Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 149

Thread: GF1-IR, take 2

  1. #51
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by scho View Post
    Jack,
    Interesting information and good to know that the GF1 sensor seems to be exhibiting high iR sensitivity, even with the higher wavelength cut filters. The blue monochrome was exactly my experience with the 87C years ago when I first started working with IR using the old Nikon 950. Some discussion here about the 87C blue monochromatic images.
    Okay, here is the 87C update as promised. And yet again the results are AWSOME!!! (at least iMO )

    Here is the 715 out of the camera shot, using my in-camera WB1 set for the 715 conversion:



    Here is the same shot except I added the 87C filter. I did set an in-camera WB2 for it and used it here:



    Note that it the shakes on the building roof across the street are painted a barn red, which you can detect on a good monitor in this web jpeg. It is a very overcast day here, so no direct sun but some brightness from it. Both images were processed "as-shot" in C1 except for my standard identical raw conversion settings tuned to for the GF1 IR camera. (In point of fact, I would tweak them a bit for the GF1 with the 87C going forward, mostly in the form of some additional capture sharpening.) The main thing I note other than the fairly pure and neutral monochrome tone in the 87C shot, is the evergreen vegetation in the background went a lot more white. At 100% pixel view, the 87C shot also exhibits slightly more IR veiling. The exposures were f6.3 ISO 400, the 715 bare camera was 1/800th while the 87c dropped to 1/250th, or 1-2/3 stops less.

    Finally, in CS with the 87C raw converted out to a 16-bit Prophoto tiff, you can read some slight color as you drag the dropper across the image. The RGB values are all within maybe 2 to 3 point maximum spread thoughout, and when you convert to sRGB the image becomes a very nearly pure, and perfectly neutral gray monochrome -- note that I did NOT desaturate or convert the 87C image to grayscale, it is shown as-shot save for raw and web jpeg conversion.

    Honestly, I couldn't be happier -- I now have the best of both worlds for IR with just a simple filter addition!

    PS: FWIW, I use a "HeavyStar" W46 metal lens hood on my 20/1.7 lens. The nifty thing here is that HeavyStar cuts standard filter threads for the light baffles on the insides of their hoods, and in the case of the W46 that thread size happens to 52mm -- or identical to the filter thread on the 14-45 kit lens, so my 52mm 87C filter can be easily mounted on either lens.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  2. #52
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Libby View Post
    I've found when shooting IR I have to rethink my basic strategy and think in IR terms. The hotter the day is the sunnier the day is the better the images will be. Deep blue skies and lots of fluffy clouds are just icing on the cake as well.


    Don
    We will re-activate our 5D IR (inspired by this thread). This is the time for the CA valley as the hills are green.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  3. #53
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,537
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Okay, here is the 87C update as promised. And yet again the results are AWSOME!!! (at least iMO )

    Here is the 715 out of the camera shot, using my in-camera WB1 set for the 715 conversion:



    Here is the same shot except I added the 87C filter. I did set an in-camera WB2 for it and used it here:



    Note that it the shakes on the building roof across the street are painted a barn red, which you can detect on a good monitor in this web jpeg. It is a very overcast day here, so no direct sun but some brightness from it. Both images were processed "as-shot" in C1 except for my standard identical raw conversion settings tuned to for the GF1 IR camera. (In point of fact, I would tweak them a bit for the GF1 with the 87C going forward, mostly in the form of some additional capture sharpening.) The main thing I note other than the fairly pure and neutral monochrome tone in the 87C shot, is the evergreen vegetation in the background went a lot more white. At 100% pixel view, the 87C shot also exhibits slightly more IR veiling. The exposures were f6.3 ISO 400, the 715 bare camera was 1/800th while the 87c dropped to 1/250th, or 1-2/3 stops less.

