Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Recommended Posts

Took this at my local pond. altered a little with Photoshop

 

Modified Nikon D80

Nikkor 18-55

EXIF data

 

Camera make :
NIKON CORPORATION

Camera model :
NIKON D80

Date/Time : 2017/06/19 17:36:18

Resolution : 3872 x 2592

Flash used : No

Focal length: 17.0mm (35mm equivalent 25mm)

Exposure time : 0.0050 s (1/200)

Aperture : f/3.5

ISO equiv. : 200

Exposure bias : -0.33

Whitebalance : Manual

Metering Mode : pattern

Exposure : aperture priority (semi-auto)

 

 

post-4-0-93103400-1516679099.jpg

Link to comment

Hey Daryll, this shot looks like a nice IR image. I'm guessing though. When you post images, instead of pasting the image EXIF info, in addition to the camera/lens info you posted could you include info about what lens filter(s) you used, exposure settings, lighting / filter(s), location, etc. That would help everyone to know what you're showing and how it was made.

 

And welcome to the forums here. I'm looking forward to seeing some more images from the UK!

Link to comment

I like the array of false color tones in this IR shot. And the reflection.

 

I'm looking at those lily pads thinking they would be very interesting as a close up shot. Lots to work with in that scene.

 

***

 

Usually we list the gear as follows, but the exact listing format - you decide your favorite style. Do include the UV or IR or other filter used. Filters are such a big topic here, of course. Exposure data is nice to have so that we can understand how well a particular lens/filter combo works.

 

Nikon D80-converted + Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G + IR-Pass Filter

f/3.5 for 1/200" @ ISO-200

 

***

 

BTW, I have a D80 IR conversion bought from friend Vivek years ago. It is a good cam for IR.

Link to comment

OK , the camera was converted to IR only , pre set white balance with nikon 18-55 DX VR , no filters , apart from a bit of post processing , the image is straight from the camera , the advantage of a converted camera is the RAW image is about right in the first place , slight pink/red haze , below is a un processed image taken today , straight from the SD card. and converted to JPEG for web use

 

post-155-0-36375800-1499013953.jpg

 

In Photoshop I do a red/blue channel swap , sharpen the image and thats about it

Link to comment

Then that conversion looks to be an IR-longpass with a cut-in between 680-700, I'm estimating. A white-click on that photo (below) produces pretty blue tones which is typical of IR-pass filters which also pass small amounts of high red. It is a nice choice.

 

No editing intent/comment here on my part. I just was wanting to figure out the filter. B)

 

post-155-0-36375800-1499013953pn01.jpg

Link to comment

The D80's internal UV/IR blocking filter was removed and replaced by an IR longpass filter which begins transmitting somewhere in the high red (visible) range nm and reaches its 50% transmission at about 690 nm. After that transmission of the IR increases until it is (usually) at a 90-95% level.

 

Of course we don't know exactly what type of filter glass was used or what the thickness is, so those are estimates only based on the Ebay ad.

 

Here is a link to some transmission charts for Schott IR longpass filters in the same range as yours. It is the mix of lots of IR and a little bit of visible red which gives those interesting false colours which we all love to work with. If an IR longpass filter does not cut in until a higher level past 800 nm, the photo would only be black and white after a white balance or white-click edit.

 

https://www.pgo-onli...45_665_695.html

 

Anyway, have fun!

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...