Oh my, I felt like the red-headed step child when I started up my computer a little bit ago and came over here to my favorite site:, I had to actually LOG on. I had to stop and think what my username was:! Actually, I am just recovering from a 3 week bout of pneumonia.....go figure huh!!! But I'm back and I am thinking about trying out infared photography..Something different I know...Here's my question friends, I did some research and found out I am needing a hoya r72 m72 filter for my d90. I also did some research and found out that if I used my d40 I wouldn't have to have the shutter speed way down because it's built in ir filter isn't as good as the ones in the d90. Here's my thing, I'm wondering though, since the d90 is a better camera, and the one I use the most, would it be worth my while to by the ir filter for the d40 and not my d90...and also, I am seeing the hoya's go for up to $100 and up. I don't know if I can rightly justify spending that kind of money just to play for a day. So I went on ebay and there is one for $16.00 and I know, I know, you pay for what you get, but it is a roxsen 72mm ir infared r72-720nm hoya. don't know what all that means, but that is the same numbers as is advertised on the $150 hoyas...Any advice would be greatly appreciated. missed you guys....
#1. "RE: infrared photography question!" In response to Reply # 0
The filter goes on the lens not the camera body. So buy the filter for whichever lens you plan on using. Then you can experiment with both bodies. But be careful which lens you use. Some lenses are not recommended for IR because they cause a "hot" spot in the center of the photo. Not everybody knows which lenses are better but Bjorn comments on IR performance at the end of his capsule lens reviews here:
#2. "RE: infrared photography question!" In response to Reply # 0
If you still have the AFS 18-200mm lens that should work for IR. That lens takes a 72mm filter. The Hoya R72 filter refers to the cutoff wavelength of 720 nano-meters for IR. So it attenuates visible light and passes IR above the visible light spectrum. The filter is deep red and you won't be able to frame the scene. It's better to use a tripod before adding the filter.
As far as IR goes the best IR reflectance is in sunlight with green foliage in the picture. Man made material like concrete don't reflect IR hardly at all. So IR photography is aimed more to landscape photography.
#5. "RE: infrared photography question!" In response to Reply # 4
I have a LifePixel converted camera and love it. But I didn't start with one. I don't think I'd spend $250 plus shipping on an experiment for one day to see if I even liked IR photography. And once you convert, that body is dedicated to IR.
#6. "RE: infrared photography question!" In response to Reply # 5
Okay, but to my original question, would this rosen ir do the trick instead of investing in the hoya ir filter? I'm thinking about converting the d40, but then again, not sure I want to ruin a completely good camera, it was my first love, so we all know how that goes. let me know what you all think or have tried the cheaper ir filters...
#7. "RE: infrared photography question!" In response to Reply # 6
I would not buy a Roxsen IR filter from ebay unless you don't mind taking a $20 chance. There are a few reports of poorly made counterfeit Roxsen filters from China. I would buy the Hoya filter. After using it if you find that IR photography isn't for you then sell it here. I would think there are enough photographers interested in IR that you wouldn't have a problem selling it.
#8. "RE: infrared photography question!" In response to Reply # 6
>Okay, but to my original question, would this rosen ir do the >trick instead of investing in the hoya ir filter? I'm >thinking about converting the d40, but then again, not sure I >want to ruin a completely good camera, it was my first love, >so we all know how that goes. let me know what you all think >or have tried the cheaper ir filters...
The camera isn't ruined if you decide you don't like the infrared conversion. You should get your original filter back with your converted camera, so you can always revert back to the normal camera. Of course I have no idea where I put mine when I got my D70 back, but if I knew where it was I could convert it back. There is a do it yourself tutorial on the lifepixel site.
Before I had my D70 converted I used a cokin filter,
#9. "RE: infrared photography question!" In response to Reply # 8
I'm not clear here that we are all on the same page, so help me out, please.
