moondigger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Thanks for your comments, IShootThings.
IShootThings wrote:
Boy, i haven't taken my infrared camera out in a while. I think the red edit is interesting and definitely different. It looks kind of other wordly. I'm interested to know how you edited it, I'm only educated in the basic white look when it comes to infrared.
My camera has a 590 nm infrared conversion, which means it allows a significant amount of the red-end of the visible spectrum through in addition to the infrared wavelengths. Do you know what cutoff the infrared filter in your camera has? Common wavelengths are ~590 nm, ~660 nm, ~715 nm, and ~850 nm. You can't get any false color with an 850 nm cutoff, and only a little bit with a 715 nm cutoff.
That said, with false color IR, it helps to have a properly set custom white balance and you need some significant post-processing work to get a 'pleasing' look with good color separation. And counter-intuitively, the mapping of wavelengths to colors at the sensor makes the sky red and the foliage cyan or bluish. One of the first steps when processing these images is to swap the red and blue channels, if you want your sky to appear blue.
I'm not much of a fan of the other two edits, they aren't bad but seem a bit too busy for my liking.
Yeah, I threw them together quickly for the sake of discussion and wasn't careful enough about contrast/levels, so a lot of the foliage ended up looking too similar to rock or snow, giving them a busy look. The first (color) image was what I worked on for a while, trying to make it match the color characteristics of Kodak EIR film. The color separation makes it seem less busy, because foliage, rock, sky, snow, and clouds are all readily distinguishable from each other.
|
