- 1 Wood effect
- 2 "infrared film counters"
- 3 Infrared focus
- 4 Digital Infrared Pictures
- 5 Fix'd
- 6 Do these music videos make use of infrared photography?
- 7 Infrared photography of homes to confirm insulation effectiveness
- 8 History
- 9 Invitation to discussion on TRUE infrared cameras
- 10 Availability of Black and White IR Film
- 11 Color infrared
I have no real source (nor expertise) for this other than the memory of a college class I had, but I believe the effect with trees and water is known as the "Wood Effect" after its discoverer, which might be useful info for the article. -126.96.36.199 05:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good memory. I found it justified via GBS: . Dicklyon 06:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK the earliest relevant paper was presented by Wood to the Royal Photographic Society and published in the October 1910 edition of the Photographic Journal. I have a copy of this via the British Library. The paper also covers ultraviolet and includes some photographic examples to demonstrate both UV and IR. The paper may be the source of the earliest published examples of both as well. Delverie 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"infrared film counters"
The article contains the following nugget: Many film cameras of the 1990s had infrared frame counters and their manuals often prohibited the use of infrared film because the counter could fog it.
What, pray, is an "infrared film counter"?
In the nineties, the main options were 135, 120/220, and sheet film. Of course cameras taking sheet film don't have counters. For 135, for 220, and for all but antique or very retro 120, the counter checks the film (with or without paper backing) going through it; the emulsion is irrelevant. Is this some reference to the orange or red window on the back of an older camera for roll film? -- Hoary 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I guess the diode pair that counts the holes that pass by when winding the film is meant. --Dschwen 06:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Cameras have diodes that do that? Well well, I sit corrected. (Seems to me that the 35mm cameras I have that lack batteries do the job of advancing film well enough, but perhaps I'm not sufficiently "prosumer".) -- Hoary 07:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Check out this picture:
- --Dschwen 07:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It's odd, though. I have an all-electric, nineties Hexar -- I mean, I can't wind the film with my thumb even if I want to -- that has infrared capability as a sales point. It automates focusing for infrared. -- Hoary 10:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then perhaps you can shoot infrared film in your camera without the sprockets getting fogged. I shot a roll of infrared in an old EOS film camera and the whole lower third of every frame was fogged. ShutterBugTrekker 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the current article, "A sharp infrared photograph can be done with a tripod, a narrow aperture (like f/22) and a slow shutter speed without focus compensation,..." The principle here is that increasing depth of field by stopping down can compensate for the focus shift that results from focusing a non-IR corrected lens in visible light, then shooting in IR -- but one must be careful. Stopping down to f/22 will result in a loss of sharpness from diffraction. Therefore, if the situation permits, a better solution is using a mid-range f-stop, say 5.6., 8, or 11, and making a series of exposures starting with the visible light focus and working through a series of exposures at focus points around the focus point for visible light. If the focus points are marked, the focus point for the sharpest image will serve to calibrate the lens for IR. If the object of the exercise is calibrating the lens for IR, the focus point should be infinity -- a distant skyline works well; so do stars or distant point sources of light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixeljim (talk • contribs) 07:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Digital Infrared Pictures
The section stating that there are no digital cameras that can reproduce the Ektachrome Color Infra-Red (EIR) film effect with out taking multiple exposures with filters and over laying them, is incorrect/misleading. See, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55320038, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38437796, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55311029, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55339735, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3550826, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3597760, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3347684 and http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=67.