    Finally, in CS with the 87C raw converted out to a 16-bit Prophoto tiff, you can read some slight color as you drag the dropper across the image. The RGB values are all within maybe 2 to 3 point maximum spread thoughout, and when you convert to sRGB the image becomes a very nearly pure, and perfectly neutral gray monochrome -- note that I did NOT desaturate or convert the 87C image to grayscale, it is shown as-shot save for raw and web jpeg conversion.

    Honestly, I couldn't be happier -- I now have the best of both worlds for IR with just a simple filter addition!

    PS: FWIW, I use a "HeavyStar" W46 metal lens hood on my 20/1.7 lens. The nifty thing here is that HeavyStar cuts standard filter threads for the light baffles on the insides of their hoods, and in the case of the W46 that thread size happens to 52mm -- or identical to the filter thread on the 14-45 kit lens, so my 52mm 87C filter can be easily mounted on either lens.
    Jack,
    Many thanks for posting these images and filter tips. Seems like the 87C is an ideal filter to have for easy, out of camera neutral IR images on a 715nm converted G/GF1. I also have the Heavystar W46 for my 20/1.7 lens so good to know about the fit for the 52mm filter.
    Carl
    Gallery

  4. #54
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    I can't find the W46 heavystar. I have been using their hoods for years
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  5. #55
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I can't find the W46 heavystar. I have been using their hoods for years
    It's just their "wide" 46mm hood. Send him an email.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  6. #56
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by scho View Post
    Jack,
    Many thanks for posting these images and filter tips. Seems like the 87C is an ideal filter to have for easy, out of camera neutral IR images on a 715nm converted G/GF1. I also have the Heavystar W46 for my 20/1.7 lens so good to know about the fit for the 52mm filter.
    My pleasure Carl -- it really does make for a very versatile IR camera I think!
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  7. #57
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    So we've posted a thread in the images to share section where I used the GF1-IR some more and received this question:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    I want to see even more straight out of camera colour! My wallet of course is begging you not to...
    Since it was important, I figured I'd add the response to this thread for posterity. The whole thread where the above question originated is here: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14187

    So... You should realize that the color rendering is *VERY* dependent on lighting. The shots in Alviso of the railroad tracks were under heavy overcast, so less IR is penetrating, making the color spectrum more prominent. Yesterday, we had more open sunshine and so the color becomes less prominent -- here are 3 examples, all basically as shot out of the camera, except I even pumped up saturation by 10 points just so you could better see the hint of color:

    (The white in the tree is mistletoe)






    What is cool, is you do see what you're getting on the real lCD in live-view form, a bit handier than shooting it in visible and chimping. Also, you get an almost sepia/selenium split-tone effect straight out of the camera, especially if you desaturate by about 50 points. Still figuring it all out myself...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,537
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    So we've posted a thread in the images to share section where I used the GF1-IR some more and received this question:



    Since it was important, I figured I'd add the response to this thread for posterity. The whole thread where the above question originated is here: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14187

    So... You should realize that the color rendering is *VERY* dependent on lighting. The shots in Alviso of the railroad tracks were under heavy overcast, so less IR is penetrating, making the color spectrum more prominent. Yesterday, we had more open sunshine and so the color becomes less prominent -- here are 3 examples, all basically as shot out of the camera, except I even pumped up saturation by 10 points just so you could better see the hint of color:

    (The white in the tree is mistletoe)






    What is cool, is you do see what you're getting on the real lCD in live-view form, a bit handier than shooting it in visible and chimping. Also, you get an almost sepia/selenium split-tone effect straight out of the camera, especially if you desaturate by about 50 points. Still figuring it all out myself...
    Very nice images Jack. Are you using the accessory EVF or LCD and if the former does it gain up and make fine focusing difficult in manual mode?
    Carl
    Gallery

  9. #59
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Hi Carl:

    I'm just using the rear LCD to compose and shoot. I find the larger rear LCD works better for me in general for MF with the GF1, so I no longer use the EVF at all.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  10. #60
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Thanks for sharing this great information and photography, Jack. After seeing this thread, I'm strongly considering sending my G1 in for conversion. Any reason why that camera would be harder to convert than a GF1?

