Lee Blue filter test to get the Aerochrome Red in camera

[Cadmium]

David, #729 is the reddest I have tried. #183 is more orange, as I have shown examples of:

https://www.ultravio...__fromsearch__1

 

As I said before, if you prefer the look of #183, then I think you would do better using the Lee Dichroic filter C47.

Also, B-410 works the same as #183 for me.

Keep in mind that C47 comes standard in 3mm thickness, you will need to order it special, but it is not expensive, and would be much easier than using #183.

http://www.leefilter...#C47&filter=dgf

 

Andy, The graphs they show online are limited to 400nm to 700nm, whereas the graphs they show in the swatch books are 250nm to 800nm.

So like with the #729, you will not see any IR transmission on the graph unless you see the swatch graph.

Sometimes you will find swatch graphs shown on Lee filter eBay listings, and such, but I don't find those shown anywhere by Lee.

http://www.leefilter...=cf&sort=number

 

See how the swatch graphs look in comparison to the Lee online graphs:

[Cadmium]

Here is a quick shot, overcast, between rain showers, gray card, using laminated 729 + KG3 stack on previous page.

Just a test, nothing more. I will do a few more when I get sunshine. It looks like I may need to mow soon... ;)

[dabateman]

These were my recent tests. I ran through a lot of the sample pack. Quite interesting colors.

 

Full spectrum converted EM1 with Sigma 30mm F2.8 lens:

 

GRB3 2mm with Lee 183:

 

GRB3 2mm with Lee 729:

GRB3 2mm with Lee 116:

GRB3 2mm with Lee 124:

 

All above were white balanced off a white target and are straight out of camera.

 

This image is the GRB3 with Lee 116 using CWB 9000 in camera:

 

 

This series is also interesting:

 

Lee 141 with GRB3 White balance off white:

Lee 141 with GRB3 CWB 9000:

 

Lee 141 with GRB3 White balance off Grass:

[Cadmium]

David, Do you say there somewhere what you white balanced the first series off of?

From a white card is essentially the same as from a gray card.

I don't think you should be using the off grass. Stick with the program. Those don't look any good to me.

Try to duplicate what Twede did first, use a gray or white card in camera.

Use a WhiBal card of Komatex (gray/white).

If I were you, I would get a large WhiBal card, I have one, I use that, nice and big, works great.

White balance on that, stick with that, take it with you, white balance per shoot, and per filter.

 

You can get free samples of Komatex, go there, request samples.

Supposedly the WhiBal cards are made from Komatex material.

Frankly, I would just get a large WhiBal card, easy way way to go.

https://www.google.c...kHsmo6DM:&vet=1

 

Are any of the Lee filters you are using high temp versions?

 

This WhiBal card is expensive, but I absolutely love it for this, arms length fills the frame.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/716956-REG/WhiBal_WB7_RC_G7_White_Balance_Reference.html

[Cadmium]

OK sorry, I read your post wrong.

I would stick to white balancing from the white (or gray card).

White balance from grass isn't working. I ever tired it off grass to see, and it is no good for this, forget that.

Do what Twede did.

 

I would get a big WhiBal if you can.

That is what I have been using.

I have a smaller one also, but harder to work with, just because of the size.

[ulf]

 

This WhiBal card is expensive, but I absolutely love it for this, arms length fills the frame.

https://www.bhphotov..._Reference.html

 

The spec at B&H in the link above state this:

• "Responds to UV Light and Visible Light"
  

How good is it in UV?

[Cadmium]

Ulf, Yes I actually noticed the "UV" part for the first time also, but I have never seen that before.

This 729 filter has no transmission in UV.

The WhiBal card has always been just for visual, as far as I know.

If they think it is for UV also, then that is a whole other subject/topic to be explored.

I don't think it works for UV from my experience.

 

I don't see any UV info about it on the WhiBal site.

