I’ve been doing a lot of research into Infrared photography and there doesn’t seem to be a single place that contains all of it, so here is what I found:
With DSLRs there are three types of IR Techniques.
- Photoshop
- Converted Bodies
- Filters
Photoshop: Techniques do exist to “imitate” IR photography. This is a trick and cannot reproduce the amazing images that you can get from IR itself.
Converted Bodies: The main reason that IR photography is not readily available to us is that all DSLR cameras have a IR Filter that blocks most of the IR light from the sensor. Method #3 is to physically remove this filter from in front of the sensor. This conversion is destructive, and that body is not longer able to take normal pictures again, it can only take IR images. Yes, this means you have to carry yet another body with you everywhere you go, but this is the best possible image you can get. A typical conversion (there are two or three different kinds) is around $250. The positives are endless, Auto Focus Works, Exposure Controls work (somewhat, you still need to adjust exposure compensation), you can see the image in your Preview Window as it is, you can use it with any lens you like (even fish eye or long zooms that don’t accept filters or use drop ins).
Filters: They are expensive, but can be used and unused as you like. The draw backs to filters are:
- They’re expensive (did I say that already?)
- Hoya R72 IR Filter, 52mm – 77mm ($90 – $210 respectively)
- B+W 093 IR Filter, 52mm – 77mm ($114 – $203 respectively)
- Tiffen 87 IR Filter, 52mm – 77mm ($106 – $153 respectively)
- With Filters, you have to use very long exposures (as most of the light is blocked by the IR filter of the camera.
- Only certain scenes can be captured (because of the duration required)
- AF is disabled (you can’t see anything once you put the filter on) — You have to compose your shot, put on the filter and hope nothing moves, than take the shot.
- Exposure Control is disabled.
- You have to use a tripod – since you get only a small % of the light you need very long exposures (10″-30″, 30″+ second exposure are typical).
In the next few posts, I’ll delve more into each of these items in more detail.
I’ve been seeing a lot of discussions on forums and in clubs regarding Digital Negatives.
So let’s put together some Pros and Cons of Adobe DNG:
Pros:
- You can embed the original RAW file inside of your DNG. Yes it makes it bigger, but in case you ever needed the original you still have it.
- If you convert your RAW to DNG (and not store a copy of the RAW). DNG will be smaller, most of the time, than the original RAW file.
- DNG is an open format, not a manufacturer specific format. You want to share you file between a Nikon, Canon, and Sony User? You can either export your RAW file to a DNG, or TIFF. Those are your only “real” options. There are other formats such as PNG, but you’re still chucking a lot of data right out of the window.
- You can convert from RAW to DNG inside Lightroom as you import, so you won’t even know it happened.
- This know separate Side XMP file that you have to carry around with a RAW file is no longer needed. DNG’s changes and history are kept within the file.
Cons:
- DNG is not a native format for any manufacturer
- DNG file conversion does take extra time (minimal for today’s computers, but there is still an initial hit, otherwise it is just as fast in opening and convert than the original RAW file).
- There is a risk — adobe might stop supporting DNG format. Yes, it’s a very small list and Adobe would be shooting themselves in the foot if they ever do, but it is a possibility.
- DNG files that include the original RAW file do take up more space than the original RAW file alone.
I personally have been using DNG for about 1.5 years now and have not had any issues. I really like the ability to export a DNG from lightroom and sending it to a customer without having to tell them how to open it or needing them to install Adobe RAW for Canon. All of my lightroom libraries have also been converted to DNG, even the original JPEGs.
Canon finally seems to have added an artificial Horizon (self leveling one at that) to the body. At least on the view screen in Live View mode. Hopefully some version of it also included in the view finder display.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/04/video-canon-eos-7d-gatling-gun-shooting-8-fps-of-awesome/#continued
The answer at this point (without actually touching the new body) is a “Yes”.
- 8+ FPS – This is the same as the 1D Mark II, and 1D Mark IIN pro bodies.
- Very Fast AF – 7D has a dedicated chip for AF, again same as all 1D pro bodies.
- Cost: $1699 List Price, vs. Who know how much for the 1D Mark IV. (5D Mark II is selling for more than $2700, figure we’re looking at $4000 easily for the new 1D)
What it is lacking:
- 45 Point AF System – we only have 19 AF points. But is this a big deal? Not really. 95% of the time you’re using the Center AF point because that’s the only one that is tack sharp. The rest are still sharp, but relatively to the center point, not as much.
- Sealed Body – Oh this is a life saver at times, but then again that’s because I’m too lazy to pull out the Hyperphoic protection from thinktank.
- Battery – Ok this is almost a deal breaker. On a 1D Mark II battery (a generation old) I can go with over 7000 shots without even looking at the battery charge. Yes, that’s not even the max, I don’t think I’ve ever run any of my batteries down 100% on any single shoot. I’ve actually covered 3 games in a row over 4000 shots with the battery only 50% used. I also use Lens IS 99% of the time in sports, (Mode 2). So, what is the power run of the 7D? No idea, but a grip is going to be needed (Most sports are shot in vertical anyway, so need the button). We’ll have to wait and see. Anyone remember the 5D Mark II Battery fiasco?
Here is a non-comprehensive list of Photographic (or related) Associations that are around. Most will accept anyone who can pay the yearly dues.
- APA – Advertising Photographers of America
- ASMP – American Society of Media Photographers
- NAPP – National Association of Photoshop Professionals
- NANPA – North America Nature Photography Association
- PPA – Professional Photographers of America
- PSA – Photographic Society of America
- WPPI – Wedding and Portrait Photographers International
