Nice video. I've been shooting infrared portrait photography since 2015, and IR photography has given me additional skills that transfer over to regular color photography. One of the biggest things I've learned is how to "see" how different items will interact with visible light. The first time I tried infrared bodyscape photography, I used velvet material for a backdrop. Great for regular photography, but glowed like a neon sign in IR because the material reflected IR light, even though the black color absorbed visible light. And that's just one example. IR photography is a process of trial and error, at least for me. Good to see someone finally making videos on the topic (I just have no desire to make videos), as it's a very fascinating genre of photography.
@@robshea Thank you so very much for your kind words. I can't believe I'm only today discovering your YT channel. There's so much great information here that I haven't seen done and/or compiled into a single resource.
I have a lens that produced a distinct hotspot when shooting IR. So I bought a lens recommended for IR. THEN I watched a RUclips video from a different uploader that put his ball cap over the viewfinder during the long exposure. My non converted Nikon D850 has a mechanical shade you flip a switch and it will close off the viewfinder. It completely solved the hotspot issue.
Thank you for the practical explanations on the key topics! Infrared is an awesome challenge with DSLR's, and it's great to hear more from those with experience
Again, I cant say enough about how helpful your videos have been. You have a nice, easygoing style and you can explain what has often been a complex process for me (read overthinking lol) in a very understandable way. Five ways to channel swap, what? Great stuff. I'm going through all of your videos.
Rob, I have been shooting infrared for 3 years now and have learned much from other IR experts. But, your style and teaching skills are the BEST I have experienced. I recently sold my Nikon D600 with a 720 conversion and made the move to mirrorless with a 590 conversion on a Nikon Z5. I share Z lenses with my Z7ii. I still have more of your videos to watch and learn. I love the LUTs and profiles now in LR without have to go into PS. Thanks again for taking the mystery out of post processing.
So many views and so few likes... I found your videos are very easy to understand and your explanation is great. For me your channel is priority 1 if you want to shoot infrared. Thanks for your work.
My favorite type of infrared photography is b&w shot with an 830nm converted camera; it is an exercise in working with grey scale. I also shoot in super blue infrared and 590nm, but I don't like these as well as my 830 nm images. I found your video very informative. I work in Lightroom, photoshop and NIK Silver Effex Pro 3. I have used the tools that I would apply to infrared images on visible light color pictures also, so that part of the video rings very true for me.
Lots of useful info on IR photography. I've watched other videos where they completely glossed over the focusing challenges, the hotspots, and that some lenses don't work well after conversion. Thanks for going into detail!
Nice video! I am use unmodified Nikon D500 with Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and Hoya R72 filter. To focus I set the aperture to f/1.8 and then manual focus using live view, set aperture to f/3.2 or f/4 and then take a picture. I found that exposure about 15s during direct sunlight is ok. When an image sometimes seems it might be overexposed it almost never is, I tried to compare different exposure times and longer seems better for less noise and better false colors.
I have also noticed when shooting IR with unconverted cameras the automatic exposure detection can be wonky. Good to take test shots or bracket and not rely solely on the meter/histogram.
2 года назад+1
@@robshea Sure, I always go manual with live view and after some time you get a sensation of what is the right exposure.
I don't know if it's a pit fall as such, but I would also add: having an idea of what type of image you're going for beforehand, which will affect the type of filter you'll need - in terms of how much colour the end result should have
This is certainly a challenge. Once I had a number of IR cut-off filters, the options for how I could shoot increased dramatically, and it was just too many options. It's like having too many lenses to pick from. These days, I try to pick a single style of IR filter before I head out and only take that with me. This forces me to find the best shots using a single style, instead of trying to imagine a scene with every style.
