| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
|||||||
| Fake IR - Page 3 | |
| Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 18:50 |
|
21st Post |
TomOC
|
My thought is that one should bite the bullet and have a sensor adapted to IR to make IR images...especially since you just may choose a COLOR image  Interesting idea, but too limited to spend much time on.... Thanks for convincing me
____________________ Tom O'Connell -Lots of people talk to animals.... Not very many listen, though.... That's the problem. Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 24th, 2013 01:26 |
|
22nd Post |
jk
|
I noticed the bleeding as well on my image. It is one of the reasons which the technique is OK to show a B&W IR effect but lacks the real touch of images produced from an IR converted camera.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 24th, 2013 02:13 |
|
23rd Post |
Robert
|
Eric, thanks for doing this, may we see the original D7000 image please? I am interested why the shadow detail in the dark firs is so different between the two IR images. This seems to be similar to the apparent loss of highlight detail in the original image Tom posted.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 24th, 2013 03:29 |
|
24th Post |
Eric
|
Robert wrote: Eric, thanks for doing this, may we see the original D7000 image please?yes of course...below I am guessing its exposure. As you know....but for the benefit of those who havent dabbled with IR ..... With IR you get a fluorescence from the foliage which is in effect extra exposure. The camera sensor cant 'see' this effect and therefore meters ONLY the visible light. When the overal scene lighting is high (bright sun) the fluorescence is a minor part and the meter sets exposure for the scene correctly (OK the highlights might be a tad over, due to this extra fluorescence, but that gives the IR some of that hazy dreamy look). But in shadow areas this 'invisible light' is a greater contributor and lightens these areas. The nett effect is a lower contrast image. The significance of this can be seen when you shoot on a cloudy day. The meter says 'its a bit dull' and opens up the aperture ...but the fluorescence is still there...so the image overexposes! I have to drop exposure when the sun goes in! This balancing of elements can be critical, as (from whats been said above) the shadow areas on inanimate objects will be darker than the shadow areas of a foliage subject in the same scene! You can see this in the windows of the building on the two IR images, where the D200 has rendered them darker than corresponding shadow areas of foliage in the same lighting. Of course, ideal exposure depends on what percentage of the image is taken up by foliage. If its only a supporting role ....then the exposure 'error' is less and keeping normal settings works ok. Which brings me to the second point. For those aspiring to take good IR shots. One of the most important points about an IR image....is the contribution of the parts that ARENT WHITE. Instinctively we try to shoot wooded valley, trees by lakes, trees and grass. IMHO this becomes too boring...there is no 'subject contrast'. You NEED inanimate objects...eg...a gate, a wall, a sign, a machine, a (dark) building to counter the overal whiteness. In fact, I feel the white foliage should be a supporting role! That being the case....when I tried to use a typical scene with a mix of natural and inanimate objects, I found the ACR method didnt recognise them as inanimate objects and rendered them on pure colour. It gave some weird changes to some (eg cars with coloured stickers) that were too distracting. The ACR method simply doesnt differentiate between things that need to be IR and others that are normally rendered just grayscale. I will now stop rabbiting on. Attachment: DSCF0962col.jpg (Downloaded 26 times)
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 24th, 2013 04:25 |
|
25th Post |
Eric
|
Of course you can break the rule of 'not too much foliage' for an effect.... Attachment: _IR21463.jpg (Downloaded 26 times)
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 24th, 2013 04:27 |
|
26th Post |
Eric
|
TomOC wrote: My thought is that one should bite the bullet and have a sensor adapted to IR to make IR images...especially since you just may choose a COLOR image I just convinced myself 'out' of leaving the D200IR at home when I go on holiday. More weight to carry!  Of course the other good thing about the IR sensor conversion, is there is some residual colour in the image (more or less depending on the filter choice). This subliminal colour can be worked on in CS to produce interesting effects with very little effort.... Attachment: _IR20666v2.jpg (Downloaded 26 times)
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 24th, 2013 04:39 |
|
27th Post |
Eric
|
or like this... This is an original IR shot... NOT merged with a colour shot! Ive just flipped the residual colour to blue on one layer ....and flipped it to red on another ....boosted saturation...then blended the two layers. OK ...Im getting weirder.  Attachment: _IR23679.jpg (Downloaded 26 times)
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 24th, 2013 04:49 |
|
28th Post |
Robert
|
Thank you Eric, very interesting how the D200IR seems to record such good shadow detail compared with the D7000, I am not surprised. And please, keep Rabbiting on!!!  I have been looking at this from a simplistic point of view. Why would so many clever and specialised photographers dedicate a DSLR body, (or several) and invest heavily in modifying them and keeping dedicated IR friendly lenses, when there is supposedly a viable software alternative? The exposure is KEY. To that there is no alternative. Eric, have you assessed the process the software uses, is it an action?
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 24th, 2013 04:57 |
|
29th Post |
Eric
|
for those who want to see the transition...... Attachment: _IR23679.jpg (Downloaded 27 times)
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 24th, 2013 05:06 |
|
30th Post |
Eric
|
Robert wrote: Thank you Eric, very interesting how the D200IR seems to record such good shadow detail compared with the D7000, I am not surprised.It seems to me that the major adjustment is just done with the colour sliders. see screengrab This is my point. Sure its a clever bit of optimisation but with only 8 colours to adjust the pallette control is limited. And its when the colours fall between that the artefacts show up. It needs a dithering alorithm...which the ACR interface doesnt offer. Attachment: Untitled-1.jpg (Downloaded 25 times)
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 605 Current time is 21:25 | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > The Image Processing and Editing Forums > Special Effects > Fake IR | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0662 seconds (66% database + 34% PHP). 83 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0662 seconds (66% database + 34% PHP). 83 queries executed.