Cameras - Sony A7 (converted to Full-Spectrum)

West Heath - Nikon 35mm / B+W #22 (Orange) - 1/200th, f/8, iso 100

It's finally time for me to talk about my current infra-red project. This Sony A7 camera has been converted to 'Full Spectrum' by ACS, but although it's capable of shooting colour and UV it's still infra-red that's my primary focus. This page has now been updated with more information about filters and some more examples from my first 3 weeks with the converted camera. For those of you who aren't familiar with what a full spectrum conversion is, here's a quick explanation:

    Explained
All digital cameras have a filter in front of their sensors called a 'low-pass' filter. This blocks most of the ultraviolet and infra-red light from being captured, which improves colour accuracy and reduces numerous aberrations. Converting a camera involves replacing this filter with (what is essentially) a piece of glass. Here's a diagram that shows why a normal digital camera, using an infra-red filter on the front of the lens, doesn't get very much light and is stuck with long exposure times:

With the 'low-pass' filter removed - UV or IR 'pass' filters can then be added externally to let in significantly more invisible light. Exposure times for UV and/or IR photography can then be fast enough to allow images to be taken without a tripod.

   Full Spectrum - Then & Now
Full spectrum is nothing new, but in the early days of digital - converting a DSLR didn't make photographing UV or IR very friendly. It still required the use of a tripod, due to opaque external filters blocking the viewfinder. Compact cameras fared better, but historically have been limited to smaller image sensors and poor displays. When 'live-view' was added to digital SLRs this caught them up to compacts, but this still only provided low resolution screens that were difficult to visualize accurate focusing. They were also easily washed out from bright reflections in good lighting conditions.

Sony A7 & Voigtlander lens, with UV/IR blocking filter (for taking colour photos)

   The Benefits of Mirrorless & EVF 
The wonderful thing about the Sony A7, A7R & A7S is that they combine a relatively high resolution electronic viewfinder (EVF) with a full frame sensor and a highly versatile lens mount. Optical viewfinders (OVFs) may still have the edge in quality and speed (at the moment), but since using cameras with EVFs I've noticed several advantages and some of these are indispensable for shooting infra-red (highlighted in green).

• The camera is significantly smaller & lighter (compared to a DSLR)
• The viewfinder doesn't shrink when using crop lenses
• The possibility of light leaking is greatly reduced
• You can't blind yourself when looking into the sun
• Super-imposed horizon level (don't know what I did without this)
• The colours and tones of the spectrum you're shooting in can be seen in real-time
• Correct exposure & White balance can be seen in the viewfinder
• True focus can be viewed and zoomed in on (Great for Infra-red)

    Cons
The flexibility of shooting whatever spectrum you choose whenever you want is great, but... Internal filters offer better image quality (because they're closer to the sensor), so if you want to mostly shoot infra-red I highly recommend converting your camera to full-time IR. Using an internal filter like a 665nm, 695nm or there about. That way you can still add more aggressive filters externally for pure black and white.

Another potential down side is that shooting colour won't be as easy as it was (before conversion). Colours don't come out as they did when using Hoya or B+W external UV/IR blocking filters. A simple tweak of the white balance just won't cut it with most images and retrieving warm colours from night shots will require a lot post-process if you're picky. There could be better UV/IR block filters available. I'm looking in to this, but don't have any evidence that they're as good as people say they are yet and cost can be an issue.

    Pre Conversion

I kept the A7 for a week before sending it away for conversion. This gave me the chance to see if everything was OK and also take some shots for later comparison. Here are some random samples (pre-conversion):

Kew Gardens, Richmond - Golden Peacock - Nikon 85mm

The flip out screen was amazing for this shot. I simply could not have captured this without it. It's not that I'm against rolling around in the dirt, but if I had it would have frightened the glorified chicken away.

Knightsbridge, London - Ferrari Dealer - Nikon 85mm

Both of these images were taken using focus peaking with the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 lens. They are right on the edge of a decent exposure, considering I was trying to keep the camera at base ISO. It seems like reds are the hardest thing to get right post conversion, but more about that in later post, for now it's time to focus on the infra-red aspects of this camera.

The noise levels from the A7 are not the best ever, but they're not terrible, better than anything I've had before and I'm sure it will cope very well with hald-held infra-red photography. The recently announcement for the Sony A7S makes me rather jealous that I didn't wait (as it would probably be a few stops better at high-ISO), but mostly I'm happy that this converted A7 is ready for early spring :).