@@robshea i mostly do the same, often going by the weather of that day as well. I'm currently also experimenting with how the different filters i mainly use (hoya 720nm and r25a) works depending on the seasons. The light can be different this time of year where i live. So different considerations to have regarding the filters
Enjoyed your video and you have a very good skill at getting the message across. I am looking to try IR as it has always intrigued me. However, before I can commit to spending money converting a camera....and the subsequent loss of that camera to "normal" work, I am thinking of using an IR filter (Hoya R72) on my Fuji X-T3 with a lens...16-80...that I have read is a good lens for IR work. Is using a filter instead of converting a camera good for getting decent IR images?
You certainly can get great images with an unconverted camera and Hoya R72. I recommend it for new IR photographers before converting a camera. Here is a guide: ruclips.net/video/ej-6iz9fuLE/видео.html
Thank you. Very informative. It solved one of my mysteries (hot spots). I have another, though. I had a Nikon D800 IR-converted (spencercamera) to 720 nm for b+w photography. When I apply dehazing, I see dark splotches at random points in the image (but the same places in every image taken). I checked the camera before conversion and did not see them. Do you know a) where these come from, and b) how to fix this (outside of going in with Photoshop)? I could send a pic. Thanks again.
It sounds like you have dust on the sensor. First step would be to try a rocket blower to blow dust off the sensor. If that doesn’t work, you could try sensor cleaning swabs. If that doesn’t work, the dust may be between the sensor and the filter. In that case, it would fall to the conversation company to fix.
@@robshea First, my thanks to you for the reply. I thought the IR filter gotten taken out in an IR conversion of a digital camera. The other thing is that a couple of years ago I had a Nikon D7000 converted, and this had the blotches, too. I tried the blower, then the cleaning swabs, and finally brought it to a local guy who cleaned the sensor -- but the blotches were still there. At that point, I gave up and bought a used D800.
@@DR-- In a conversion, the hot mirror (IR blocking) filter is removed and replaced with either an IR filter, such as 720 nm, or a clear filter for full spectrum. When this new filter is added, there must be no dust on the sensor otherwise it will be trapped between the sensor and the new filter. You are welcome to send me an image, and I can take a look at it. 590.red/share
I took a look at your images and it certainly looks like dust. Be sure to clean the front and back elements of the lens. Even better test with another lens and see if you get the same result. This could isolate the problem to the lens or the sensor. This is a lot of dust. If you have cleaned the sensor filter with a swab, confirmed that it is not the lens, and then the issue is between the sensor and the converted filter, I would question the quality if the conversion. The conversion should be done in a clean room and that is too much dust to have been done in a clean room.
Thank you for your educational tutorials, Rob. I am seriously considering converting one of my cameras to IR. I am interested in color and B&W but I am turned between a 590 and a 665 conversion. I have "played" with some demo shots and can't find any significant difference between the two filters. It seems to me that you can emulate the 590 by simply adding saturation to the 665 shots. The 590 shot, however, seems more prone to fringing. I believe that you shoot primarily with the 590; if so, am I missing something? Would you have any advice before I commit to one (ie 665) or the other? The camera that I am considering for the conversion is a Nikon D300 that does not have good live-view capabilities. Thank you.
590nm and 665nm are certainly very close. 590nm will capture orange, red, and near-IR light. 665nm will capture only red and near-IR. Therefore, 590nm will give you more colors to play with while editing; not just more saturation, but a broader spectrum of colors. Personally, I would lean towards the 590nm for conversion since it would be easy to add a 665nm external filter. However, you can't go in the other direction by adding a lower-numbered external filter. Neither is the wrong choice. Don't fret too much over it. Pick one, shoot, edit, and grow your skills in making the best shots you can with it. Since the D300 doesn't have good live-view, will you have the focus calibrated for a specific lens?
@@robshea Thank you for your kind and helpful reply Rob; much appreciated. And yes, I am planning to have an 18-35mm f/3.5-f/5.6G Dx lens calibrated. Apparently this should not be a problem lens as far as hot spots is concerned. And I will probably stay at =< f/8.0 to avoid refraction - except for those times when my creative juices may be flowing :). I plan on using that lens exclusively for all my IR photography as it has a decent zoom range for a cropped sensor. Please don’t hesitate to fire back should you have additional comments that you think may be helpful for me. Thank you!