  11. #61
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    Any reason why that camera would be harder to convert than a GF1?
    Hi Amin:

    I'll save you the read through the other thread where I was the guinea-pig for the GF1 conversion. Bottom line is Panny added IR blocking to the dust shake glass in the GF1 and it has to be removed in the GF1 conversion. Apparently this was not the case in the G1. Of course this means we've lost auto clean in the GF1, so we're back to canned air or swabs if you get goop on the sensor, but for me, I pretty much leave the kit 14-45 bolted to the camera and it hasn't been a huge issue yet. I'll probably blow it out daily on the Salton Sea workshop to prevent issues.

    As for differences in the images, I doubt we could tell the difference between a converted G1 and a converted GF1 if the images were side-by-side.

    So everybody is clear, I went with the GF1 for the reason I wanted my IR camera to fit inside a lens-slot in my MF bag so I always have IR with me. When the visible light goes to crap, the opportunity for IR expands my subject matter and shooting hours tremendously. And the G1 with the 14-45 on it won't make the MF lens-slot, but the GF1 with 14-45 will...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  12. #62
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Thanks, Jack. I don't worry much about dust. I lived happily with dust on a Canon 5D for years, and as you said, sensors don't come much easier to clean than the ones in MFT cameras.

  13. #63
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    When the visible light goes to crap, the opportunity for IR expands my subject matter and shooting hours tremendously.
    Jack... this comment opened my eyes to something I hadn't even thought of... that capturing images with IR light would be less dependent on visible light. So I take it that IR captures after sundown don't require as much increased exposure as regular captures do?

    And another thought occurred to me... IR captures can be enhanced in tonal range through exposure blending just as regular captures can, right? Have you tried blending any IR brackets? I would guess that might yield some particularly stunning results.

  14. #64
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by DHart View Post
    So I take it that IR captures after sundown don't require as much increased exposure as regular captures do?
    Don't think so. If I understand Jack right he means the following:

    1. Overcast often nice for normal photography not that good IR

    2. Harsh noon sun is bad for normal photos and can be good for IR
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  15. #65
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ustein View Post
    Don't think so. If I understand Jack right he means the following:

    1. Overcast often nice for normal photography not that good IR

    2. Harsh noon sun is bad for normal photos and can be good for IR
    Sorry if this sounds confusing.

    Harsh noon Sun isn't all that great for IR either. Once (another thread another camera), Jim Collum answered a question of mine by saying that he does not take a camera out (at all) when there is direct, harsh Sunlight. There was a ton of practical experience/wisdom packed in that seemingly simple reply.

    From Jack's images (M8, MF backs) earlier, I would say that he meant the evening light around a sunset.

    There are quite a few enchanting images from one of the earlier workshops (with an M8) shown.

  16. #66
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Ok it is a least my take. All of these images:

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14187

    were taken between 8:45am and 3:30 pm. We had often sunlight with clouds.

    This image shows how IR records sunlight and shade:

    Last edited by ustein; 12th February 2010 at 21:51.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  17. #67
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Jack

    pardon the late entry

    excellent stuff. I'm not really a false colour guy, but when my last brick of HIE goes into the soup this will be where I'm going.

    its also nice to note there were no optical center halo effects which some lenses cause

    great to see

  18. #68
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Uwe, I would freely admit that I have little experience with landscape shooting (I have little interest as of now, yet. But that is besides the point).

    What I do know is that, under IR (ie when proper tools are used), contrast is higher than normal, visible light. This creates massive problems, especially when dealing with skin tones and surroundings (urban structures). If you want to show sunlit grass, skies with no clouds and some urban structures in one frame, harsh sunlight is not the one I would prefer.

    Of course, with post capture manipulations, the story could be re-told in many different ways.
    Last edited by Vivek; 12th February 2010 at 23:21.

