Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Lee 729 vs Lee 115


Recommended Posts

Here are some results from a walk through my neighbourhood shooting some 729 and 115 pictures on my full spectrum Sony Nex-3N camera using a Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-S lens for the 115 and a Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM for the 729.

Please don't judge for quality, they're just some random scenes and some are even unsharp.

I white balanced on a neutral grey card and these are the results.

As you can see the 115 filter does make vegetation orange but the 729 gives a very limited color palette which I find pretty boring (cyan/blue and red/magenta). It reminds me of how my prints look when the yellow cartridge is empty :cool:

They are all straight out of camera JPEG files with no editing done whatsoever.

Any tips to get better results from the 729 filter? (apart from adding a KG3 filter)

 

Left or top is 729

Right or bottom is 115

 

729-115-1.jpg

 

729-115-2.jpg

 

729-115-3.jpg

 

729-115-4.jpg

 

729-115-5.jpg

 

729-115-6.jpg

Link to comment

Nisei, Nice comparisons. Thanks!

I thought I would add a graph comparison between the 115 and 729 (alone with no KG added).

I don't know why you are getting such a light pink tone with the 729.

I get a much stronger red straight out of camera. This is one of the only filters (stacks) that I have ever used in camera white balance with.

I don't white balance it out of camera from RAW. I always shoot RAW, but I find that changing the white balance from RAW doesn't result in better WB, but not as good white balance as when I do it with a gray card.

Possibly this may be the camera, or something else, but I can only express my own experience with it. It wasn't until I started using the gray card to do an in camera white balance that the 729 stack started looking red for me.

Some of my first tests were more pink, but I think that may have been before I was using the in camera white balance from the WhiBal card, after I started doing it that way they looked red.

Not saying that is the only method, I was use to doing WB from RAW, just saying what worked for me is all.

I think here is the first test that I used the in camera WB for:

https://www.ultravio...dpost__p__26433

 

The 115 looks similar to the Hoya B-410 stack, and a few other stacks using various Lee # filters.

I am not a huge fan of orange, myself, but I can see more color in your 115 shots.

 

Here are the graphs compared:

post-87-0-41208900-1591142249.jpg

Link to comment
eye4invisible
I really like the tonal separation in your first 115 shot. Certainly gives more flexibility in post processing.
Link to comment

Thanks for the responses guys.

 

Possibly this may be the camera...

Thanks for the extensive reply Steve.

Well, I was thinking about that too.

When I custom white balance with the 729, the Sony gives me a white balance error. I'm starting to think it only has a limited range it can use to adjust to. Same as Lightroom has a limited white balance scale. As this is the only full spectrum camera I have I cannot compare it to others (still have to find time to convert my Sony A7).

I guess there's nothing I can do about it except for further adjustment in post.

 

The pictures in your test do indeed look much more red.

What I'm after is the look in Gary's post.

They show nice yellows and greens as well, together with deep red vegetation. No idea if he did anything in post though.

Link to comment

Nisei,

I like the natural blue sky and the yellow accents that you're getting with the 115 gel. Minimal post work is all you'd need tweak the orange foliage to red, if that's what you're after.

 

I've tried the scuba blue and IR Chrome on my fs-Sony a7R, and always end up with orange foliage SOOC. In spite of the error message on the a7R, CWB setting seems to work every time, no matter what external filter I have in place.

 

There's no comparison between the a7R and the Sigma Quattro, as they are entirely different sensors. In full spectrum mode, the sdQ (and all Sigma dslr's) can image red foliage SOOC, with no external filter in place. I can't match the colors I get in the Quattro, on my a7R, and some filters that I use on the a7R, simply don't work on the Quattro.

 

On the Quattro, I use Sigma Photo Pro for raw conversion to TIF, then Topaz DeNoise AI + DxO NIK > Pro Contrast, and Viveza, which I use on just about everything.

Link to comment
Nisei, in your first post would you please add what camera model and lens you were using. Thanks!
Link to comment

Slightly Off Topic

 

the error message on the a7R

 

I've had that experience - you get a WB error message but some white balance adjustment has been made anyway.

 

Make sure you have properly set the exposure values in manual mode before trying to measure white balance under a really dark filter. This is a suggestion Bob Friedman passed along a few years ago. Set the aperture wide open to gather all available light before measuring WB under a dark filter.