    Filters
Here is a scene taken with the nine different filters I have so far. This should give a rough indication of what colours to expect with each filter and how each affects the exposure values.

There are a couple of things to note before reading too much into these images.

• These filters will not perform similarly on non-converted digital camera, or even on one that's been converted to infra-red. For example: A red filter on a normal digital camera will simply make red images and it will do nothing at all on one that's been converted to IR only. 
• Infra-red images are generally heavily processed, so this does not represent the full potential of each filter. This is a starting point from an auto white balance. I will dedicate a post to the processing of colour infra-red images as I don't want to overwhelm this post with that technicality. ** If you're reading this and you would like help with achieving a specific effect please feel free to leave a comment in the space below.

I will start off by showing an image that's been taken without any filters (Full Spectrum) and then go through each of the filters (stating it's brand, type, exposure setting and white balance figures). Before I show them, however, let me explain a bit about my test set up and the processes I've adhered to:

• All shots were taken on a tripod, using a Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D lens
• Cameras setting were: Aperture Priority, f/11, iso 100 and +1.3 eV
• Custom white balance was set for each filter (directly from this scene)
• White balance temperature wanted to be below 2000 for all shots
• Images are taken from RAW, but no adjustments have been applied
• Focus was not changed, so these don't make good sharpness examples

 ▲▲  Full Spectrum (No Filter) - 1/500th, WB: 2000 / -93  ▲▲

 ▲▲  Colour (Hoya UV/IR-Cut) - 1/250th, WB: 2500 / -82  ▲▲

 ▲▲  Colour (B+W UV/IR-Cut) - 1/250th, WB: 2600 / -79  ▲▲

 ▲▲  Orange #22 (B+W) - 1/250th, WB: 2000 / -47  ▲▲

▲▲  Red #25 (Heliopan) - 1/200th, WB: 2000 / -73  ▲▲

 ▲▲  665nm Infra-red (Schott) - 1/160th, WB: 2000 / -81  ▲▲

 ▲▲  695nm Infra-red (Heliopan RG695) - 1/125th, WB: 2000 / -84  ▲▲

 ▲▲  720nm Infra-red (Hoya R72) - 1/100th, WB: 2000 / -94  ▲▲

 ▲▲  850nm Infra-red (B+W 093) - 1/50th, WB: 2000 / -150  ▲▲

 ▲▲  360nm UV+IR (Hoya U-360) - 1/25th, WB: 2000 / -57  ▲▲

If you look at these examples and feel like there's not much to take away from them let me share some thoughts I've had while using these filters:

Full Spectrum can be pretty and it gives about an extra stop of exposure, but it has ghosted/blurry corners from the varying focus distances and offset detail in the colour channels. This can destroy much of the fun that you might have seeing the world in this way, so in reality it isn't all that great to shoot with very often. Even if you're not keen on the colours you could use full spectrum for shooting at night with wide aperture lenses. This hides most of the corner issues and differences in colour, so you could simply use the extra stop of exposure.

Orange and Red filters can give some really nice effects with some processing experimentation, but they suffer a little from the same effect as full spectrum in the corners and it can look more obvious with the limited colour pallet too. Red does show less of these aberrations though so if you really like the more obvious colour separation that's the one I would recommend if you're looking for detail and funky colours. That said - I managed to get the orange filter to give images with blue skies and red trees without the 'false colour' technique, which was easier and gave interesting results.

Infra-red filters with lower cut-off points in the spectrum, like the 665nm (which lets in quite a bit of red) can give slight corner aberrations, but they offer a good amount of play in the colours through processing and the exposure times with these filters are barely diminished compared to colour.

Infra-red filters with higher cut-off points in the spectrum reduce more and more visible colour information as they go. They get sharper and have less contrast too, but their exposure times suffer. At 800nm it's unlikely they will show any colour at all. Actually colour information is all-but invisible to humans at 750nm, but a filters rating is not a hard cut off point and they can start letting in light 50-100nm lower than their rated figure. The 850nm filter you see above is as near to pure infra-red as you'll get without being too crazy.

Ultraviolet filters like the Hoya U-360 also let in a lot of infra-red and their tones are overpowered by IR. They are actually great for taking IR images with naturally blue skies, but if you want pure UV tones you'll need to stack another filter in front of it (IR block).