  19. #69
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Perhaps, then, bracketed IR exposures, blended, can allow IR to create stunning results under conditions which might otherwise have been considered undesireable? I've never heard of blended IR exposures, but the concept intrigues me anyway.

  20. #70
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by DHart View Post
    Perhaps, then, bracketed IR exposures, blended, can allow IR to create stunning results under conditions which might otherwise have been considered undesireable? I've never heard of blended IR exposures, but the concept intrigues me anyway.
    That calls for a different approach. Either don't take the camera out on a harsh lit day or blend it like you wish after wards.

    Either of them are applicable to any type of shooting (Visible or IR).

    Harsh light:



    Cloudy, overcast light with approaching storm:



    Both using a converted Nikon D80-IR (Hoya R72 filter over the sensor) and a kitzoom.

    The sunlit image starts to show cracks (grain in shadows and abrupt transitions) when enlarged. Both images have minimal post capture work (curves and contrast).

  21. #71
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Hi All,

    I'll respond to the above 6 or 8 comments en-masse.

    DHart and Vivek, Uwe is more correct in what I was meaning.

    Jim Collum's philosophy is vastly different from mine on this topic. Jim likes soft, flat light, and when the light's like that, he won't stop shooting even to eat -- seriously! However, if the Sun is out in full force, he will often ride in the car and never pull more than his cell phone camera out to shoot. As a matter of fact, I was joking with him about this very thing the other night. This is also not to say Jim is wrong and I am right, but more an example of differing philosophies on photographing. In this case, harsh light simply does not have anywhere to fit into Jim's artistic style. I on the other hand, am not so easily discouraged by it. But then Jim does what he does very well, and his style clearly comes though in every image he posts and maybe I could learn a thing or two from that...

    For IR, I feel you get more dramatic false-color effects in the pre-dawn light or under heavier overcast shooting conditions. In the beginning this is what I was after for IR and why I limited my shooting to those times. Mid-morning through later evening, assuming it's been a sunny day, the IR (heat) lingers in everything, so you do not get the same effects as you will in the early morning as everything has an abundance of IR.

    However, during harsher direct daytime light, I feel you can still make interesting IR images. These tend to be the really high-contrast monochrome as there is so much IR present it pretty over-powers the slight bit of color needed for false color -- as in Vivek's example above. Though as can be seen in my full-color images earlier in the thread, at least with this last GF1 conversion, a tiny bit of color hangs in and can be put to interesting use too. All that said, I think straight, harsh Noon light with no clouds in a sky, make for pretty boring images. If one wants to shoot, this is the time for longer lenses and isolations whether you shoot for normal color, monochrome or IR. Invariably though, at least for me, since this type of shooting is usually about capturing shape, form and textures, so this is when my color captures typically get converted to monochromes... What's new for me, is this is also a time when I now am beginning to see and think in monochrome myself. So when that happens, IR can be more interesting than normal due to the inversions and juxtapositions of normal tonal values.

    Finally, having a tiny camera all ready to go, makes it convenient to shoot IR and hence I do more of it. With the M8, I had to want to shoot IR bad enough to take the time to screw the IR/UV cut filter off and screw the IR pass filter on, and I am admittedly lazy enough I usually wouldn't bother expending that simple effort to try it. Having a little, dedicated camera all primed and ready to go has changed that for me.

    As to HDR blending, I do not see it for IR. Bottom line is even in harsh light, the band is so narrow I almost always have a complete histogram to manipulate, so HDR would be kind of pointless.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  22. #72
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Excellent summary, Jack!

    Great example of what an adult site with mature discussion can do to disseminate useful information in a friendly way!

  23. #73
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Thank you Vivek, that's what it's all about IMO, sharing information . FWIW I like BOTH of those images you posted very much, and they're perfect examples for what I wrote above!
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  24. #74
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ustein View Post
    Ok it is a least my take. All of these images:

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14187

    were taken between 8:45am and 3:30 pm. We had often sunlight with clouds.

