Log in

eye am - The year was 2081 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

eye am [Dec. 30th, 2002|11:40 pm]

image taken in near-infrared using Olympus C-4000 with Hoya R72 filter, 10 sec exposure

I'm developing a certain style and knowledge about the response of the camera to infrared. What I've learned will help immensely in taking good pictures in visible light as well. Today was a thorougly unproductive day, and even though I took hundreds of shots I really only have this one good clean image to report. I've left it open to public, instead of just the pictures group, so that people can have a look. I've also taken a new icon in the infrared, as seen here.

I'm going to have to wait until it gets a little warmer to seriously start taking photos, and I'm really dying to do figure studies, but I suppose that will have to wait on finding models willing to put up with my fumbling and willing to have potentially very good and/or very bad and/or very creepy pictures of themselves posted public. I either need a lot of sunlight or some decent tungsten lighting for doing serious portraiture and figure studies. I could also shade the lighing with infrared gels to limit glare and allow more comfortable facial expressions.

I'm also wondering about bondage shots in the infrared. I get some very strange color results- fabrics are often brightly white despite their actual color, and metal is usually fairly black, so it will be curious to see what I can evoke. If I can get enough illumination I should be able to take much faster exposures which won't have the soft blending effect seen in pictures like this one. It's not that eyelashes or eyebrows diappear but the minute shaking of my body while keeping still causes a certain degree of averaging. Veins are supposed to show up on people of fair skin, so I have to find some fair skinned masochists by summertime.

Lots to learn. I'm calming down a lot now. I've been very anxious to do something to "improve" things, but I'm trying to relax now and just let the future happen.

From: sarahparah
2002-12-30 10:08 pm (UTC)


For those of us new here and unfamiliar with photographic terms, would you mind explaining what exactly your goal is? What is near-infrared and why are you interested in photgraphing that way? Hope these aren't stupid questions.

Hi there. I'm Sarah.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hbergeronx
2002-12-31 05:52 am (UTC)

Hi there!

Visible light consists of a spectrum of colors (ROY G. BIV, et. al.), and there are a set of invisible light waves on either side of visible, called ultraviolet on the blue side and infrared on the red side. Humans can't see them, but some animals and insects can. For instance, flowers which are uniformly colored in the visible have clear ultraviolet patterns to direct insetts to optimal pollination. There is generally a lot more of a spectrum of near infrared light than there is of visible light, and digital cameras are sensitive to this light and can "see" this to some extent, and show it as some form of reddish, whitish, or bluish image because the software of the camera doesn't know what to do with the stimulation that it's sensors are getting, and just interprets it as best it can. The stimulation the camera receives is mostly from infrared light close to the visible spectrum, hence it is often called NIR or Near InfraRed. Far infrared is things like heat, which is a form of radiation much longer in wavelength than NIR or visible and is typically used for those "night vision" goggles. Digicameras aren't sensitive to this. Most things are colored to some extent in the infrared, that is, they absorb or reflect light to different extents. Living trees reflect brightly, dead ones not so much. Eyes often look dark and translucent because NIR passes through the white part. Fair skin is often translucent and veins/capillaries can appear. (this may be, too, I think, why biting insects can see where to pierce the skin). Images that are camouflaged by surrounding color can often suddenly be contrasted.

You can back journey in my journal, or you can visit sites like http://www.irdreams.com/ (some not work-safe images) to see what potential seeing light that isn't visible can do for photography. For a more scientific and work-safe reason, there are sites like http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html.

There are no stupid questions. My goals in life center around challenging and questioning reality and coming to think clearly and correctly. I'm Matt, and I'm a twisted boy. I hope you enjoy reading. lapis_lazuli recommended that I read your journal.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: sarahparah
2002-12-31 07:16 pm (UTC)

Re: Hi there!

Now I wonder why she did that? :) I'm still trying to grasp the IR photography thing though. Maybe what I need is to see it on a brighter monitr than this laptop.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pookfreak
2002-12-31 11:35 am (UTC)
I'm looking forward to seeing where these experiments take you.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: honeypossum
2003-01-02 06:47 pm (UTC)


Hi there,
You're on purplesnap's friendlist and I thought I'd drop a quick line to say hello. I'm keen to take up photography, especially near IR and underwater work. Having seen your post about near-IR, I was hoping you could give me some advice and information, seeing as I'm just starting out. Thanks,

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hbergeronx
2003-01-02 07:02 pm (UTC)

Re: Photography

Please say hi to Snap from me- I haven't seen him in ages... and even then I only saw him briefly round the pub when I was in London.

I'm also fairly new to the field, so I'm not much help on the advice end. My father in law does a lot of underwater digital photography nowadays- except I never talk to him. I've added you as a friend so you should be able to see my photography experiments. There's a lot of links in the posts through the las month, so you can browse the stuff in my calendar here ( http://www.livejournal.com/view/?type=month&user=hbergeron&y=2002&m=12 ).

Feel free to post questions or hunt me down for chat- I'd be happy to talk about anything.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sheridanwilde
2003-01-02 09:26 pm (UTC)

Hmmm, was wondering what one of the setting on my digicam did - it's called 'shade' but comes out with rather strange results, guess I should have RTFMed (though it might not explain, even in there), but I'm pretty sure it's working on the principles you've just outlined rather niftily in the above post - thanks!

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hbergeronx
2003-01-03 01:37 pm (UTC)

shade is

a setting for white balance. It dictates which responses in visible color determine what color should be interpreted as red. There should also be sunlight and tungsten settings. It may influence infrared sensitivity, but you would not notice the effect unless you added a filter to remove visible light, which would ordinarily swamp the response of the sensors.

There are no commercially available digital cameras that will produce IR photos without adding a visible light block.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: perdurabo
2003-01-11 02:32 pm (UTC)
I've always wanted to try painting designs on a person's body with something like Heet or Ben Gay then shoot them in IR. I haven't shot much IR but it's a lot of fun to work with, although a hassle. I really like your photos a lot...!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hbergeronx
2003-01-11 06:15 pm (UTC)

in all likelihood

heet or ben gay should have absolutely no effect, since the NIR picked up by the camera is reflected NIR, not emitted NIR, which only occurs in very hot objects (like stovetops, and not bodies).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)