I tried using Photoshop to change an existing color image to IR:

How does this look?  I find that you cannot have too many dark items in an image to do this type of conversion. Let me know what you think via site mail. Thanks.

Attached Link: False IR

OK, Check the above photo now !!!

Better! :thumbupboth:

I would guess not, but i love it! ;'p

Experimenting with Pshop CS3 new Auto Align Layers function - stitched together 5 images here.

If you'd like to see the larger version, please use this link:

http://www.pbase.com/l8rdaze/image/92966603/original

Joe

Seamless! Great moody photo Joe!

Attached Link: Digital Lloyd

Your furry friend seems to enjoy the IR experience.  Need to win the lotto so I can try all the neat lenses.  That website is not dial up friendly though. 

I did see, TwoPnts, where you said:
Thanks Joe. Nuthin I could do about the building and still get the moon in the right spot.
Not sure if I can clone it out professionally enough either. 

Did I even mention that I love a good challenge? (and that I've been told I have the patience of a saint?) Here you go. Only thing I couldn't do was reinsert your sig.

I enjoyed playing with it, hope you don't mind.   : ) 

Now I'm back to half way up the pages so I can read the rest of everyone's input.  

LOL, I don't mind at all. And may I say, "FANTASTIC JOB!" :thumbupboth: You really made this image look great, and without the building I would say it is gallery worthy. Do you mind if I snag it for my gallery? Would give you editing credit of course. Brilliant work, just brilliant. I would not have guessed there ever was a building there...

TwoPynts, of course you can snag, it's your photo. :biggrin:  Glad I tried it, never could resist those "can't be done" words.  

Yvonne 

Thanks Yvonne, it is up! :o)

Well, I got my IR filter in the mail today, already have a tripod and a cable so I'm all set, just need the weather to co-operate now, and of course fhe forcast is for snow tonight, snow tomorrow and through the rest of the week. Arrggggggggggggg! 

Ain't that always the way!

IR Snowscapes....Hmm that might be something to try!  (Hint Hint Nudge Nudge)

I have an IR calendar and the very first photo for January is of a skier in the snow. It looks great! ((congrats LP))

LOL ok ok, I got the hint. Although by time I got home from work it was it was twilight and getting cold(er) so I perhaps this weekend when I've got a full day's worth of sunlight I'll see what I can accomplish.

Thanks to the both of you for the motivation. 

Yvonne

Attached Link: dibyogahari

www.myinfrared.com/galeri/index.php

Am still not sure how to change name of link but I think TwoPynt's was hoping to lead you to above!
 One H to many :D

thanks CTW. I fixed my link...there was an extra h in the http. If you use the fields below, you can just enter the name of the link in the first line, and then the URL in the line below that.

I know someone mentioned a program  or two that helps with that, I'll have to peruse the pages again to pick up on that.

I'm also getting a handle on the post shot processing, I use PSP and all the tuts I've seen so far are for similar programs but I think I'm getting the gist of it, just have to learn the fine tuning.

The non IR shot is in my gallery if you'd like to compare http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1629190

I did notice there is a rather skewed rectangular highlight in this one, I think what is happening here is that sun is getting in the viewfinder (as it was to my back) and leaving it's imprint on the shot. I didn't notice this until I was back home with the shots on the computer so I'll have to try blocking it another day and see if the effect goes away. Anyone have a alternate idea or can confirm what I think?

And thanks in advance for any hints,

Yvonne

Thanks for sharing Yvonne. I like both...but yes the ISO 200 photo came out less grainy. That highlight "might" be an artifact of the lens you are using and the angle towards the sun, but without further tests it is hard to say for sure. Funny how red comes out white in IR, isn't it? :o)

Bringin' back the IR thread....

Thanks Joe! Neat photograph...shot in a garden?

Yeppers....sisters backyard!

Forgive me to say it Kort but those veins look cool. I know from personal experience those nasty things hurt, but Ir shows a "nice" fascinating side of it. Also like her blueish hair.

seeya  and pls keep this tread alive....truly fascinating stuff....thanks Tunde

Ok, from a nonexperienced infrared sort like me,  if you shoot a hot object does this show more infrared?

Attached Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Infrared_Filters

It has to do with capturing IR LIGHT, which is normally blocked by a camera. IR Filters enable the camera to "see" in the IR spectrum.     HEAT would be more THERMAL imaging.

More info at the included link:

Ditto Joe's comment. It is a common misconception that IR equates to heat. Tunde, as I mentioned, the veins were not visible in normal light, at least not as in your face as they are in IR.

Attached Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

That is what I was thinking...and that our cameras recording normal IR are seeing that spectrum level reflected from objects in the most part, while in yours the light is generated through heat.

When I weld platinum, I use a gold #9 lens to protect my eyes from the white light which will easily burn the retina. I imagine a lot of IR is in that white appearing light, unseen.. Temp is close to 3200ºF.

