The Wood Effect
The first infrared photos were published in 1910 by Robert W. Wood who did much work with both infrared and ultraviolet light. His infrared photos required long exposures so he concentrated on landscapes. Foliage is highly reflective of infrared light and the resultant ghostly images were called the “Wood Effect”.
Kodak Infrared Aerochrome Film
I experimented a bit with infrared film in the 1960s and 1970s when it was still possible to buy Aero film. This film was developed in WWII for aerial surveillance. It was a false color film which rendered foliage as a pink color. Camouflage material did not reflect the infrared light in the same way which was useful in wartime. This photography also penetrated the haze revealing clear images. It was a popular medium for artists during the 1970s and was featured on many album covers such as Jimmy Hendrix, Donovan and the Grateful Dead. I took this photo of my girlfriend (now my wife) probably sometime in the early 1970s. These were the colors that were rendered on the film. It is untouched.
It was an expensive film and hard to find in the 1970s. It is almost impossible to find now. There was an issue of getting tack sharp photos due to the optics of a longer wavelength. It was just novelty.
Focus
If you looked carefully at the lens on SLR camera you would notice a small red mark next to the focus marker. The optical viewfinder did not accurately show when the photo was in focus. Due to the longer wavelength, the lens needed to be nudged slightly. The smaller red marker was there specifically for shooting with infrared film.
Digital Infrared Photography
I initially followed in the footsteps of Robert W. Wood with long exposures with a infrared filter. These are very dark and it took forever to get a usable photo. I still have the filter, but i never use it. I needed a conversion.
I had several older digital cameras which really had no resale value. They devaluate rather quickly. They were mirrorless 4/3 cameras manufactured by Olympus. I learned that they could be converted to cameras that would only take infrared photos. The LifePixel company would remove the infrared BLOCKING filter and replace it with a infrared PASSING filter. Focus was not an issue since that is handled by the mirrorless technology. The camera would be useless for regular photography but of more use than sitting in a drawer gathering dust.
The Infrared Spectrum 700nm – 900nm
LifePixel sells a variety of conversion filters. I started with a 720nm which gave me nice black and white images with dark skies, detailed clouds and white foliage. Later I converted another camera to use a 590nm filter. It allowed some visible light which produced some false color mimicking the old Aerochrome film. When I replaced my last camera I decided to go as a far in the spectrum as possible with a 830nm filter. I’m just beginning to explore what that can do.
590nm Infrared Portfolio
720nm Infrared Portfolio
830nm Infrared Portfolio
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
If you were to do this all over again, instead of converting multiple cameras to different wavelengths, would you do a full spectrum conversion on a single camera, and go with a variety of lens filters to get the effect you want? On several occasions, and I’ve bugged you for most of those times, I’ve toyed with the idea of converting a camera to IR. But I could never make up my mind on which conversion. The video on the LifePixel page didn’t help me much. When I looked at the images on your post, I started to lean towards a 720nm conversion. The images in the Son Nguyen Gallery, convinced me further. Independent of conversion, I had to decide which camera to convert (not that I have a lot of options). Years ago, when you showed me your converted camera, I remember it made a grinding sound when you worked the shutter. This was something that it started to do after the conversion and you thought that the conversion either damaged the camera’s IBIS or triggered some other issue related to IBIS. It’s possible I’m not remembering correctly. Regardless, I basically I got it in my head that I should avoid converting any camera with IBIS. With this in mind, the best candidate is my not so old Fuji X-E3 – no IBIS. Next question was would any of my lenses have problems with hotspots? YouTube to the rescue. Rather than bore you with my YouTube journey, bottom line, I learned my lenses will work just fine, and, going back to the question I posed at the start, I changed my mind on a 720nm conversion and decided to go with a full spectrum conversion. For now, I’ll start off with two filters: Hoya R72 and, because of the comments on your post, I want to give the Kolari IR Chrome filter a try. You probably know of the chrome filter. But just in case, check out: https://petapixel.com/2019/02/05/this-lens-filter-faithfully-recreates-the-look-of-kodak-aerochrome-ir-film/ . (In fact, I may just start with the chrome filter.)
I have no IBIS issues with the EM-1 MKII that I converted. I do wonder if I should have gone with the full spectrum option that you mention, especially since it would open up the world of ultraviolet. I might have a bit of buyers remorse with the 830nm, it might just be too far into the spectrum and not that different than the 720nm. With all the smoke from the fires, the sky is milky and not very conducive to the dramatic contrasts that I was hoping for. I’m looking forward to seeing what images you can get with your full conversion.
FWIW, yesterday I realized that one of the lenses I thought I could use with the converted camera won’t work because it is a fisheye type (not circular) and can’t take a filter. No big deal. The lens I will use is a zoom with a useful range: 18-135 (28-200 equivalent).
Have you decided to go with the full conversion? One thing I did notice was one of the lens had a “hot” spot in the center. This is noted on the LifePixel page as an artifact of shooting with infrared. Not a big deal though, it was only one lens. I do want to see what images you get. Note that the external filters probably require longer exposures, tripod needed.
Yes, I put in the order earlier today. I was concerned about hot spots, but as I learned from a YouTube video, the zoom I have should work just fine. Also, from what I saw on various YouTube videos, the filters shouldn’t affect the exposure times dramatically. Yeah, I would need a tripod if I tried to shoot with an r72 filter on an unconverted camera, though one YouTube video claimed hand held was possible with a very high ISO. The presenter seemed okay with the quality, while another presenter felt that high ISO images would be too noisy. As an aside, another presenter showed how he used an r72 filter with a 720nm conversion. I can’t remember what that bought him but I did see how this did not affect his exposure time. As I’ve been out walking the dog, I have been looking at various scenes wondering how they would look in IR. In my mind, I could see how compositions would be run of the mill in normal light but should be far more interesting because of the IR effect. Even though I put in the order today, I probably won’t send the camera out until Monday. UPS may go out on strike August 1. So it may be a while before I see the converted camera.