Thank you for your videos, which happen to be great learning tools. I have two questions for you, do yo have to use a camera profile and then color swap when editing your IR images, or just one of your choosing? Do you have or will you be producing a video on photographing people in infrared with post production techniques?
Using both a custom profile and swapping colors is commonly used to produce the blue-sky look that is popular. Of course, this is completely optional. Just a custom profile, will help get a good white balance that separates colors. You can keep those colors or do something else creative with them. Swapping colors alone without a custom profile will result in a very blue/teal look. Could be good for simulating a night image. I've done a series of portraits in Ultraviolet and will have a video on that soon. If that is well received, I will consider portraits in IR.
The key pitfall is -- don't buy cheap filters! I have reviewed dozens of images taken with cheap infrared filters, even with "many 5-star reviews" that pass loads of visible light beyond their advertised cut-off. The $50 you will "save" will cost you enormous amounts of frustration when you can't edit your images. A cheap filter might be *ok* on a converted camera; it will be terrible on an unconverted camera. Only buy filters from name brand providers, such as Hoya, B+W, Tiffen, LifePixel, or Kolari Vision. If money is a consideration, then buy used. My Hoya R72 was purchased used and it's great! My book has multiple chapters on filters and resulting style, as well as a -- if I want this style I used that filter -- guide. Here is the short version. Filters above 750 nm are IR only and you'll get a monochrome image. Filters below 750 nm are IR plus visible light and you will get a color image.
@@robshea when I seen your video about the best editors for IR and you like LR and PS I looked into them. And to be fare, for the price a month, it's not bad value. I thought about your channel today when I downloaded the update. I'm going to check your videos to see if you have videos of edits you do using LR and PS so I can now follow along and learn. Thanks for your time and efforts.
Going to get back into digital IR photography after a break. I felt like I was using IR too much during the day as a crutch versus taking normal color. ANyways, decided I want B&W but having a hard time deciding between 720nm and 830nm. Are there any pitfalls related to going with 830nm besides the loss of light on the sensor leading to slightly longer shutter speeds? (I will be getting a camera converted, not just using a filter in front of a visible light camera).
Harold, here are differences that I can think of. 1) Yes, slightly less light will result in slightly longer shutter speeds. When I use 830nm filters, I'm on a edge of being able to shoot handheld and I need to jack up the ISO. IBIS, an ISO-invariant sensor for higher ISOs, tripod, or monopod could be helpful on a 830nm-converted camera. 2) Contrast will be slightly less on 830nm images compared to 720nm. I wouldn't consider this a deal breaker, since most raw editors have multiple tools for adding contrast (contrast, clarity, dehaze, micro-contrast, tone curve, etc.) 3) You won't be able to get any color from a 830nm image, but if you are focused on B&W, not an issue. (You would still be able to color grade, split tone, sepia, etc.) 4) Diffraction is definitely going to be an issue, but that's more a of lens issue than body issue. 5) The skies should be blacker with a 830nm filter compared to a 720nm. This can be tweaked in editing, but if inky black skies are your thing, go 830nm. If it was me, I would lean towards a more modern camera/sensor than I might otherwise convert for general infrared. Probably one with IBIS. The IBIS allows for longer shutter speeds. The modern sensor allows you to use higher ISO values without noise. With all that, I would convert directly to 830nm. Can't wait to see your shots!
Are you referring to the anti-reflective coating they use on the sensor filters or something that actually connects to the connects to the lens? Can you share a link?