Image Quality: All the filters I've used above (Hoya, B+W, Heliopan and Schott) have very high quality glass. I haven't noticed any issues with these, but I have had poor quality unbranded filters in the past. I wouldn't recommend everyone stick to these, but it is safer. I will be doing a sharpness test between these filters soon, to see if I can see any difference between them.

    Exposures
Following on from the diagram I made at the beginning of this post - I will try to illustrate just how much difference converting a camera makes with infra-red exposures on modern digital cameras.

Nikon D600 / Nikkor 105mm - 1/800th sec, f/3, iso 100

The Nikon D600 sensor is the same one that's used in the Sony A7, so this makes for a good test. Although Nikon's processing provides better high-iso noise quality.

Normal colour photos like this, taken in direct sunlight tend to have clipped values. This image has had the contrast lowered as well as shadow and highlight retrieval applied (in RAW) to keep it from looking overly harsh.

Sony A7 / Nikkor 85mm - 1/320th sec, f/2.8, iso 100 (B+W 093 IR filter - 830nm)

The B+W 093 filter is quite aggressive, passing 50% light intensity @ 850nm. Unlike the Hoya R72 there is little to no colour information captured here. By comparing the exposure values this filter only loses about 1.5 stops of exposure compared to a normal colour camera, which makes it a breeze to use. Dynamic range is almost always captured without clipping. The contrast in this image has actually been increased to maximise the shadow and highlights. With base iso easily achievable there's little noise (if any) when adjusting exposure values in post (RAW).

Nikon D600 / Nikkor 85mm - 1/10th sec, f/1.4, iso 25600 (B+W 093 IR filter - 830nm)

Keen observers will notice that the glasses are different here (these lenses are normally transparent). Sorry, this was a from a bit later in the day, but the light levels were very similar. Otherwise this is the same lens and filter as the Sony image (previously), but we're back to the (normal) Nikon D600 again. This was my attempt at a hand-held infra-red photo using this non-converted camera.

The exposure difference between the two cameras is nearly 16 stops, but since the IR filter being used here is already 1.5 stops slower than colour, that's an effective loss of about 17 stops. To get this shot on the Nikon I had to guess the focus distance and framing (live-view screen was completely useless). The haze that you see across the middle of the frame is light leaking through the optical viewfinder. This is another sign that the camera is really struggling to see anything (although covering it up works fine). Getting a reasonable shot here was a difficult task.

This level of aggressive blocking from the internal filter is enough to make a modern non-converted camera completely unusable without a tripod, but not all cameras are like this. To see a modern camera that can be used to shoot hand-held IR see my post on the Fuji X100 here.

    Lenses
Disclaimer: I am a big fan of available light & low light photography, I'm also a total bokeh whore. I can be quite forgiving of pixel peeping sharpness and aberrations because I'm more interested in the image as a whole. I generally seek out the widest aperture lenses available, so Sony's current range of full-frame E-Mount lenses (mostly Zeiss at the moment) don't really suit my needs. What interests me most about the lens mount of the A7 is its ability to adapt almost any other lenses to it. Since I already have some great glass and I don't mind manually focusing it was obvious what lenses I should use with the A7 first.

I bought the A7 with its kit lens, which is currently the only non-Zeiss lens available (28-70mm). This is a very cheap option, but this is another huge lens that rather destroys the great size of the A7 for me. Image quality was OK, but understandably not stunning. Image stabilisation actually destroyed some of my images and turning that off could only be done in the menu. This was the final straw for me so I got rid of it and initially concentrated on my existing SLR lenses from Nikon.

After being completely smitten by the Fuji X100 for about a year I really wanted something just like that, but for full frame. The Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 lens would be a perfect option, but it was just too much for me to spend after buying the camera and having it converted. In hindsight perhaps a nicer option would have been the Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake combined with the metabones autofocus adapter, but my first choice was this...

Voigtlander Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 (Leica M mount)

If you're being critical about sharpness and aberrations this lens will not impress you, but I don't mind these things and really quite enjoyed it for colour work. Unfortunately for IR images it was rather lacklustre and on top of that it produced bad hot-spots and extreme flaring, so I wouldn't recommend it for IR photography.

Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 AF-D

Not that small, but still very light. IQ performance is superb in infra-red, with no hint of hot-spot or crazy flaring. The close minimum focus distance allows for some nice shallow depth of field @ f/2.0 with portraits / flowers and the common 52mm filters will fit on many other lenses. Focus ring is easy to knock, but still - highly recommended!

Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D

My favourite lens for colour and is quickly becoming so for infra-red too. It's a bit unwieldy to carry on the A7, but in use it's fine. It shows no sign of hot-spots or excessive flaring in IR. This lens has come down in price a lot lately, but it's still not down to the levels of the very capable Samyang 85mm f/1.4, although I don't know how that does with IR.

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D

Mini review coming soon...

Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro AF-D

Mini review coming soon...

I will be testing the Sony A7 with many more lenses soon and when I do I will update this space with a mini review of how they cope with infra-red. Next up (after the remaining Nikon lenses) is the Mitakon 50mm f/0.95, fingers crossed that it copes with infra-red better than the 35mm Voigtlander.

    Post Conversion
Now that I've had the Sony A7 back in my hands for a few weeks, let me show you a few of the infra-red images I've taken with various filters. There isn't any examples from the Voigtlander here I'm afraid. This was due to it not being well suited for infra-red. It's now gone to a better home...

Hampstead Heath - Nikon 35mm / Schott IR 665nm - 1/320th, f/8, iso 100

Hampstead - Nikon 85mm / B+W 093 - 1/160th, f/1.4, iso 100

Kew Gardens - Nikon 85mm / Red (#25) - 1/3200th, f/1.4, iso 100

Hampstead Heath - Nikon 85mm / B+W 093 - 1/1600th, f/1.4, iso 100

Highgate - Nikon 35mm / Hoya U-360 - 1/200th, f/2, iso 100

 Kenwood House - Nikon 35mm, Hoya R72 - 1/160th sec, f/11, iso 100

Kew Gardens - Nikon 85mm / Red (#25) - 1/2000th, f/1.4, iso 100

Hampstead Heath - Nikon 85mm / B+W 093 - 1/100th, f/1.4, iso 100

Hampstead Cemetery - Nikon 35mm / Red (#25) - 1/160th, f/8, iso 100

Kew Gardens - Nikon 35mm, Heliopan RG695 - 1/400th, f/8, iso 100

    Focusing
Manually focusing lenses on the A7 is pretty easy with focus peaking. The only negative is that when using this in infra-red it's slightly less responsive, perhaps due to infra-red having less contrasted tones. It's not too different however and is still a very useful addition.

Focus checking could be great if it was a little different. Currently you activate it by pressing a button once and then again to confirm which area you want to zoom in on. This is really unnecessary since you will only want the middle 99% of the time. This lasts only for a couple seconds and then automatically goes off, making it very frustrating to use, as this process has to be repeated until you're sure focusing is correct. With only a few small changes it could be vastly improved. A button that you could simply hold to zoom would be all you really need here, so I really hope that an option for this is added with a firmware upgrade.

As for autofocus I really can't offer much insight yet because I got rid of the kit lens before I had the camera converted. I will update this section once I've had some experience with some Sony and/or Canon lenses.

    Summary
Overall I am extremely happy with the Sony A7. It's a great little camera with a lot of scope for creativity. The lens compatibility is probably my favourite aspect. A few weeks on (after conversion) it has surpassed my expectations. As a choice for this infra-red project the Sony A7 has been great, but there are a couple of things that I'd like to see improved. Here's a few negative bullet points about this camera (rated out of 10 for annoyance):

• Body is a bit plasticy and feels fragile (although it's nice and light) - 3
• Battery life is very short (although, again, this helps the cameras be nice and light) - 5
• LCD screen is always exposed leaving it open to damage (but it's quick to use) - 2
• Confusing buttons and uncomfortable layout - 7
• Menu and C2 buttons very hard to press - 5
• Custom button options need work * - 8

* Custom button functionality is a great feature and there are several buttons available to customise here. The down side is a lack of useful finctions available to assign to these buttons and this is rather frustrating. It has some nice options, but most of what I wanted just wasn't there at all. I would really like the following features (rated out of 10 for potential usefulness):