You see anything about UV there:

http://michaeltapesd...com/whibal.html

 

Oh I see now the little graph they show there:

http://michaeltapesd...?crc=4116851155

 

That little graph is hard to read because the increments are not marked, and I can't even tell which line the 380nm represents.

Regardless, the 380nm isn't very much UV.

It would not be a card someone would want to use for white balancing UV, better to use PTFE for UV I think.

[ulf]

 

Yeah, but I would question that, and anyone who is reading this, I would not really believe that, better to use PTFE for UV I think.

OK, the little graph they show cuts off at 380nm, woo hoo! I would not really call that big time UV. More like the bottom of violet, right?

A bit of a stretch of the truth if you ask me.

Yeah, that info on B&H is really misleading.

 

 

I didn't dig as deep as you, above. Just saw the one sentence at B&H. A false marketing blurb.

PTFE is without any question better and to a reasonable cost.

[dabateman]

I don't think you should be using the off grass. Stick with the program. Those don't look any good to me.

 

This made me laugh. I think my GRB3 2mm is not equivalent to the KG3, thus the bigger difference I see.

I posted the different WB selection as I find the range interesting. Some orangish filters give an interesting yellow when WB off grass. I like the slightly more orange of the 116, better than the 729 with my weak IR block filter.

For near golden images, #120 was really good.

Surprisingly my junk luminol filter, I bought for a 260nm, but dichroic coatings were clean polished off. It acts like a B410 filter and has a nice golden IR when stacked with my GRB3. It mostly lets through 405 an 435nm bands.

[Cadmium]

David, Keep in mind that Twede shows photos that were shot only using the 729 filter and no KG stacked, and those shots look almost the same.

So I don't know if the difference is the brand of your KG glass.

[ins13]

The colors at my photos doesn't look like the photos of David Twede with 729 filter only.

Twede's photos are red and dark blue. my ones are dark rose and turquoise

I wonder why

 

 

and with the IR-cut filter and BW from grey card, too

crimson red instead of red

I like colors. but they are different. something I'm doing wrong

 

 

maybe this is due to the wrong white balance. or the sun is not bright enough here. or I was sent the wrong lee filters

 

 

 

Сadmium, your version of Lee #729 + Schott KG3 filter is excellent!!

[Cadmium]

For anyone who is unfamiliar with David Twede's Lee Scuba Blue #729 tests, here once again is the link to those:

https://next-eyes.bl...tal-ir.html?m=1

 

He shows three kinds of tests:

1) First he shows #729 alone.

2) Second he shows #729 with KG3 added.

3) Third he shows some more shots using only the 729.

You can make your own judgement how they all relate and differ from each other.

 

The sky doesn't look turquoise in his shots. And it doesn't look turquoise in the tests I have made either.

So I don't know why you get the different colored skies.

I did a few tests with the 729 alone, no KG, and those looked pink with more of a turquoise sky, but I would need to try that again and make sure I do the white balance correctly from a gray card as I am now.

With the 729 + KG3 2mm white balanced with WhiBal card, or white balanced with Komatex White, I get the light blue skies. Everything has pretty much natural looking visual colors except the foliage and other IR reflecting things.

It might be a difference with how individual cameras white balance?

I was never able to get anything that looked good to me until I started doing the in camera white balance, which is something I was very unfamiliar with because it seldom worked with my Nikon cameras for any filters I used.

But with this filter-stack, it has me taking my gray card with me for the first time really.

 

I don't see anything wrong with your second photo. Is that 729 + KG?

 

All your Russian 3 glass stacks look very good to me.

And that is all glass too, preferable if you ask me.

Laminating polyester between two other glass substrates is not easy. I find that to be harder than gluing just two pieces of glass.

After trial and error I got one I was happy with for me self, but still not what I would call exactly perfect.

Laminating those three Russian filters might be interesting. They seem to work nicely.

[dabateman]

Eka,

I don't think we are doing any thing wrong. I think now it may come down to camera difference. You and I both have Olympus cameras. Whereas the others are using Nikons. So either the way the internal WB is done is different or our color filter arrays on the sensor is different enough to cause the change.