I purchased a HoyaR72 filter to experiment with infrared photography. All the images I shot have a hot spot right in the middle. This is very frustrating because a few of them are quite striking but ruined by the hot spot. I am shooting with a Fujifilm mirrorless camera. At first I was shooting with a wide angle zoom(10-24mm) and later switched to the kit lens. The hot spot appeared with both lenses. Is this a common problem with Fuji lenses? I am thinking of getting an older Fujifilm mirrorless camera converted for infrared. Will I still get a hot spot with a converted camera instead of using a filter?
Unfortunately, this is a problem with those two lenses. Converting a camera will produce the same result. Not all suffer from this issue. Here is a list of fuji lenses that work well with infrared. 590.red/xf
@@robshea Thanks. I saw your video about the fuji lenses that work with infrared. I own the 35mm 1.4 but that's not really suitable for landscape work. I guess I'll have to get the 14mm prime. I'm hooked on infrared, I just love the look it gives.
Delicious, finally some high quality content that relates to IR and full spectrum, I needed that.
A very helpful video for me as a total IR Newbie, thank you!
Great video, so glad to finally find an IR dedicated channel
Nice video. I've been shooting infrared portrait photography since 2015, and IR photography has given me additional skills that transfer over to regular color photography. One of the biggest things I've learned is how to "see" how different items will interact with visible light.
The first time I tried infrared bodyscape photography, I used velvet material for a backdrop. Great for regular photography, but glowed like a neon sign in IR because the material reflected IR light, even though the black color absorbed visible light. And that's just one example.
IR photography is a process of trial and error, at least for me. Good to see someone finally making videos on the topic (I just have no desire to make videos), as it's a very fascinating genre of photography.
Tim, I'm a fan of your work! I point people who are interested in IR portraits to your Instagram.
@@robshea Thank you so very much for your kind words. I can't believe I'm only today discovering your YT channel. There's so much great information here that I haven't seen done and/or compiled into a single resource.
I have a lens that produced a distinct hotspot when shooting IR. So I bought a lens recommended for IR. THEN I watched a RUclips video from a different uploader that put his ball cap over the viewfinder during the long exposure. My non converted Nikon D850 has a mechanical shade you flip a switch and it will close off the viewfinder. It completely solved the hotspot issue.
Thanks for sharing! This is an issue that could impact anyone shooting with a DSLR, as the optical viewfinder path could allow for light leaks.
Thank you for the practical explanations on the key topics! Infrared is an awesome challenge with DSLR's, and it's great to hear more from those with experience
Again, I cant say enough about how helpful your videos have been. You have a nice, easygoing style and you can explain what has often been a complex process for me (read overthinking lol) in a very understandable way. Five ways to channel swap, what? Great stuff. I'm going through all of your videos.
It's been suggested that I should join Overthinkers Anonymous, but I need to do some more research on that first. 😆 So you are in good company.
great content..cheers
Thanks for all the useful information. I have found white balance to be a key component of achieving some interesting results. Great video thanks.
Great video, Rob. Very helpful, particularly highlighting and explaining the diffraction issue.
Rob, I have been shooting infrared for 3 years now and have learned much from other IR experts. But, your style and teaching skills are the BEST I have experienced. I recently sold my Nikon D600 with a 720 conversion and made the move to mirrorless with a 590 conversion on a Nikon Z5. I share Z lenses with my Z7ii.
I still have more of your videos to watch and learn. I love the LUTs and profiles now in LR without have to go into PS. Thanks again for taking the mystery out of post processing.
Thanks for your kind words and support!
Hi schwedman, do you experience banding issues in your infrared images with the Z5? Thanks, Marc
Thanks schwedman for your reply (no banding issues with the Z5) which I got in my mail account but strangely is not visibe here.
Another great video Rob! Thanks Very helpful as I wander into IR photography.
So many views and so few likes...
I found your videos are very easy to understand and your explanation is great. For me your channel is priority 1 if you want to shoot infrared. Thanks for your work.
