I have always converted cameras internally for IR use so don't have much to offer as far as an IR filter in front of the lens. The IR blocking in the IR/UV cutoff filter in the D3 is rather extreme (they seem to get more efficient with each newer body odel). Your exposure times will be long. As for the internally converted IR cameras I have used I always filled the frame with grass, set to manual focus and exposure, set the focus as out of focus as possible, done a basic exposure in manual to get a decent image (it will look red at this point), then went through the typical white balance steps without moving or adjusting the camera. Maybe it will work, maybe not.
Mon 18-Aug-08 10:14 AM | edited Mon 18-Aug-08 10:16 AM by admirall
It does not solve the problem. I mostly like IR photos in color anyway. I think the measuring fails, because it is too much red in the picture. But other photographers succeed in WB measuring, but they use other equipment, like Nikon D80 and Hoya IR filters for example. And using monochrome does not help also because there are no colors, just red. So it would look all almost the same grayscale. (sorry for my english)
That's what I don't quite understand. Since you are intending to image only the IR, I would expect there to be data only in the red channel. I wouldn't expect there to be any data of significance in the blue of green channel, so the image is going to be monochrome no matter what you do. It is then just a question of what color of monochrome you want.
That's why IR shooters these days use modified cameras. As I mentioned above, the IR/UV blocking is so efficient in modern cameraa that hardly any IR reaches the sensor anymore. You really need to replace it. I just bought a cheap D40X (compared to the D3 anyway) and modified that. A used D70S is a very easy do it yourself project with a $120 or so filter and the results are very good.