I think it maybe the second possibility, as slight Lee filter spectrum changes have a dramatic effect.

[Cadmium]

Gary was using a Sony, and frankly I was about to give up getting it to work for until I saw his test:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/3179-lee-blue-filter-test-to-get-the-aerochrome-red-in-camera/page__view__findpost__p__26225

 

My originals were looking very washer out and worthless until I got the KG3 and started using the White/Gray cards for in camera white balance.

Originally I was just using my tried and true long time method of white balancing in Nikon CNX2 software from RAW.

Which always worked for everything else better than in camera WB.

[Cadmium]

Also, who is using HT version?

The swatch book says (HT) 729, and also "(HT version optional)".

Which confuses me a little... if the swatch if HT or is it just means there is an optional HT version available?

Nevertheless, I don't see any corrugation to the surface of the swatch.

I 'think' the 729 sheets I am using are not the HT version.

The 729 in the swatch book looks very smooth to me.

[ins13]

dabatemen, yes it's the camera effect. apparently. Nikon in visible, too, always makes superblue sky and warm tone of skin

and GaryR's pictures from Sony confirm this. also not red

 

Cadmium, I have HT version. But I did not test it - it is muddy, ribbed, not "optical". but I can take a test shot

and 729HT is weak, less dense than normal 729

 

I did the test

the white balance for each ones. SOOC. Olympus camera

 

 

Cadmium, is your camera Nikon?

[Cadmium]

What camera was David Twede using?

[ins13]

we can guess. I bet on Nikon :)

and can be ask

 

PS. Seems Evgeniya has NikonFS and OlympusFS both. I will ask her whether she is interested to test 729 on two cameras. Is there she has 729 or not interestingly? if not then I will send. And that will how we find out it.

[dabateman]

Ok I may be confused. His early work was done with a Canon.

http://irbuzz.blogspot.com/2007/08/featured-ir-photographer-showcase-david.html?m=1

 

However, his patents reference a Nikon. So since they were for work, he may still be using a Canon or Sony camera.

Maybe best to ask him Cadmium.

[dabateman]

Cadmium,

 

Well I test different WB. These images actually look much better, white balanced off a darker grey chair. Chair is just darker than my 18 grey card.

 

Full spectrum EM1 with Olympus 14-42mm RII lens, at 20mm with GRB3 2mm and Scuba 729 filter:

 

 

[Cadmium]

Very nice!

[yann_p]

Hello all, nice to read all the research you made ! I followed the same path a few years ago when crafting the IRChrome filter.

For the goldie « in camera » render. Trick is : Tiffen 80A (B works aswell) + cheap FL filter and CWB on blueish-gray card. I’ll post pictures later when access to my computer.

[Cadmium]

Yann, Having no problems with the 729 stack, works like the Chrome for me, maybe better. Seems like a lot of the OOC Chrome examples look a little too orange to me.

However, this topic is not about Goldie, or about 80A/B, maybe try making a new topic.

[dabateman]

Yann,

Starting a new thread maybe agood idea. But what do you mean by cheap FL filter?

Like a fld? I have the 80A and will need to get around to testing that with my other larger blue filters. A 47 may also work and will need to test.

[yann_p]

Hi Cadmium, thank for your reply. Yes I know that 729 works like a charm. Wratten blue/cyan filters like 38A are also excellent in doing this. The problem is that it's gels ! So first problem is that on full frame camera with wide angle lenses you have a lot of chromatic aberrations and these gels last maximum 10 years (less in general). An finding a durable glass solution is much more difficult, sadly. For the orangeish render you saw SOOC, it's only because WB /sidecar JPGs profile-parameters / ICC in-camera profile weren't set correcly by users.

 

Yes good idea for the other thread, I was replying to this because a few posts before, dabateman mentionned it a few posts before ;)

You'll find the discussion here about blue filters : https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/3292-direct-in-camera-goldie-look