Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Underwater IR Shot


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 imp

imp

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 March 2011 - 08:10 PM

Hi guys,
Was mucking around with my D70 IR Modded Camera. Took it down and tested it. Some critic will help.
Both were shot with a Nikon Micro 60mm F2.8.

Sample1_SE1_DSC_0037.jpg
Sample_EZIR_DSC_0041.jpg
Imran Ahmad
Photographer

http://www.escapeinc.com.sg/
imp@escapeinc.com.sg
www.flickr.com/escapeinc

#2 ornate_wrasse

ornate_wrasse

    Moderator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 24 March 2011 - 08:20 PM

These IR images are stunning! I especially like the first one. The focus appears to be tack sharp.

For the second image, it appears you could crop 1/3 of the image on the right side, it doesn't add anything to the image overall. Also, the front part of the critter is a bit soft. I do like the dreamy look that the image has, however.

What a great idea to take an IR modified camera underwater!

Thanks for sharing these images.

Ellen
D300, Subal housing, Focus Fix Light, Tokina 10-17mm, 60mm, Sigma 17-70, 105mm VR, Inon Z240 (2)

www.pbase.com/ornate_wrasse

#3 imp

imp

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 March 2011 - 09:09 PM

thanks Ellen,
Still trying it out and hopefully bettering it asap.
Imran Ahmad
Photographer

http://www.escapeinc.com.sg/
imp@escapeinc.com.sg
www.flickr.com/escapeinc

#4 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4570 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 25 March 2011 - 05:40 AM

I assume these images are recording only the IR output of the strobes as reflected back from the subjects, with little or no ambient IR effect. Don't mean to be critical, but it appears that these are really just desaturated images. Is there any thing you are getting here that can not simply be done by desaturating in post.
Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#5 imp

imp

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 March 2011 - 07:27 PM

Thank for the constructive comment. I believe that IR photography has got its benefits on land. I was trying to achieve some of that, underwater. Just like you said, " Done in POST.. i think with IR processing and with the extended knowledge of PS, most IR can really be a work of ART instead of just "Desaturated Image". let it be land or underwater. So what i was trying to do , was to muck around with land techniques and see if there's other possiblities of making the underwater world, as well all know, beautiful. Will take into consideration of your comment and learn from it. Thanks
Imran Ahmad
Photographer

http://www.escapeinc.com.sg/
imp@escapeinc.com.sg
www.flickr.com/escapeinc

#6 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4570 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 26 March 2011 - 02:51 AM

Thank for the constructive comment. I believe that IR photography has got its benefits on land. I was trying to achieve some of that, underwater. Just like you said, " Done in POST.. i think with IR processing and with the extended knowledge of PS, most IR can really be a work of ART instead of just "Desaturated Image". let it be land or underwater. So what i was trying to do , was to muck around with land techniques and see if there's other possiblities of making the underwater world, as well all know, beautiful. Will take into consideration of your comment and learn from it. Thanks

I think the point I am trying to make is that unfortunately underwater the amount of infrared radiation is significantly reduced, unlike land photograph where objects reflect or emit a significant amount of IR. On land one is thus able to get images that exhibit a broad tonal range with IR. Underwater I think you are relying predominantly on the IR output from your strobe being reflected from the subject.
Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#7 imp

imp

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 March 2011 - 04:51 AM

I got that.. chief.. And i understand where you're coming from.. Thanks.... but no harm mucking around and testing it...
Imran Ahmad
Photographer

http://www.escapeinc.com.sg/
imp@escapeinc.com.sg
www.flickr.com/escapeinc

#8 Jackiebalboa

Jackiebalboa

    Sea Nettle

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 11 April 2011 - 07:50 AM

Nice set :( I love the one with the small fish !! You've made a nice job especially because you where extremely near the fish, which make a really good photo :)

#9 Undertow

Undertow

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Location:Bermuda

Posted 11 April 2011 - 10:53 AM

very cool. indeed you won't get much of an ir effect UW but why not, they're a bit different, and i much prefer that its shot on an ir camera vs just fiddled in PS. And contrary to what Ellen says, I would NOT crop 1/3 off teh 2nd photo, that would ruin it (and nearly put the subject in the middle)! i think the negative space adds a lot to the photo.
D200, Aquatica, 10.5, sig 15, 12-24, 17-55, 60, 105
3x SB-105

#10 imp

imp

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2011 - 04:54 AM

Thanks guys.. Still learning and understanding. In the process of modifiying a couple of camera to see if it works better with other kind of filters
Imran Ahmad
Photographer

http://www.escapeinc.com.sg/
imp@escapeinc.com.sg
www.flickr.com/escapeinc