My favorite type of infrared photography is b&w shot with an 830nm converted camera; it is an exercise in working with grey scale. I also shoot in super blue infrared and 590nm, but I don't like these as well as my 830 nm images. I found your video very informative. I work in Lightroom, photoshop and NIK Silver Effex Pro 3. I have used the tools that I would apply to infrared images on visible light color pictures also, so that part of the video rings very true for me.
Thanks for sharing!
Great video thanks. Love your book as well !!
Thank you!
Lots of useful info on IR photography. I've watched other videos where they completely glossed over the focusing challenges, the hotspots, and that some lenses don't work well after conversion.
Thanks for going into detail!
Excellent
Thanks again for all the info and help
Nice video! I am use unmodified Nikon D500 with Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and Hoya R72 filter. To focus I set the aperture to f/1.8 and then manual focus using live view, set aperture to f/3.2 or f/4 and then take a picture. I found that exposure about 15s during direct sunlight is ok. When an image sometimes seems it might be overexposed it almost never is, I tried to compare different exposure times and longer seems better for less noise and better false colors.
I have also noticed when shooting IR with unconverted cameras the automatic exposure detection can be wonky. Good to take test shots or bracket and not rely solely on the meter/histogram.
@@robshea Sure, I always go manual with live view and after some time you get a sensation of what is the right exposure.
I don't know if it's a pit fall as such, but I would also add: having an idea of what type of image you're going for beforehand, which will affect the type of filter you'll need - in terms of how much colour the end result should have
This is certainly a challenge. Once I had a number of IR cut-off filters, the options for how I could shoot increased dramatically, and it was just too many options. It's like having too many lenses to pick from. These days, I try to pick a single style of IR filter before I head out and only take that with me. This forces me to find the best shots using a single style, instead of trying to imagine a scene with every style.
@@robshea i mostly do the same, often going by the weather of that day as well.
I'm currently also experimenting with how the different filters i mainly use (hoya 720nm and r25a) works depending on the seasons. The light can be different this time of year where i live. So different considerations to have regarding the filters
Enjoyed your video and you have a very good skill at getting the message across. I am looking to try IR as it has always intrigued me. However, before I can commit to spending money converting a camera....and the subsequent loss of that camera to "normal" work, I am thinking of using an IR filter (Hoya R72) on my Fuji X-T3 with a lens...16-80...that I have read is a good lens for IR work. Is using a filter instead of converting a camera good for getting decent IR images?
You certainly can get great images with an unconverted camera and Hoya R72. I recommend it for new IR photographers before converting a camera. Here is a guide: ruclips.net/video/ej-6iz9fuLE/видео.html
You are awesome thank you
Thank you. Very informative. It solved one of my mysteries (hot spots). I have another, though. I had a Nikon D800 IR-converted (spencercamera) to 720 nm for b+w photography. When I apply dehazing, I see dark splotches at random points in the image (but the same places in every image taken). I checked the camera before conversion and did not see them. Do you know a) where these come from, and b) how to fix this (outside of going in with Photoshop)? I could send a pic. Thanks again.
It sounds like you have dust on the sensor. First step would be to try a rocket blower to blow dust off the sensor. If that doesn’t work, you could try sensor cleaning swabs. If that doesn’t work, the dust may be between the sensor and the filter. In that case, it would fall to the conversation company to fix.
@@robshea First, my thanks to you for the reply. I thought the IR filter gotten taken out in an IR conversion of a digital camera. The other thing is that a couple of years ago I had a Nikon D7000 converted, and this had the blotches, too. I tried the blower, then the cleaning swabs, and finally brought it to a local guy who cleaned the sensor -- but the blotches were still there. At that point, I gave up and bought a used D800.
