!