• Switching between LCD, EVF and Auto view would be great. Currently you can only assign a button to turn off the LCD, but it only switches off the feed (the back-light stupidly stays on) - 10
• Auto ISO toggle button (this is even more useful than a hardware ISO dial) - 9
• Focus check as a toggle for quick operation. Currently this is a two button press - 8
• The ability to change the minimum shutter speed before ISO values drop (1/60th only is pretty useless for me because I either shoot with a 35mm or 85mm lens) - 10

OK that's enough bitching, here's the parts that I do like (rated out of 10 for awesomeness):

• 1/8000th shutter * - 10
• Very generous buffer considering it's an entry level model * - 10
• Rotating screen is great for low angle shots - 10
• Nicely placed video button for still photographers. Out of the way, but easy to get to - 7
• Video starts recording with one button press & in any mode - 9
• The ability to output uncompressed video - 9
• Can mount many types of SLR lens (Nikon, pentax etc.) in manual focus - 10
• Can mount Canon lenses while retaining autofocus (using not so cheap adapters) - 10
• Can mount Leica or Contax lenses (using small adapters) - 10
• Focus Peaking for manual lenses - 8
• Rear dial is also a directional switch and works well - 8
• Exposure compensation dial has nice friction - 9
• Exposure compensation works in Manual mode (with ISO) - 10

* The Nikon D600 is more expensive and has neither of these things!

OK, that's enough for now. I will follow this up with tutorials for processing colour infra-red images (from different filters) and the in-depth lens reviews (how well they work in IR). If you have any requests for me to test certain things or make tutorials for any of the processing please feel free to write a comment below. 

Cameras - Canon 40D (Converted to infra-red only - 700nm)

Nine Springs, Yeovil - Canon 40D (IR), Pentax 50mm - 1/500th, f/1.2, iso100

I was getting on so well with infra-red photography on the Canon G9 that I was starting to crave a more serious camera. At this point the idea of combining IR with a fast shutter response, a large optical viewfinder and the higher image quality of a digital SLR was just too tempting. I did some research and decided to sell the G9 to fund the purchase of a Canon 40D and conversion. This would be the next step in my infra-red project.

Shortly before this I managed to swap some old equipment for a Canon 5D. This was my first experience with a full-frame DSLR and using a 50mm f/1.2 lens was making me quite addicted to bokeh (shallow depth of field blur). This was partly responsible for pushing me away from Nikon and towards Canon for conversion to IR as I was more tempted to put money into Canon glass at this point.

Unlike the G9 I didn't buy the 40D already converted, although I did choose it with conversion in mind from the start. I took some 'normal' colour images with it for a couple of weeks before sending it to Germany for conversion, in mid 2008.

The Pentax MX film camera next to the cropped sensor Canon 40D with Pentax adapter

Another aspect that pushed me towards Canon when choosing an SLR to convert to infra-red was the lens options. Despite being a bit of a Nikon fan-boy at this time I moved to Canon for a couple of reasons. The first was that Canon have wider aperture prime lenses available (albeit at a cost), but perhaps an even better reason was that the Canon mount can take lenses from almost any other manufacturer. This is made possible by simple, small and very cheap adapters that don't require any optics to degrade image quality.

The first image in this post was taken using a Pentax 50mm f/1.2 lens on the Canon 40D. This is shown in the above photo next to an old Pentax film camera for scale. Although you're stuck with manual focus on third-party lenses, this is actually quite useful for infra-red photography anyway. As an extra bonus there are some good bargains to be had with older manual focus lenses and this is equally true of low-light prime lenses (like these).

Canon 5D, 50mm - 1/60th, f/4.5, iso100

Perhaps my second biggest reason for choosing the Canon 40D for IR conversion was a new feature it had: Live-view (LV). I like high contrast black & white filters, but I also like colour infra-red (like the Hoya R72). I didn't want to be stuck shooting only one filter type after conversion and live-view made this possible. It would allow me to shoot fast shutter speeds using IR filters in front of the lens, but I could also shoot with the optical filter on the lowest wavelength I chose for conversion. The plan was to convert the camera to the lowest wavelength of IR that I liked to shoot (700nm). I could then add a more aggressive filter to the lens and use live-view to continue shooting (see above). This worked brilliantly mostly because of how intuitive the 40D's live view was.

I have tried live-view on several Nikon cameras (D3, D600) since and I'm not sure I would recommend them as much as I would a Canon for this single feature. Nikon's LV experience was less usable and rather frustrating for general use thus far. This was the first thing to put me off converting one of the Nikon cameras (listed above) to infra-red as a new project.