@@DR-- In a conversion, the hot mirror (IR blocking) filter is removed and replaced with either an IR filter, such as 720 nm, or a clear filter for full spectrum. When this new filter is added, there must be no dust on the sensor otherwise it will be trapped between the sensor and the new filter. You are welcome to send me an image, and I can take a look at it. 590.red/share
I took a look at your images and it certainly looks like dust. Be sure to clean the front and back elements of the lens. Even better test with another lens and see if you get the same result. This could isolate the problem to the lens or the sensor. This is a lot of dust. If you have cleaned the sensor filter with a swab, confirmed that it is not the lens, and then the issue is between the sensor and the converted filter, I would question the quality if the conversion. The conversion should be done in a clean room and that is too much dust to have been done in a clean room.
Thank you for your educational tutorials, Rob. I am seriously considering converting one of my cameras to IR. I am interested in color and B&W but I am turned between a 590 and a 665 conversion. I have "played" with some demo shots and can't find any significant difference between the two filters. It seems to me that you can emulate the 590 by simply adding saturation to the 665 shots. The 590 shot, however, seems more prone to fringing. I believe that you shoot primarily with the 590; if so, am I missing something? Would you have any advice before I commit to one (ie 665) or the other? The camera that I am considering for the conversion is a Nikon D300 that does not have good live-view capabilities. Thank you.
590nm and 665nm are certainly very close. 590nm will capture orange, red, and near-IR light. 665nm will capture only red and near-IR. Therefore, 590nm will give you more colors to play with while editing; not just more saturation, but a broader spectrum of colors. Personally, I would lean towards the 590nm for conversion since it would be easy to add a 665nm external filter. However, you can't go in the other direction by adding a lower-numbered external filter. Neither is the wrong choice. Don't fret too much over it. Pick one, shoot, edit, and grow your skills in making the best shots you can with it.
Since the D300 doesn't have good live-view, will you have the focus calibrated for a specific lens?
@@robshea Thank you for your kind and helpful reply Rob; much appreciated. And yes, I am planning to have an 18-35mm f/3.5-f/5.6G Dx lens calibrated. Apparently this should not be a problem lens as far as hot spots is concerned. And I will probably stay at =< f/8.0 to avoid refraction - except for those times when my creative juices may be flowing :). I plan on using that lens exclusively for all my IR photography as it has a decent zoom range for a cropped sensor. Please don’t hesitate to fire back should you have additional comments that you think may be helpful for me. Thank you!
@@photonsonpixels Excellent!
thx a lot ;)
Thank you for your videos, which happen to be great learning tools. I have two questions for you, do yo have to use a camera profile and then color swap when editing your IR images, or just one of your choosing? Do you have or will you be producing a video on photographing people in infrared with post production techniques?
Using both a custom profile and swapping colors is commonly used to produce the blue-sky look that is popular. Of course, this is completely optional. Just a custom profile, will help get a good white balance that separates colors. You can keep those colors or do something else creative with them. Swapping colors alone without a custom profile will result in a very blue/teal look. Could be good for simulating a night image.
I've done a series of portraits in Ultraviolet and will have a video on that soon. If that is well received, I will consider portraits in IR.
@@robshea Thanks
What pitfalls are there related to infrared filter selection?
The key pitfall is -- don't buy cheap filters! I have reviewed dozens of images taken with cheap infrared filters, even with "many 5-star reviews" that pass loads of visible light beyond their advertised cut-off. The $50 you will "save" will cost you enormous amounts of frustration when you can't edit your images. A cheap filter might be *ok* on a converted camera; it will be terrible on an unconverted camera. Only buy filters from name brand providers, such as Hoya, B+W, Tiffen, LifePixel, or Kolari Vision. If money is a consideration, then buy used. My Hoya R72 was purchased used and it's great!
My book has multiple chapters on filters and resulting style, as well as a -- if I want this style I used that filter -- guide. Here is the short version. Filters above 750 nm are IR only and you'll get a monochrome image. Filters below 750 nm are IR plus visible light and you will get a color image.
Are you going to do a video on the new colour grading in the lightroom update?
