In Memoriam

[El Sid]

St Marys Church, Sidlesham, Sussex


In Memoriam by Nigel Hayes, on Flickr

[Tony Hawkins]

Re: In Memoriam

Like that Nigel. I've always been interested in IR. Do you have a converted camera or filter?

[@imagesBV]

Re: In Memoriam

Impacting...and a bit spooky....but I've never been an IR fan.

[tesarver]

Re: In Memoriam

Well done Nigel

Tom

[El Sid]

Re: In Memoriam

Like that Nigel. I've always been interested in IR. Do you have a converted camera or filter?

Thanks Tony.

In this case it's a converted 1000D which I bought secondhand from Ffordes. I don't know for sure what the actual spec is is but from the results I'd guess it's a standard 720nm conversion - equivalent to a Hoya R72 filter.

I have used a filter in the past but most modern cameras have strong anti-IR filters (removed during conversion) as part of the sensor assembly which makes using filters difficult. My ancient D30 is reasonably IR sensitive but exposures tend to require a few seconds even at highish ISO (400 or 800). By comparison my 40D, hardly modern itself, while sensitive to IR requires much longer exposures in the tens of seconds to get a generally weaker result. Worst of all is my Panny G3 which effectively won't do IR at any ISO without requiring a near terminal exposure time.

For IR with a filter old Nikons are probably best, my D50 averages around 1-2 seconds at about 400ISO in good light compared with the old D30's 8-12secs.

TBH IR with a filter is a faff as you have to focus the camera first in manual then offset the focus slightly to allow for the different focal point of IR - assuming your lens even has an IR mark, many modern lenses, even primes, don't - and then screw on or otherwise attach the filter without disturbing the focus. Add to that the long exposures, the need for a tripod and the fact that the extended exposure times can lead to ghost images and flare spots being caused by internal reflections of the small amount of visible light that isn't cut off and it soon becomes clear that conversion is the way to go if you are sufficiently keen.

In some ways I was lucky in that I had a Nikon/Canon adapter and could use my old MF Nikkors, complete with IR indexing mark, on the old D30 which helped a bit. Discovering the highly IR sensitive nature of the D50 Nikon was bonus but it still meant that an IR photo session had to be quite definitely planned if it was to be worth it. By comparison the 1000D just sits in the bag with the normal gear meaning it's available for use at any time, the AF can be used, within limits, and with the ISO around 400/800 handheld shooting is possible.

If you are sufficiently keen on IR then a converted camera is the best option. Conversion is about £300 give or take if you supply the camera or you can do what I did and keep an eye out for a used one - though they are rather few and far between and you might have to wait a while and then strike like a cobra when you see one...

Impacting...and a bit spooky....but I've never been an IR fan.

Well done Nigel

Tom

Thanks guys.

[Tony Hawkins]

Re: In Memoriam

Thanks Tony.

In this case it's a converted 1000D which I bought secondhand from Ffordes. I don't know for sure what the actual spec is is but from the results I'd guess it's a standard 720nm conversion - equivalent to a Hoya R72 filter.

I have used a filter in the past but most modern cameras have strong anti-IR filters (removed during conversion) as part of the sensor assembly which makes using filters difficult. My ancient D30 is reasonably IR sensitive but exposures tend to require a few seconds even at highish ISO (400 or 800). By comparison my 40D, hardly modern itself, while sensitive to IR requires much longer exposures in the tens of seconds to get a generally weaker result. Worst of all is my Panny G3 which effectively won't do IR at any ISO without requiring a near terminal exposure time.

For IR with a filter old Nikons are probably best, my D50 averages around 1-2 seconds at about 400ISO in good light compared with the old D30's 8-12secs.

TBH IR with a filter is a faff as you have to focus the camera first in manual then offset the focus slightly to allow for the different focal point of IR - assuming your lens even has an IR mark, many modern lenses, even primes, don't - and then screw on or otherwise attach the filter without disturbing the focus. Add to that the long exposures, the need for a tripod and the fact that the extended exposure times can lead to ghost images and flare spots being caused by internal reflections of the small amount of visible light that isn't cut off and it soon becomes clear that conversion is the way to go if you are sufficiently keen.

In some ways I was lucky in that I had a Nikon/Canon adapter and could use my old MF Nikkors, complete with IR indexing mark, on the old D30 which helped a bit. Discovering the highly IR sensitive nature of the D50 Nikon was bonus but it still meant that an IR photo session had to be quite definitely planned if it was to be worth it. By comparison the 1000D just sits in the bag with the normal gear meaning it's available for use at any time, the AF can be used, within limits, and with the ISO around 400/800 handheld shooting is possible.

If you are sufficiently keen on IR then a converted camera is the best option. Conversion is about £300 give or take if you supply the camera or you can do what I did and keep an eye out for a used one - though they are rather few and far between and you might have to wait a while and then strike like a cobra when you see one...





Thanks guys.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply Nigel; really interesting.