    This image shows how IR records sunlight and shade:
    just curious ... film or digital

    if digital blended exposures?

    HIE so far has given me pretty good capture range, Australia (when I go home) has much starker contrasts so I will be interested to see how well a digital goes. I have a coolpix 990 awaiting conversion as my preview / lightmeter camera

    dam shame there ain't no 4x5 sheets in this anymore, but that's another forum

    :-)

    PS

    perhaps even there it might be ok ... this is a quick test done with a coolpix 950 a few years ago



    histogram seems to be acceptable
    Last edited by pellicle; 13th February 2010 at 02:14.

  25. #75
    firefox23508
    Guest

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Greetings Jack, new to this forum but have been a member of the IR website for a few years.

    I have a question for you regarding your GF1. I have a Panasonic G1 I have been planning on having converted. When I had my Canon Rebel XT converted by LifePixel a few years ago, I noticed some front/back focus issues on different lenses--caused no doubt by the fact that IR focuses on a slightly different plane than visible light. Even though that was supposed to be compensated for in the conversion, it was not perfect for a gamut of lenses (LifePixel claims to have corrected focus to a standard 50mm lens and I have no reason to doubt that, but it was not accurate for all lenses).

    My understanding is that IR converted micro 4/3's cameras are immune to this focus problem because focus is achieved on the sensor in live view regardless of the autofocus lens used. Can you confirm this? Have you noticed any focusing irregularities with your camera and lenses?

  26. #76
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ustein View Post
    I also find IR very interesting for Blending.

    http://outbackphoto.smugmug.com/Imag...58_NEp3L-O.jpg
    Very lovely work, Uwe!

  27. #77
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    As to HDR blending, I do not see it for IR. Bottom line is even in harsh light, the band is so narrow I almost always have a complete histogram to manipulate, so HDR would be kind of pointless.
    Jack... thanks for all the info!

    So, you're saying that the tonal range of IR light is so narrow that with a single exposure you can comfortably capture good detail in both deep shadow areas as well as bright highlight areas? Put another way, increasing exposure beyond a given "midpoint" doesn't really get you any more shadow detail and decreasing it doesn't yield more highlight detail?

  28. #78
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,537
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    I found this thread on calibrating raw histograms and WB:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...1&changemode=1
    Works very well for generating a calibrated target for setting WB with IR converted cameras. Basically, just create a new document in Photoshop with white background in RGB mode and set fill to R162 G64 B104 (tweak for your monitor) to get a magenta screen that will produce a neutral WB in camera. Use the screen display (full screen mode) as your target for custom white balance setting. If anyone has already used this procedure to generate appropriate "magenta target" RGB numbers for a nice warm/neutral result with the G series sensor let me know. My default custom WB is a bit on the cool side and I'm looking for a way to warm it up in the mids a bit. Also note that LR, ACR, and perhaps other raw processors will truncate color temp WB settings at 2000 and muck up your nice custom WB setting. RAW Developer (and I think C1 also) do not do this. Wish Adobe would get this fixed.
    Carl
    Gallery

  29. #79
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    FWIW, posted a few more GF1 IR's in the IR thread. Here are a couple of them:



    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  30. #80
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by firefox23508 View Post
    Greetings Jack, new to this forum but have been a member of the IR website for a few years.

    I have a question for you regarding your GF1. I have a Panasonic G1 I have been planning on having converted. When I had my Canon Rebel XT converted by LifePixel a few years ago, I noticed some front/back focus issues on different lenses--caused no doubt by the fact that IR focuses on a slightly different plane than visible light. Even though that was supposed to be compensated for in the conversion, it was not perfect for a gamut of lenses (LifePixel claims to have corrected focus to a standard 50mm lens and I have no reason to doubt that, but it was not accurate for all lenses).