 

Of course, sometimes the WB measurement just won't work no matter how much you try to trick the camera into making it. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I've tried the scuba blue and IR Chrome on my fs-Sony a7R, and always end up with orange foliage SOOC. In spite of the error message on the a7R, CWB setting seems to work every time, no matter what external filter I have in place.

There's no comparison between the a7R and the Sigma Quattro, as they are entirely different sensors. In full spectrum mode, the sdQ (and all Sigma dslr's) can image red foliage SOOC, with no external filter in place. I can't match the colors I get in the Quattro, on my a7R, and some filters that I use on the a7R, simply don't work on the Quattro.

Interesting!

I didn't know there would be so much difference in how different sensors render IR.

 

Nisei, in your first post would you please add what camera model and lens you were using. Thanks!

Done

Link to comment

I don't know why you are getting such a light pink tone with the 729.

I get a much stronger red straight out of camera.

Steve, browsing through the 729 topics I saw your first shots with the 729 and that first picture looks a lot like the results I posted above.

You're saying you got deeper reds when white balancing in-camera but that's exactly what I did. Yet my pictures look exactly like your first shot.

Odd.

Link to comment

 

Steve, browsing through the 729 topics I saw your first shots with the 729 and that first picture looks a lot like the results I posted above.

You're saying you got deeper reds when white balancing in-camera but that's exactly what I did. Yet my pictures look exactly like your first shot.

Odd.

 

The lee 729/kg3 acts like a tight peak that is hard to find. Different grey targets or white targets make a huge impact on the in camera white balance setting. I had best luck with a grey folding chair, that might be roughly 12% grey.

But once you nail it, just leave that WB setting in camera and it can almost work even with out the kg3 filter with only the 729. Also, the WB preset is great with a Lee 183 filter to pull out a more rich orange.

 

Try different whites and greys in camera and see if you can get something you are happy with.

 

 

Link to comment

Steve, browsing through the 729 topics I saw your first shots with the 729 and that first picture looks a lot like the results I posted above.

You're saying you got deeper reds when white balancing in-camera but that's exactly what I did. Yet my pictures look exactly like your first shot.

Odd.

 

Yes, my first tests were pink. That one you link was 729 alone, no KG3, and I don't remember all the other specifics with exactly how I was white balancing at first,

but I do know that if I went out the door right now with my camera, with 729 + KG3 2mm, -0.7 exposure compensation that I would have red SOOC, if I white balance on my WhiBal card.

The later pics show that.

 

As far as WB targets, I have white balanced on white, and it seemed to work the same, but I use the WhiBal because it is a standard that anyone can get.

I want to go back and test WB from RAW again, and try to determine what is going on with that again sometime.

It wasn't working at all for me when I started, so I tried it exactly like David Twede explained and it started working (in camera gray card WB).

I still think there has to be a way to do it just as well from RAW.

 

Link to comment
I've only done WB in-camera so far (with these Lee filters) but I will also do some tests with WB in post. I hadn't thought of taking a pic of my WB card but as soon as the weather clears I'll give it a try. For Lightroom it shouldn't make a difference though since it already applies the WB that's being used by the camera. Of course you can ignore this setting and do it yourself but I'm not sure if it makes any difference.
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Wow, received my 52mm GRB3 (2mm) filter today and I'm amazed how much better things look combined with 115.

More contrast, punchier colors, awesome skintones, just amazing!

The comparisons speak for themselves.

And take a look at the large one of the trees. I don't think it's possible to get so much tonal variation with the IR Chrome or 729+KG3

 

Top/Left = 115

Bottom/Right = 115 + GRB3 (2mm)

 

 

post-244-0-43156000-1592864956.jpg

 

post-244-0-87812700-1592863037.jpg

 

post-244-0-32849400-1592863054.jpg

 

post-244-0-55871300-1592863081.jpg

Link to comment

Yeah some trees are really red while most others show up orange.

I don't think IR Chrome could ever make the difference so noticeable.

I really love this stack and wish it was available in glass.

Link to comment

Thanks Colin

Of course I have no idea how this will turn out on other sensors.

But for me, with my current camera (Sony Nex-3N), this is the best SOOC IR filter.

Since 115 has much higher visual transmittance than 279 I guess it doesn't need as much IR blocking. So GRB3, blocking less IR than KG3, works very well with 115.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...