Absolutely! This has been on of the biggest missing features in LR, and should be a great addition for IR editing.
@@robshea when I seen your video about the best editors for IR and you like LR and PS I looked into them. And to be fare, for the price a month, it's not bad value. I thought about your channel today when I downloaded the update. I'm going to check your videos to see if you have videos of edits you do using LR and PS so I can now follow along and learn.
Thanks for your time and efforts.
@@Night6436 I am working on a video to cover the latest updates to Lightroom Classic v10.
Excellent video. Thanks for posting.
Going to get back into digital IR photography after a break. I felt like I was using IR too much during the day as a crutch versus taking normal color. ANyways, decided I want B&W but having a hard time deciding between 720nm and 830nm. Are there any pitfalls related to going with 830nm besides the loss of light on the sensor leading to slightly longer shutter speeds? (I will be getting a camera converted, not just using a filter in front of a visible light camera).
Harold, here are differences that I can think of.
1) Yes, slightly less light will result in slightly longer shutter speeds. When I use 830nm filters, I'm on a edge of being able to shoot handheld and I need to jack up the ISO. IBIS, an ISO-invariant sensor for higher ISOs, tripod, or monopod could be helpful on a 830nm-converted camera.
2) Contrast will be slightly less on 830nm images compared to 720nm. I wouldn't consider this a deal breaker, since most raw editors have multiple tools for adding contrast (contrast, clarity, dehaze, micro-contrast, tone curve, etc.)
3) You won't be able to get any color from a 830nm image, but if you are focused on B&W, not an issue. (You would still be able to color grade, split tone, sepia, etc.)
4) Diffraction is definitely going to be an issue, but that's more a of lens issue than body issue.
5) The skies should be blacker with a 830nm filter compared to a 720nm. This can be tweaked in editing, but if inky black skies are your thing, go 830nm.
If it was me, I would lean towards a more modern camera/sensor than I might otherwise convert for general infrared. Probably one with IBIS. The IBIS allows for longer shutter speeds. The modern sensor allows you to use higher ISO values without noise. With all that, I would convert directly to 830nm. Can't wait to see your shots!
@@robshea Thanks so much for the in-depth reply. I'm going with a Fuji X-T30 for conversion. No IBIS but I'll live without that. All the best.
@@haroldcarlson2775 X-T30 is a solid choice. As an X-T20 user, the X-T30 has been on my shortlist. Good sensor, small body. 👍
Kolari vision now has a hot spot killer rear magnetic filter for some cameras…
Are you referring to the anti-reflective coating they use on the sensor filters or something that actually connects to the connects to the lens? Can you share a link?
In the dropdown menu
I purchased a HoyaR72 filter to experiment with infrared photography. All the images I shot have a hot spot right in the middle. This is very frustrating because a few of them are quite striking but ruined by the hot spot. I am shooting with a Fujifilm mirrorless camera. At first I was shooting with a wide angle zoom(10-24mm) and later switched to the kit lens. The hot spot appeared with both lenses. Is this a common problem with Fuji lenses? I am thinking of getting an older Fujifilm mirrorless camera converted for infrared. Will I still get a hot spot with a converted camera instead of using a filter?
Unfortunately, this is a problem with those two lenses. Converting a camera will produce the same result. Not all suffer from this issue. Here is a list of fuji lenses that work well with infrared. 590.red/xf
@@robshea Thanks. I saw your video about the fuji lenses that work with infrared. I own the 35mm 1.4 but that's not really suitable for landscape work. I guess I'll have to get the 14mm prime. I'm hooked on infrared, I just love the look it gives.
@@miguelinfante7238 The XF 23mm f/2 and the XF 14mm f/2.8 are my two most commonly used lenses for IR. Both are excellent.
the biggest pitfall i guess is the fact that you always need a tripod unless you've converted your camera LOL
😂
Why would you shoot this with the sun behind you? It’s hard to take this seriously when you make this basic mistake