Cameras (especially DSLRs) have gotten smaller, lighter and cheaper since the 40D, but now that electronic viewfinders (EVF) are getting so good I'm not sure I can keep recommending DSLRs over mirrorless cameras for infra-red conversion. If you like the idea of shooting various IR filters on a converted digital camera I would recommend one of these EVF cameras (higher is better):

• Sony A7
• Fuji X-T1
• Fuji X-E1/2
• Sony NEX 6/7
• Olympus OM-D
• Panasonic GX7

Essentially this is my personal preference of interchangeable lens cameras (ILC) that have an EVF. This order is based on sensor size, handling and lens potential. I hope to talk more about these in future posts. I could rant the list and its order for ages, but for now I will get back to the converted 40D.

The 40D made a fantastic infra-red camera for it's day. I really enjoyed shooting with it as an SLR and the live-view was not just a gimmick, it made the camera infinitely better at shooting IR. Here are some pictures while I continue to babble about my experiences shooting with the 40D (post-conversion):

Central Amsterdam - Canon 40D, 24-120mm - 1/50th, f/8, iso100

This shot has had very little processing done to it, especially in the colours. The white balance's colour temperature slider is lower than it would be with a colour image, but it's not at the bottom (2000), where I'd normally put it. Very rarely do I find the default colours from an infra-red image to be pleasing. If I do keep the colours about 90% of the time I will use the false-colour technique to process the image.

Paradise Wood, Dorset - Canon 40D, 10-22mm - 1/200th, f/8, iso100

With it's much larger sensor the 40D's improved sharpness and dynamic range really helped false colour to remain relatively free of banding and noise. Compared to the compact G9 this was a huge step up in visual quality. Although the 40D was a much heavier camera it enable me to capture moments more reliably and made for a more pleasant shooting experience overall.

Montacute - Canon 40D, 10-22mm - 1/80th, f/5.6, iso100

At some point while shooting with the converted DSLR it occurred to me that I mostly took landscape images and this might better suit a wide angle lens. I chose the Canon 10-22mm. Being relatively cheap, light and not too big it was good for a walk-around lens. Sharpness and maximum aperture were poor, but it did an OK job overall. The main thing that made me regret buying this lens was that I used it fully zoomed in almost all the time. 22mm (on the 1.6x cropped 40D) was very close to 35mm lens on full-frame. 35mm prime lenses are often available with nice wide apertures and are still very small and light. This makes great for general use and available-light photography and this realization was ultimately what drove me to buy the Fuji X100 later on (more on that soon).

Lens options in general were simply stunning on the Canon mount. Canon's own lens options are great already, add to that 3rd party options (from Sigma and Tamron etc.) things get very interesting, but the real benefit to me was the ability to use manual focus lenses from almost any manufacturer's own catalogue (Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Zeiss, Leica etc.). The only down side for the 40D was its cropped sensor, which made wider lenses focal lengths not so ideal.

Canon 40D, 50mm - 1/5000th, f/1.2, iso100

The ability to change lenses with infra-red really amp'd up my passion for the project again. First stuck on a tripod and then limited to a mediocre lens on a tiny sensor, but no longer. If I wasn't completely hooked infra-red photography before I was now.

This image of my parent's cat (Marmite) shows how bad his camouflage is when surrounded by infra-red bushes. If only birds could see in IR huh? Well don't worry, he's a rubbish hunter anyway.

Focusing on his eye with the very shallow depth of field was only possible due to manually focusing using live-view. Since infra-red light focuses at a different distance to colour (and every lens is different) live-view really helped capture images more successfully (zooming into 1:1 pixels at the push of a button). This was a great feature for infra-red and so good was the functionality of live-view on the 40D that I often used it when there was no filter attached to the lens. A feature that I chose to act as a backup for when the optical viewfinder was unusable was now becoming a preferred way of using the camera.

Canon 40D, 50mm - 1/6th, f/1.2, iso100

After observing the effects that infra-red photography had on people's skin I was extra curious to try out studio photography. In hind sight I wish I had tried a lot more than I did, but I am glad that I got the chance to try a few. These images were all thanks to Rob Hargreves of Nimbus Photographic, for letting me join in on some of his photo shoots.