    My understanding is that IR converted micro 4/3's cameras are immune to this focus problem because focus is achieved on the sensor in live view regardless of the autofocus lens used. Can you confirm this? Have you noticed any focusing irregularities with your camera and lenses?
    Welcome to GetDPI! While I cannot confirm for 100% that focus is achieved directly off the sensor, I suspect in fact that it is. The reason for this is all of my Panny m4/3rds lenses focus perfectly on this camera. However, Precision warned me that doing the 665 nm conversion leaves enough visible light coming through that infinity focus cannot be achieved with the wider lenses as part of the conversion process lengthens the distance between the sensor and the lens flange. Obviously this isn't a problem for the heavier IR band as it has a longer flange focal than visible -- that was the primary reason I opted for the 715 nm conversion.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  31. #81
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by DHart View Post
    So, you're saying that the tonal range of IR light is so narrow that with a single exposure you can comfortably capture good detail in both deep shadow areas as well as bright highlight areas? Put another way, increasing exposure beyond a given "midpoint" doesn't really get you any more shadow detail and decreasing it doesn't yield more highlight detail?
    Basically, yes . Bottom line is that all of the images I have posted contained the total luminance range. Put another way, I had room at BOTH ends of the histo on the base image an pulled in the endpoints to fill the image luminance -- which is also why most of them show such high contrast. They may show slightly clipped values at either or both ends in these jpegs, as the jpegging process may clip them slightly.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  32. #82
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Well the desert stuff is really pretty amazing with IR . Shot mostly with the 7-14 at ISO 100 this morning the Saguaro is with the 20mm. I processed in C1 with some styles than some without . I'm really just playing around at the moment and used Jack's warming B&W action which I like but anyway here are three shots and going through some more stuff. I was also out to see what happens to color and it's effects in IR and that is really interesting to see what it does.

    This is the 20mm with the warming effect


    This is just B&W


    This one is interesting I used a style in C1 than a warming effect


    Now my style for IR maybe different than others I'm after the drama more than the subtle look.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  33. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Istanbul/Turkey
    Posts
    339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    This second camera conversion is wonderful.
    Thanks for the photos. I may have to buy one more camera now!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    FWIW, posted a few more GF1 IR's in the IR thread. Here are a couple of them:



    H3DII-31, 5DII, M8, NEX-3 and Camera collection
    http://seyhun.com
    Facebook Page

  34. #84
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Thank you -- I'm definitely liking this conversion!

    I know it's not everybody's cup of tea, but I've been refining my workflow and here are a couple of false color conversions just to compare FWIW:



    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  35. #85
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Just starting to dip my toe in the water of IR processing. But here is one from my first outing with my converted GF1. I will work on refining my workflow next week from the Salton Sea.


  36. #86
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,537
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    Just starting to dip my toe in the water of IR processing. But here is one from my first outing with my converted GF1. I will work on refining my workflow next week from the Salton Sea.

    Beautiful scene and nice composition Terry. Just needs a little pop - curve adjustment?
    Carl
    Gallery

  37. #87
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Terry... that's awesome! SF Botanical Gardens?

    I need to get back to the Bay Area this year... I lived in SF for 7 years then Orinda for a few decades... haven't been back there in too many years. Living near Portland, OR now.

    P.S. I'd vote to just barely crush the blacks just an itsy bitsy teensy weensy bit as well. But I like it a lot as is too.

  38. #88
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    OK here is even more contrast. Thought I had added a fair bit before. Let me know if this is over the top....also a false color version but I still need to work on the workflow....




  39. #89
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    OK here is even more contrast. Thought I had added a fair bit before. Let me know if this is over the top....also a false color version but I still need to work on the workflow....


    The B&W version is very nice.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  40. #90
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    OK here is even more contrast. Thought I had added a fair bit before. Let me know if this is over the top....also a false color version but I still need to work on the workflow...
    I shot some IR today, but I don't have ant pictures of buildings LOL
    -bob

  41. #91
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,580
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Terry, I really like this one in black and white. I'm excited to see what you come up with from the Salton Sea. I'm also really looking forward to your X1 review.

