I used about half of the panning-shift of the lens to get this image. I think it came out quite well and the lens performs really well considering the price point.
A couple of images shot in 590nm and converted to B&W using my Canon M6 while I was vacationing on the Oregon Coast. I wasn't there for photography rather to spend the time with my wife and dogs but I was able to take some photos.
A couple 850nm images from my Z7 taken on different days last weekend. One was at an arboretum about an hour away and the other was from a little walk along a local river.
Hello.
I just joined this site and would like to contribute some IR images. I had my Fuji X-E3 converted to full spectrum by LifePixel and currently have a Deep B&W Infrared (830nm) filter attached. Here's some adjustment shots I took with it. (I'm the one adjusting to the camera.)
Please let me know not just about the image quality, but how the size and presentation look also. I aimed for 1500 px on the long side for my first postings.
Thank you.
Fuji X-E3 with XF 23mm f/1.4
I too have a LifePixel converted camera - a Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1.
No comment on size or presentation, sorry.
However, two of the posted image look really fierce contrast-wise - almost as if they had been converted to pure black and white with a 'threshold' function, a la GIMP.
My personal preference in IR is to apply faux color to taste ... not saying you should do that - after all, grayscale is more pure because IR is not actually color!
These are very striking images, though I might have used a (very) little less contrast. With a full spectrum camera, you have the option of trying out 720 nm and 590 nm and perhaps experimenting with channel reversal and false colour. On downsized images, it’s a little difficult to comment on the quality. I use a Fuji X-E1 and mostly the 23mm lens as it’s about the best of the Fuji lenses for avoiding hotspots.
I'm not very familiar with Gimp, or a threshhold function. I also don't use (or like) Lightroom. From my X-E3 I use the jpegs. I have a film simulation called Agfa Scala that I downloaded from Ritchie Roesch at fujixweekly.com (credit where credit is due.) Between that simulation and the 830 filter, It was a purpose decision to get these 3 shots. The Moab shot has a lighter tonal range so I wanted to see how it presents here. When I saw the 2 images from the Tetons and how black the skies were, I thought why not let my inner Ansel have some fun. The river shot was edited to be a very high contrast image with deep dark tones. I zoomed in to 100% and used the contrast/white/black sliders in ACR to get details in the highlights and shadows where I felt they were important, and let the rest go. The trees shot does show some gray tone from water vapor in the sky (upper left,) and a greater tonal range in the mountains and grasses; so more midtones, (black sky aside.) These were my presentation tests: high, mid'ish and low tones. I normally shoot with a 720 filter so I have a good idea now of how and what to present here. Hope you don't mind I wanted to get a feel for how things work on this site before boring you with this back story.
I am a fan of faux color! I currently don't have any filters to create those types of images, but it is fun to shoot full spectrum without any filter at all. Here in SoCal (Southern California) we currently have overcast/sunshine and cool temps. I'll be heading out to do some regular bird photography soon so I'll take the X-E3 along to see if there's anything interesting I can share from around here. I'm looking forward to contributing.
@WolfsHead
Thanks for your comments. I do appreciate them.
I just sold a bunch gear so the 23mm is what I had left. But now I'm thinking about a used 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR. According to kolarivision.com/lens-hotspot-list the 18-135mm shows IR color vignetting. As I shoot mostly B&W, I'm wondering what that might look like after lens corrections in editing. Maybe a creative plus? If nothing else, 18-135mm gives more flexibility in composition. Probably keep the 23mm for the speed.
You might be surprised. Many normal photographic filters can give interesting results on FS conversions. Variable Neutral Density filters usually pass IR more than the visual, red filters are typically 590nm, but will all give fairly similar effects. Orange & yellow filters are mostly long pass types (hyper colour), some blue filters such as the kodak wratten #47 give super blue like results...
Yes unfiltered FS can also be great, often giving fairly normal colours with just a few items having altered looks (at least in the UK, changes may be more drastic in California, your cool temps would be a summers day for us!).
For many years I would shoot unfiltered FS with my Sigma DSLRs (their UV/IR blocker is in the lens mount, removable with a thumb-nail and almost as easily refitted). There being no CFA and with each raw channel being almost polychromatic, the result was usually a heavily-weighted magenta image. The only decent FS came from RawDigger's RGB conversion (LibRaw). Sigma's proprietary converter was a waste of time for FS. Not only that, no live view did not help at all.
Imagine my pleasure after getting my Lumix DMC-G1 done by LifePixel. I was surprised that they did not remove the CFA but that was more than made up for by the live view and results with the WB set to 3000K. With usually-brown sky results it was easy to turn that brown to blue (or any other color for that matter). in the GIMP