Yes, the imaging techniques are different.

From a scientific website:

Thermal Infrared (Thermal IR) sensors do not detect reflected radiation, they are tuned to respond to emitted heat energy (thermal wavelengths). Photography's Color Infrared (CIR) uses special film, lenses and filters to capture reflected near infrared energy (sometimes called Near IR), NOT emitted thermal infrared (heat). Common misconceptions about "Infrared Photography" are that even though EMR (Electro Magnetic Radiation) in those wavelengths are sometimes labeled as part of the "visible" spectrum, these wavelengths cannot be sensed by our eyes and are NOT IN ANY WAY associated with heat. Standard filament light bulbs, like a glowing white hot metal rod, emit thermal infrared wavelengths and are a good source of radiate heat (Thermal Infrared) but not a very efficient source of visible light (the percentage of visible white light emitted by a filament light bulb, based its temperature, is very small compared to the percentage that is given off as invisible thermal energy that does not help us see). Color Infrared (CIR) photographs result from film that has reacted to sunlight that has been REFLECTED from the surface, NOT emitted (that's Thermal IR).

I can see why madmikie had to use those settings to get the image, perhaps getting thermal IR.

What is the typical exposure time of the normal camera IR shots you folks take? 

Thanks...Tom.

Quote - What is the typical exposure time of the normal camera IR shots you folks take?

Depends on if you have the hot mirror removed or not.  Almost normal exposure times if you have your camera modded and between 5-15 minutes for unmodded cams, save a few special cases.

Wow..that filter on the sensor makes a huge difference.  Thanks.       Tom.

 Doh!  I meant 5-15 seconds!  My bad.
It still makes a big difference though...from handheld to tripod.

Great topic Tom.

Upon futher review.

Based on some further reading I am guessing that the soldering iron glow is NOT thermal but falls into the very narrow range of the IR spectrum(below 1000 nm's, which is the range of a camera sensor too) that is considered not to be emitted by the heat of the object.  I ran across a couple of articles that finally whacked me in the head and got my attention.  And I suppose this is where, in my mind, where it is confusing because that soldering iron is hot but this part of the spectrum the light will not heat.   I think it must have something to do with the time/space continuem.  Where's Q when you need him?

Seems my example was a bit misleading, but still shows that if the object is hot enough your that camera will detect more infrared.

I have developed a headache thinking about it so I am going back to my original hypothesis.  ITS MAGIC!!!!!!

Anyway, its a great way to another view of things.

Mike

i got a hold of some color infrared film about 20 years or so ago and took some shots down in disney worlds epcot center and i must say its really trippy looking when processed, if i can find some of the photos i'll post them in the gallery.
-Rich

Rich, I would like to see those pics.      Tom

Captured this one a few weeks ago at Veterans Park (Hamilton Square NJ)

Quote - Rich, I would like to see those pics.      Tom

Tom,  i couldn't find the prints (at least not yet, i'll search some more tomorrow) but i did find the slides so if worse comes to worse i'll scan and upload them these coming days.
i'll post some here and most likely add some into my gallery too.
be advised these were taken in the early 80's when i was first experimenting with photography so don't expect much as far as composition and all, i'll weed out the real  bad ones.  ;-)
-Rich

I think I need to work on finessing the post work a bit more but I think I'm getting there  : )  

HI All
sorry for being away for so long, but the health is getting the better of me,so been laid low for a while to let the old carcass recover somewhat.

Anyway after months of experiementation and deleting bags of failed images, I have managed to get usable handheld IR shots using a CANON 350D and the IR filter.  I will go through my work process and findings.

I set the camera to taker RAW images only then once this is done I set the WB to something fairly reflective like a mirror or polished steel (this gives a slightly higher than normal light reading even over exposed but I find its needed).  Then set the WB SHFT/BKT to M8 or R0, after this I set the BRK to cover at least 2 stops to what I think I may need.  I have stopped using a tripod but I do use a monopod to keep stability depending on the lens I use.  After this I set the PARAMETERS to B&W with no toning effects and no filter effects.

These are the settings I use, I stress that they may or may not work for you. But play around and see what happens.

After I have done the above I set the film speed to ISO 400 or ISO 800 I find after faster leads to more unusuable images, because of the noise (grain) but thats my personal preference.

I turn off the AF and manually focus then I slip in the IR filter (Wratten 89B equivalent). 

I hope this helps, and sorry to be out of circulation for so long.  BTW for the UK people, theres a company that can convert your camera to IR only.  The details are

Advanced Camera services
UNIT 10
Linmore Court
Threxton Road IND Estate
Watton
Norfolk
IP25 6NG

TEL: 01953 889324

Welcome back John. Glad to hear you are feeling better and thanks for the info. LovelyPoetess, you certainly are getting a handle on it, lovely shot!