The Sigma Foveon X3 Sensors are laid out differently than conventional Bayer array digital cameras. They have the color pixels layered on top of each other, like conventional film and take advantage of the absorption properties of the silicon they are made of to separate colors. Blue green and red all penetrate to a different depth into a silicon wafer and so pixels buried at different depths at each photo site are able to separate the color intrinsically, without color filters. Each photo site, collects all three colors. This makes for sharper images than your normal Bayer array camera with the same number of photo sites, giving it a higher angular resolution, unmarred by the anti-aliasing going on in a standard Bayer array camera. This also means that once the Band pass filter that blocks UV and IR light has been removed from the camera, IR light will be interpreted as red light and only affects the other channels via white balance. This is attributed to the lack of color filters and intrinsic color separation properties designed into the sensor. Once a custom white balance is set, the camera behaves much like the Kodak color IR film. No yellow filter is needed, as blue and green light are still interpreted as blue and green by the camera sensor. Red and IR are mixed in the same channel. Color rotation in post processing can achieve a closer result to the old EIR film. The same dark, or vivid blue sky and red leaf effects are available with out much processing. Jzierten (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The article covers digital infrared pictures, but there is a widespread idea that your most simple digital camera can be converted into taking infrared pictures is not discussed, although it is a hot topic for discussion in many forums and on instruction sites. It is said by securing two exposed negatives over the lens, the visible spectrum will be filtered out and one can take infrared pictures, or that you can remove infrared coating on the outside lens. I cannot confirm or deny this, although I can say that my camera was not nearly sensitive enough to take infrared pictures without very strong infrared source (e.g. the infrared LEDs on your tele remote) and that the allegedly infrared pictures I saw in these tutorials I could not confirm or deny to be taken by infrared light. However, I tested this at night, where no natural light existed, and I thought I saw my friend's hands glowing in the dark after he was rubbing them together. If anyone can prove, or deny with proof, this phenomenon, it would be fantastic. --Eidlyn (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Common myths are not a good topic for wikipedia. Film is not a good IR filter. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Exposed and developed colour film does make an infrared filter (of sorts) since this allows scanners to use an infrared channel to detect dust and scratches. However, I couldn't vouch for the quality or reliability. This doesn't work with black and white film which passes infrared in pretty much the same way it passes visible light. I know this because I tried to use infrared touch-up on some B&W negs and it failed miserably. The glowing hands Eidlyn describes above are a mystery. To be visible in near infrared an object has to be at a temperature of 250 C. Perhaps it was a static effect. I have been asked, in all seriousness, whether I could photograph someone's aura using infrared. I had to decline. Delverie (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi can someone make this comparative photo part of the article. I think The license is now appropriate for this and I think it is good demonstration of haze penetration ability of IR. Taken with Sony at Nights Shot mode with >900nm pass filter. Regards. http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2737610.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkan Yuksel (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no currently available digital camera that will produce the same results as Kodak color infrared film although the equivalent images can be produced by either careful filtering with a UV/IR filter such as a U-300, 18A or BG-3. Or created by taking two exposures, one infrared and the other full-color, and combining in post-production.
There is no currently available digital camera that will produce the same results as Kodak color infrared film although the equivalent images can be produced by either careful filtering with a UV/IR filter such as a U-300, 18A or BG-3 or created by taking two exposures, one infrared and the other full-color, and combining in post-production.
I don't follow this inclusion of UV/IR filtration in the discussion on colour infrared film. This filtration may well produce a coloured image but it does not replicate the colour-shift characteristics of the Kodak film as UV/IR filters do not pass any visible light. There has been a suggestion that you can capitalise on Bayer filtration to do this but, so far, I have seen no evidence of this. The argument obviously revolves around the word 'equivalent' but the key application of the film to show stress in foliage by a colour shift is not replicated by this technique. The statement may be just a confusion over what the Kodak film did. I propose to amend this if there are no serious objections. Delverie (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have now found evidence that Kodak used a Beyer-filtered camera with no IR blocking and a minus-blue filter that passed infrared to emulate Ektachrome infrared. The system required calibration so as to determine exactly how much infrared was 'leaking' into the red and green channels so that it could be subtracted. The blue channel captures only infrared. I hope to experiment with this approach sometime soon but it's be useful to know if anyone has been able to emulate this. Delverie (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Do these music videos make use of infrared photography?