The way infra-red smooths out skin tones makes for a flattering black and white image. Colour infra-red photos are much trickier because the require a lot of tweaking to make the colours do anything useful. This is especially true when used with the false colour technique, which tends to make people look like smurfs.

   TRAVELLING WITH AN IR-DSLR

Britany, France - Canon 40D, 50mm - 1/1600th, f/1.2, iso100

I do wish that I'd used the converted 40D more as a travel camera. I found this image of Mont Saint Michel hiding in one of my folders. This is the only image that I took from this camera during the entire holiday. I had defaulted to using a normal colour camera for the holiday because I was worried the IR images would come out horrible for some reason. This was probably the only time that I took the camera out of the bag. Well, at least I have this one I guess.

Central Amsterdam - Canon 40D, 10-22mm - 1/60th, f/4, iso100

I sometimes wonder if my three year move to Amsterdam (with all that water, nature and cool buildings) wasn't somewhat responsible for encouraging me into converted infra-red photography. If it was I'm sure glad that it was part of my life, but you certainly don't need this kind of landscape to appreciate IR.

   CONCLUSION
I'm not sure I really need this section, but yes I really loved this camera in infra-red. It probably didn't quite get the attention of my main DSLR at the time (which later became the Nikon D3, oh yeah I returned to Nikon btw), but part of me loved the 40D even more. The fun of shooting older manual lenses really quite was therapeutic and reminded me of . The IR camera forced me down a route there that I may not have otherwise returned to and I love it even more for that. This combined with ethereal images and the exploration of processing techniques rekindled a love of photography for me on many occasions that colour just wasn't cutting it. 

Cameras - Canon G9 (Converted to infra-red only - 720nm)

Amsterdam - Canon G9 (IR) - 1/400th, f/5, iso80

After shooting the odd infra-red photograph with my Nikon D2H for a couple of years I found out about converted IR cameras. This fascinated me and I eventually bought a pre-converted Canon G9 from an American company called: Max-Max back in 2007. There are several companies who can convert a camera if you send it to them, but actually selling infra-red cameras directly to the consumer is unusual, even now. Most conversion companies only deal with DSLRs because their sensors are easier to reach. In America the most popular company for this is Life-Pixel, but there are many. In the UK I only know of ACS and Protech Repairs.

These were the images that I used to sell the G9 on eBay in 2008

The main attraction of having a camera converted to full-time infra-red are:

• Faster shutter speeds, thus no need for a tripod
• Higher image quality / Less noise

Higher shutter speeds allow for shooting moving subject without capturing excessive motion blur. In fact they shoot at speeds very similar to normal cameras. Motion blur can be a desirable effect on occasion, like with running water, but in general faster shutter speeds are a good thing. Not requiring a tripod is always a positive thing. Freeing you up to travel further, shoot quicker and capture a great range of subjects. The higher image quality from lower noise levels is very useful too. Noise tends to get amplified when processing infra-red images.

The main features I wanted from this pocket IR camera were: Good image quality, a flexible lens & good manual controls. In this regard I was happy with the Canon G9, but today you can find similarly sized cameras with much larger sensors (better IQ) like the Canon G1X or ILCs like the Fuji X-series. Another reason I chose the G9 was that it could shoot RAW and ultimately this was my favourite feature for infra-red. When it comes to processing IR images the extra flexibility you get with white-balance and exposure control is invaluable. Yes, you could say the same thing about colour photography, but infra-red requires a lot more manipulation of individual colour channels and dynamic range.

Vonelpark, Amsterdam - Canon G9 (IR) - 1/160th sec, f/4, iso80

A lot of the infra-red images that I took with the G9 were simply processed into black and white, although the camera did capture colour information. By default the images come out a mess of pink mess, but the channels can be manipulated to get some prettier results. Here's one I processed using the 'false-colour' method. This brings back the blue sky and one other colour (depending on how you process the image). This other colours generally responds to the subjects that come out differently in IR (leaves, grass, human skin etc.). 720nm filters are the best for this colour IR effect, but not all 720nm filters are created equal. The most popular is the Hoya R72.

Slotervaart, Amsterdam - Canon G9 (IR) - 1/320th sec, f/4, iso80

This storm cloud and rainbow (right) didn't come out with any colours. I simply processed it as a simple black and white, but I do like the tones it has. I'm glad that I've forced myself to shoot a variety of scenes, weather and subjects in infra-red, because some of the more obscure, or unusual things have produced some of the more interesting results. Although this image has the classic IR subject matter (trees and water), winter had destroyed the effect somewhat. As you can see the grass and trees are showing their typical bright tones, but other elements, like the water and reeds, are providing some nice contrast.

My favourite aspect from this image is the falling rain, lit up in front of the dark clouds behind. This contrast and dynamic range in the clouds seems to come out much better with infra-red photography, where a normal colour image would struggle to capture these tones while being exposed for the landscape.

Central Amsterdam - Canon G9 (IR) - 1/60th sec, f/3.2, iso80

Here's an example of the high contrast you can get when the conditions are good. A clear blue sky creates a very dark tone with infra-red, mix this with the bright tones of well lit trees and it creates a very dynamic image.

Central Amsterdam - Canon G9 - 1/320th sec, f/5, iso80

Amsterdam was great for having a lot of water around the city, but it did rather lack in dynamic landscapes. It was, however, also great for street photography. People there were very comfortable having their pictures taken. You might think this is true of any capital city, but London is oh so not the same! There seems to be a much more laid back atmosphere in Amsterdam and no, I don't think it has anything to do with the drugs. Having an IR camera that can take fast enough exposures to capture people without motion blur is a huge bonus. Generally speaking you need to have a converted camera for this although there are some exceptions to this. Older cameras like the Nikon D70 and D2H were good for this, but even some recent ones, like the Fuji X100 (more about this one later).

North Amsterdam - Canon G9 - 1/400th sec, f/5, iso80

Here's an example of the colours you get directly out of the converted camera verses a heavily processed version ('false colour'). To achieve this result you first need to manipulate your white-balance to get the optimum levels for each colour channel. Once you open the image in your editing software you'll need to swap the red and blue channels around. Finally each colour channel will need a bit of tweaking to balance the colours (I usually use curves) and get the desired effect.

After I've done a post for each of the cameras I've used to take IR images I will dedicate a post to describing the 'false-colour' process in more detail.

North Amsterdam - Canon G9 (IR) - 1/250th, f/5, iso80

As you can see by exif data of the images shot from the converted Canon G9 there is no issue with slow shutter speeds. In fact on many occasions it was possible to shoot faster settings with this than with a normal colour camera. This seemed to happen mostly with evening shots where the sun was going down. Trees can often still look quite bright and interesting during these conditions, so perhaps it rather depends on the subject matter that you're shooting.

Amsterdam - Canon G9 (IR) - 1/320th, f/5, iso80

Skin tones come out bright and clear with infra-red. The china doll-like effect is considerably more more pretty than what happens when you shoot in the UV spectrum. It's even prettier than the tones you get from turning a normal colour image black and white too. There are a couple of odd things to watch out for however. Eyes can look rather freaky, teeth can look dark and veins sometimes appear more prominently than you'll expect.

If you're using the false-colour technique skin tones come out a rather unhealthy blue hue as well, but in general the tones you'll get are pretty flattering. On a side note - it's not necessarily a bad thing, but some tinted glasses can appear completely transparent. The same effect happens with Coke too, but that's something for later.

Amsterdam - Canon G9 (IR) - 1/25th, f/2.8, iso80

This image is looking through the viewfinder of a Yashica Mat 124G. This was my friends camera and he let me borrow it for this experiment. The lens that I'm looking through here is an 80mm f/3.5 I think. The shallow depth of field effect is pretty decent (although not quite as wide an aperture as the one it takes the photograph through). It was very nice to be able to see a shallow depth of field while seeing infra-red, since the G9's sensor didn't allow for much depth blur at all.

North Amsterdam - Canon G9 (IR) - 1/500th sec, f/5, iso80

Bright sunlight reflects well from grass and plants. This, in turn, lights up objects around it. One big down side to IR is that foliage which is often multi-coloured in visible light usually looks pretty flat in infra-red. You can get interesting depth & detail here too, although it's really helped along by strong shadows and this can be hard to see in visible light. When shooting with a non-converted SLR this is pure guesswork and experience, but with a converted camera that all changes. When you can see the effect of the infra-red colours & tones live through a converted display it really speeds up the learning process of IR photography. For me this didn't kill any of the magic, it only heightened my interest in the spectrum and my IR projects continued...