Need more IR?

hmm I think I'll have to agree with the others. Those pictures are too uhh grainy and noisy. It's almost like you took them with a point and shoot at ISO 6400 and then removed the color or something, no offense

They're shot on B&W IR film, the colour of the leaves is a complete giveaway if you know anything about IR photography.



They were scanned ages ago on a crap scanner, I should try get a neg scanner and work with that.



That is colour IR shot with a digital camera, of course it looks different.



IR is never visible to humans. If you think they're not IR you seriously need to educate yourself on the subject.
It's quite amusing how people on here that say they love photography are so completely clueless when it comes to shooting on film.



How about some film IR?

http://www.flickr.com/groups/45915555@N00/


You need to go read up on the subject.

This post was edited by Veilside on Jan 13 2009 06:49am

IR is INVISIBLE to the human eye. Are you saying I'm not educated on the subject? I've been taking advanced digital photography for almost a full year (My semester ends tomorrow)
I think I might know what it means buddy.

Go take your TV remote control, look at the little censor on the end and press a button. An INVISIBLE IR single comes out of TV remotes.
Try it.

Try taking a picture of the remote censor now when you press a button, you'll see the light when it's recorded by the processor.

edit: And B&W IR looks like complete shit to me. Why the fuck would you want IR light in a black and white photo. Makes no sence.
AND who still shoots film, really?
In today's world, almost everybody has moved onto digital.

This post was edited by TheBlackRose66 on Jan 13 2009 07:59am

Professionals still shoot film. Sure, you can get digital backs for medium and large format cameras, but they're prohibitively expensive, retailing at a good $30k for a decent one, and the sensor still has a lower resolution than equivalent film, meaning film is still superior for certain applications.

Oh but well done, I mean, you've been shooting for just under a year, so you must know more than me, the fact that my father was a photographer and I was studying photography four years ago surely can't count for anything.

Also, your test is fucking retarded, it all depends on what kind of filter the manufacturer has put over the sensor, some have very good IR filters, some don't, it just depends on the model.

Who cares if B&W IR looks shit to you, I don't recall your opinion being worth a damn on the matter, I also don't see why it doesn't make sense, obviouly Kodak thought it did when they were selling HIE film for over 2 decades, as did all the people that used the film. It's also got lots of scientific uses, but again, I don't imagine you know anything on the subject, seeing as you're stuck in the DSRL prosumer mentality.

I beg to differ.
Chase Jarvis (The biggest commercial photographer in USA, taking around 15,000 photos a day with over $90,000 worth of camera equipment and a studio the size of WalMart...shoots with a digital hasselbald 3 (The best camera in the world))
Vincent T. Joachim, another huge photojournalist shoots with a Canon Digital Rebel.
Ken Hoehn, ALSO shoots all Canon pro series cameras. (And he's a pro nature photographer and photography teacher.)

http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/
http://www.vtj.ca
http://www.kenhoehn.ca


The pictures a bad in my opinion, but it must not matter. Especially when I have threads stickied in this forum. Definitely doesn't matter.

This post was edited by TheBlackRose66 on Jan 13 2009 08:30am

Wow, three whole photographers, how amazing. I won't argue that DSLR's are better than film SLR's I think they are too, but to think medium format and large format film isn't used is absolute fucking nonsense.

You want to know who still shoots film? Andreas Gursky, I won't bother telling you why that's good, you should be able to work it out yourself.

Oh, and the guy taking 15k photos a day? That's got to be a fucking joke.

Check out his site.
He's the biggest commercial photographer in the USA.
(I posted a link)

Watch the video of him packing his camera gear. He has a garage (the kind you find attached to houses) full of gear.
A stack of memory cards.

He says in his video "Taking an average of 15,000 photos a day you will need a good amount of trust able memory cards"


Edit: Bye, I'm going to school now have fun.

This post was edited by TheBlackRose66 on Jan 13 2009 08:41am

Well, take just a quick second to think about how long it would take to take 15k photos a day, most of those shots will just be looking at lighting and shit like that, or just quick snaps, I still doubt anyone has the time to take that many.

Oh, and he's also probably got a formal photography education and understands the importance of shooting on film.