<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel> 

	<title>Comments on: Digital Infrared photography</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34002/Digital-Infrared-photography/</link>
	<description>Comments on MetaFilter post Digital Infrared photography</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:41:06 -0800</pubDate>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:41:06 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>

	<item>
		<title>Digital Infrared photography</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34002/Digital-Infrared-photography</link>	
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.echeng.com/photo/infrared/"&gt;Shooting outside of our vision.&lt;/a&gt; Infrared photography is cool - the world looks surreal.  But man, it&apos;s a PIA.  Just keeping the film at the right temperatures is difficult.

So, all of this can be done digitally.  I still haven&apos;t gotten around to buying the necessary pieces, but in replying to this &lt;a title=&quot;Ask MetaFilter | Community Weblog&quot; href=&quot;http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/8312&quot;&gt;Ask MetaFilter question&lt;/a&gt;, I remembered eric cheng&apos;s page.  For your perusal.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">post:www.metafilter.com,2004:site.34002</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:34:20 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>filmgeek</dc:creator>		<category>cool</category>		<category>photography</category>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: 327.ca</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34002/Digital-Infrared-photography#693550</link>	
		<description>No matter what I&apos;ve tried, digital infrared is just as low-res as the film flavour. Granted, it&apos;s more convenient, but despite bracketed focusing, use of a tripod, etc., there simply isn&apos;t much detail compared to shooting the same subject without the filter. (FWIW, I&apos;m using a Canon G5 and a Hoya R72 filter.)

I&apos;d be interested to know why this is. Any thoughts?</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2004:site.34002-693550</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:41:06 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>327.ca</dc:creator>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: effugas</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34002/Digital-Infrared-photography#693629</link>	
		<description>327--

   Probably because only the red pixels are being stimulated, and in normal distributions (RGBG) that means only 1/4th the available pixels are receiving any stimulation at all.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2004:site.34002-693629</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:26:20 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>effugas</dc:creator>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: carter</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34002/Digital-Infrared-photography#693773</link>	
		<description>Also, from what little I&apos;ve read, you lose a lot of stops - between 7 and 10? - when you take an IR shot. So you also need very bright sunlight, I guess, otherwise things could get a little noisy. But I&apos;m not an expert.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2004:site.34002-693773</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:27:05 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carter</dc:creator>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: kindall</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34002/Digital-Infrared-photography#693855</link>	
		<description>You lose a lot of stops because most digital cameras have a filter inside them that blocks most infrared. This is because the sensors in digital cameras are normally pretty sensitive to infrared, and this can throw off the colors.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2004:site.34002-693855</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:26:58 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kindall</dc:creator>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: milovoo</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34002/Digital-Infrared-photography#694096</link>	
		<description>If you shoot in fully manual on the G5 you can go for a longer &quot;exposure&quot;, which (as long as the camera is steady) will give you a bit more detail.  Also, as a cheap test, try the congo blue filters mentioned &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amasci.com/amateur/irgoggl.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, I&apos;ve had good results with this method.  It&apos;s easy to tell when you have gone too far if the LCD display gets &quot;grainy&quot;.  Also tinker with the white balance a bit and you may get more detail.  And yes, this only works on bright sunny days, or with IR sources (I just mentioned fireworks on the ask.me thread which were awesome last year)</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2004:site.34002-694096</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:51:12 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>milovoo</dc:creator>
	</item>	<item>
		<title>By: ROU_Xenophobe</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34002/Digital-Infrared-photography#694106</link>	
		<description>In some of the Sony cameras (and camcorders), there&apos;s a night mode where the camera moves the IR filter out of the way and shines an IR illuminator; it looks like night-vision goggles.

Presumably one could use one of those and block the IR emitter for natural-light.  The pictures come out of the camera monochrome green, I suppose because Sony thinks that&apos;s very l33t, but you could just drop it to straight monochrome.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:www.metafilter.com,2004:site.34002-694106</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:19:45 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ROU_Xenophobe</dc:creator>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