We Can Walk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLMd-626DcA
Death In Vegas - Dirt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QWKt1YlquA about a minute into the video
Only You / Martha and the Muffins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nJTtM3J7YQ about 45-60 sec into the video
Marilyn Manson - The Dope Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP8eNye4J_M
Infrared photography of homes to confirm insulation effectiveness
Could someone do a section on this? In these "green" days, I think home-owners would appreciate being able to photograph heat-leakage from their homes. I am not qualified to do the section. Just a thought...188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, this requires thermal imaging (longer wavelengths) not infrared photography. There is confusion about the difference but I think the text does explain this elsewhere. Delverie (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I do thermal imaging for the Greater Cincinnati Energy Association and other nonprofits with the Fluke TI-32 camera. Since I just got autoconfirmed, I have not had the chance to upload a lot of pics, but I have many which show heat loss through convection and thermal bridging. If you all let me know what subjects you'd most like to see with IR, I can upload them. CincyBuyers (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure you'll have some good material to contribute, though a small number of thermal images can go a long way. Also you're in the wrong article. Perhaps this one should discuss wavelengths a bit more, so everyone will understand more clearly that it is about the use of near-infrared, which is dominated by effects of absorption and reflection just as with visible light, except the patterns of absorption and reflection are different. Thermography is the article about far-infrared photography, which is dominated by radiative effects, and Thermographic camera is about the hardware. You can probably contribute best there. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The article gives the possibly incorrect impression that Ilford invented IR-sensitive film in the early 1930s, and that Kodak and others followed several years later. I believe that is in correct. I was recently reading a 1932 paper on infrared spectroscopy, inwhich they make note of Eastman Kodak's new infrared film. The development of panchromatic dye-sensitized film took place somewhat incrementally in the early 20th century. Someone should look into when various companies actaully released products, to give more complete information. DonPMitchell (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
We have to differentiate between photographers (usually astronomers and other scientists) who sensitised their own IR plates, and the availability of 'off-the-shelf' IR plates and film that was stable enough to go into a retail channel. The latter certainly took place in the early 1930s whereas the former can be traced back to 1880 and Captain (later Sir) William de Wiveleslie Abney. You're correct in that Ilford did not produce the first IR plates: they just happened to be the ones used by the Times. However, is is unclear who made the first 'commercial' IR plates and the early 1930s was the time they became available. The first published image from 'commercial' film I have traced is in the Times (a shot of a woman taken in the dark) and is from an Ilford plate. What confuses the issue is that infrared spectrographic plates were produced (certainly by Kodak) with a range of sensitivities specifically for astronomers, and they then often hypersensitised the plates further using ammonia or even hydrogen gas.Mees was tempted over to the US by Eastman in 1912, to set up and run Kodak research labs, mainly because of his, and Wratten & Wainwright's, work on panchromatic plates. W&W produced the first commercial and stable panchromatic plates in 1906. Delverie (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to discussion on TRUE infrared cameras
Correct me if I am wrong, but glass lenses reflect almost ALL of the infrared waves that hit it, as does glass in a window. As such, true IR cameras use iridium lenses. What exactly are the "infrared" settings on a consumer camera, anyway? Fluke, Flir, Extech, and a host of other companies make actual IR cameras. Anyone want to weigh in here?
You're describing thermography, which is imaging using 'Far Infrared', as opposed to infrared photography, which uses 'Near Infrared' (meaning near to or far from visible light). There is a whole Wikipedia page on thermography. Glass is certainly opaque to long-wavelength far infrared, as you say, but germanium is used (AFAIK) rather than iridium for 'lenses' on thermal cameras. The key difference between infrared photography and thermography is that infrared photography images photons that are reflected from an object and come from the sun, a lamp or some other external source. Thermograpy images photons that originate from the object itself. (Photographing a lamp or the sun tests this general rule but only because those objects produce photons that are energetic enough to be visible.) Astronomers and other scientists have more stratified definitions of the various wavelengths of infrared but the basic split is between the near and far. No camera images both: those that seem to do so - such as the FLIR SC620 - are actually two cameras combined. Hope this clarifies.
Availability of Black and White IR Film
The "History" section of this article states that "KODAK AEROCHROME III Infrared Film 1443 is their sole remaining infrared film". I think that the article should make it more clear that other manufacturers are still producing B&W IR films. I know that this mentioned at the end of the section on "Black-and-white infrared film", but I believe that this information could be made clearer by either a)mentioning its availability in the history section as well; and/or b)creating a sub-section in the "Black-and-white infrared film" section called "Availability". Such a sub-section was created for the "Color infrared film" section and I think that it works well. Creating one for the B&W section would also create symmetry between the two sections. The last paragraph of the B&W IR film section could be moved to the availability sections. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether this should be done? Marshallc8 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
'found this bit on the topic : http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs12901.html --Jerome Potts (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)