There are IR filters that you put on the lens. More or less blocks visible light and lets the IR thru. Your need to compose and focus before installing the filter. Exposure times are extended. I've read that D90's work very poorly at that. Not sure about the 40, but did ask a few years ago and told it was a very poor choice. Has to do with the (hi or lo pass) filter built in --- which can be removed, I'm told.
Then there's that internal filter, mentioned above, which needs to be removed for normal IR work. Pretty much rendering the camera useless for normal work.
I know I'm missing something here, so please help me. This is something I've wanted to do for awhile.
#10. "RE: infrared photography question!" In response to Reply # 9
I don't know what you're missing. You seem to have it right.
1. All of Nikon's digital cameras have a built in low pass filter that blocks IR to varying degrees. The older bodies like the D1 series and the D2H have less aggressive filters so more of the IR was let through to the sensor. This was a problem to some where things like black fabric had a magenta cast and required an IR blocking filter. This was a serious problem for Leica when they released the M8 digital camera which required adding the IR blocking filter in front of every lens.
2. A deep red IR pass/ visible light blocking filter is required to take IR photos. When added to the front of the lens on a SLR camera body, film or digital, it blocks any view from the viewfinder. You need a tripod and the filter removed to frame the photo before the filter is added and the shutter released.
3. When using this IR filter on the lens and depending on how aggressive the blocking filter is in front of the sensor it can determine if the body can be used at all in the case of recent bodies or how slow a shutter speed and how high an ISO setting is required to get a reasonable exposure. As I recall no matter how long an exposure or high the ISO was set I couldn't get an image at all from the D200. My D1H is fine. I tried a D80 with the R72 filter and it required an exposure at ISO 3200, f5.6 and the exposure bias set to +5 EV. The shutter speed ended up at 1/3 sec for a good exposure in full sun.
4. Now to eliminate the very slow shutter speeds and the viewfinder blocking red filter, you can have the IR filter over the sensor removed and a IR passing filter added. However since infra red focuses at a different point than visible light the AF system in the camera is re-calibrated to IR. The company that removed the old filter and adds the new filter will do this. Nikon's older lenses had red focus dots on the dof ring on where to move the focus after focusing with visible light. That normally meant you had to focus a little closer than what the focus distance scale indicated.
5. So now you have your camera modified with a new filter and the AF calibrated. From here on in taking your photos is just like it was before your camera was modified. You no longer need a filter over the lens. The camera's meter will give you pretty good exposures but in some cases not perfect. Bracketing would be a good practice.
6. The final step after you take your photos is post processing. Your digital images will now look pink. There are a couple of things you need to do. First to get the all white foliage b&w photo you see in so many IR photos you need to de-saturate the image and then bring up the levels to get a nice balanced histogram. You're just about there. A little touch up in exposure or maybe contrast and you've got a nice b&w IR photo.
Or if you want a somewhat false color IR photo you can adjust the colors in the color channels. There are lessons on how to do this. The photos can look quite striking. LifePixel also has different strength IR filters for the sensor that can make this easier to do then with a strong IR filter. It lets some of the visible light through.
And that's about it. I don't know if I've missed anything but if I have I'm sure someone will jump in.
#11. "RE: infrared photography question!" In response to Reply # 9 Fri 13-Jul-12 08:28 AM by mfphoto1
>Then there's that internal filter, mentioned above, which >needs to be removed for normal IR work. Pretty much rendering >the camera useless for normal work.
You are correct once the internal filter is removed and the infrared filter installed you cannot use the camera for normal work. That being said, if in the future you decide that you no longer want the camera to be infrared you just need to have the infrared filter removed and re-install the original low/pass filter and your camera is back to standard shooting.
A couple of suggestions: 1) If your not using the D40 that much, consider getting that one converted to infrared. There is a world of difference between using the filter and using a converted camera.
2)or if your just not sure yet, you might find some decent prices for used filters on Ebay or at local flea markets or camera swaps. I bought my first Cokin Infrared filter at a camera swap for about 10 bucks. As a matter of fact if I can find it I'll sell it to you for 10 bucks.