  42. #92
    Senior Member DHart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pacific NorthWest
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Terry... I've changed my mind; I like your first version better and think it's just awesome as it was then. Of course, this is just one person's view and nothing more.

    I think your personal creative vision and instinct is all that matters and when you are pleased with it... then it is exactly as it should be.

  43. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    I tend to like my IR a bit dramatic, so I think I like the bit more contrasty one, but both are nice. The false color is interesting also. I like the subject for IR--one of my favorite places for IR is a botanical garden with some interesting structures, but yours is a wonderful sort of fantastical structure which lends itself to IR--which is sort of surreal in and of itself.

    Diane

  44. #94
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Bump to move this thread back up top ---- getting several PM's about the GF1 conversion based on the images being shared from our Salton Sea workshop last week.

    And I might as well add a few images for posterity, a mix of full monochrome and partial IR color images:






    ~~~

    Here is a false color conversion done is CS:


    ~~~

    After the workshop I was wandering though some rocks in Joshua Tree NP and stumbled upon this woman. I said "Hello, may I take your picture," but curiously she didn't respond and just kept looking at me... So I snapped one quick one anyway and left her to her sunning. This one in full color IR straight out of the camera:











    Thanks,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  45. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles CA
    Posts
    262
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Jack,

    Great set of IR photos. Your last one, the portrait of the beautiful woman is outstanding.

  46. #96
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,580
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Jack, I love your IR photos. I am not a fan of false color, but you do it with class and I'm finding I'm really liking them.

  47. #97
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Thanks Howard and Cindy!

    Re the "as shot" color, I give all the credit to the camera and the conversion --- all I did was add a touch of saturation on conversion.

    On the false color, I use the same color file, also with a touch of saturation bump (8 points in C1), then swap the R and B channels in CS. Here I've created a CS action that lays down a cleaning layer, a Channel Mixer adjustment layer for the channel swap, a Hue/Sat adjustment layer and a Curves adjustment layer. I then simply run that action, tweak the hue slider to get the blues where I want them, then tweak curves for contrast, then go back and adjust final saturation to taste. That's it, and about as easy as it gets

    For a comparative, here is the exact same files as above, only the trailer processed as shot color and the girl processed for false color. Understand I do not prefer these options, just using them as decent examples to show which colors are affected and how. Note that a similar curve adds a bit of brightness to the false color version, and I have not sorted out the reason why yet:



    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  48. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Still pretty low on the learning curve compared to others. I want to thank Carl Schofield for some very much appreciated workflow hints....and of course, Jack for his PS actions.

    GH-1 (IR) + Hexanon UC 15/2.8

    Converted in C1 with Jack's "false color" action


  49. #99
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,537
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich M View Post
    Still pretty low on the learning curve compared to others. I want to thank Carl Schofield for some very much appreciated workflow hints....and of course, Jack for his PS actions.

    GH-1 (IR) + Hexanon UC 15/2.8

    Converted in C1 with Jack's "false color" action

    Very nice shot Rich. It is definitely much easier to get a good white balance in C1. Pity that ACR and LR don't interpret custom WB correctly.
    Carl
    Gallery

  50. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: GF1-IR, take 2

    Quote Originally Posted by scho View Post
    Very nice shot Rich. It is definitely much easier to get a good white balance in C1. Pity that ACR and LR don't interpret custom WB correctly.
    Carl....what I don't understand is that in LR....the WB bottoms out at 2000K and there is a mild to strong magenta cast to the converted image (depending on time of day, etc.). It seems like you would get less color cast if you could go below 2000K.

    In C1, the same image shows up with a WB at ~2350K and has little or no color cast.

    Just the way it is, I guess.

    Thanks again.....R

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •