Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 05/02/2007, at 15:53, Robert Rose wrote: > Some more IR images, from the Getty Museum in Los Angeles. > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/rjrose/IR/L1000407.jpg.html > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/rjrose/IR/L1000412.jpg.html > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/rjrose/IR/L1000421.jpg.html > > There are two non-IR images in the same album, to compare. Which > do you think works better? > > The amount of exposure necessary really varies throughout the day. > The A setting does a good job on exposure. At times really high > ISO is needed, but the noise ("grain") reminds me of the grain from > Kodak High Speed Infrared. > > A red filter doesn't seem to work well. > > Some of the images (not these) are fuzzy. I am pretty sure that it > is not focus shift; perhaps it is a cousin to blooming that occurs > in IR film. Sharpening helps, as does slight underexposure. > > I am using Adobe Camera Raw to open the DNG file. I turn on the > clipping warnings, and then adjust the Temperature and tint to > minimize clipping. Then I use Nik Color Efex Pro; BW Conversion > Tonal Enhancer to convert to BW, and then do a final adjustment > using Levels. Bringing the middle slider up seems to make the > image more dramatic. > > Lots of fun research ahead. > > Cheers, > Bob Rose Well, it seems there is a whole world of IR images about to "explode". IR has always had uses, but carrying and using the film is hard: this looks like a great alternative: thanks for researching it ;-) Cheers