Filter Tests in the Blue Mountains, Australia

[SteveCampbell]

Purely aesthetic experiments. This was all hand-held and done on a whim, so no tight tolerances here. All filters were color-balanced with virgin Teflon immediately prior to the shot, and all photos treated with auto-brightness/contrast. I extracted the JPGs from the RAW files using QuickJPGfromCR2 since Lightroom always destroys my color balance with it's stingy 2000K lower limit.

 

Full spectrum-converted Canon 5Dmk2 (Spectosil 2000 Fused Silica) + Auto Takumar 35mm F3.5 + (UV: BG40+UG11, Visible: BG40, Infrared: r72)

35mm, f/8.0, 1/25+1/400+1/250+1/1000, ISO3200+100+100+100

 

Image color profile fixed - thanks Andrea! [also added full-spectrum]

 

A waterfall shot with two different lenses and many different filters. Many of the filters I used on the Auto Takumar are cheap filters labeled only with a color.

 

Full spectrum-converted Canon 5Dmk2 (Spectosil 2000 Fused Silica)

"Non-UV lens" = Canon 17-40mm F/4.0 (performs well in IR)

"UV-capable lens" = Auto Takumar 35mm F/3.5

 

 

Bonus image: Full-spectrum 28x photo panorama @ 17mm, F/8.0, 1/1000th, ISO100. No editing, other than constructing the panorama.

 

[Guest]

That first UV image looks like such a foreboding place! (especially compared to the IR version).

[Andrea B.]

Lots of good tests there! Thank you for showing them to us.

 

I am liking the abstraction of the UV version of the first landscape.

But I'm not sure why the visible version shows so little detail?

[SteveCampbell]

No problem!

 

I'm not sure either - I think it's due to color handling on the website. Compared to the website, viewing the original image on my computer shows much richer color information and tonal range, with a clear gradient of green in the foreground to blue in the distance.

 

Lots of good tests there! Thank you for showing them to us.

 

I am liking the abstraction of the UV version of the first landscape.

But I'm not sure why the visible version shows so little detail?

[Andrea B.]

Now I know how to advise you!

 

It is not our website which causes a colour problem. We have no setting for that.

 

What you are seeing is a browser problem combined with the color profile which you have assigned to your photo. If you assign an sRGB color profile to your photograph file before posting it, then every browser will be able to correctly intrepret the photo colours for display. If some other color profile is assigned to the file (such as Adobe RGB or ProPhoto) or if there is no color profile assigned, then a particular browser may not be able to correctly translate the photo colours to the browser display.

 

Some browsers can interpret other color profiles besides sRGB, but I do not have a current list.

[ulf]

These links might be interesting to check:

http://www.color.org/browsertest.xalter

https://chromachecker.com/info/en/page/webbrowser

https://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/

[SteveCampbell]

Colors fixed - thanks Andrea and UlfW!

 

Now I know how to advise you!

 

It is not our website which causes a colour problem. We have no setting for that.

 

What you are seeing is a browser problem combined with the color profile which you have assigned to your photo. If you assign an sRGB color profile to your photograph file before posting it, then every browser will be able to correctly intrepret the photo colours for display. If some other color profile is assigned to the file (such as Adobe RGB or ProPhoto) or if there is no color profile assigned, then a particular browser may not be able to correctly translate the photo colours to the browser display.

 

Some browsers can interpret other color profiles besides sRGB, but I do not have a current list.

These links might be interesting to check:

http://www.color.org...wsertest.xalter

https://chromachecke...page/webbrowser

https://petapixel.co...-color-managed/

[Andrea B.]

Yep, looks better!! Got some green trees now. B)

 

Over the years I have come to very much enjoy Full Spectrum (no filter) photos such as your pano above. There is just "something about them" which is cool. Although I do wonder what non-UV/IR folks think about them. Do you get any strange reactions from viewers who are not familiar with UV or IR work?

[Andy Perrin]

Andrea, did you know they make for nice portraits? I discovered this accidentally, with my grandma. The IR part erases a lot of wrinkles. :)

Save

Save

[Andrea B.]

This is lovely !! Thank you for showing us a full spectrum portrait.

[SteveCampbell]

I haven't produced many full-spectrum photos yet, but I certainly do get strange reactions to my IR photos! That's why I ended up creating that infographic I posted a while back. I haven't posted much outside of infrared however, since I haven't standardized an approach to UV, or had much time.

 

Yep, looks better!! Got some green trees now. B)

 

Over the years I have come to very much enjoy Full Spectrum (no filter) photos such as your pano above. There is just "something about them" which is cool. Although I do wonder what non-UV/IR folks think about them. Do you get any strange reactions from viewers who are not familiar with UV or IR work?

 

Great photo, Andy. I wonder if the effect is exaggerated by outdoors lighting? I'm also going to try my hand at some full-spectrum portraits relatively soon!

 

Andrea, did you know they make for nice portraits? I discovered this accidentally, with my grandma. The IR part erases a lot of wrinkles. :)

Save

Save

[Andy Perrin]

That image was made mainly with outdoor light (indirect sunshine) because my mom's house has glass walls on three sides and is open to the water (Annisquam River in Gloucester, Massachusetts, US). The windows attenuate the IR a little, but most of the 720nm range makes it through.

[SteveCampbell]

Ah yes, I was using the hair color as a measure of the amount of infrared present, forgetting that it's the melanin reflecting long near-IR that gives full-spectrum photos their characteristic "purple hair" effect. I think the diffuse skin character you mentioned previously is good evidence of the amount of IR present.

 

That image was made mainly with outdoor light (indirect sunshine) because my mom's house has glass walls on three sides and is open to the water (Annisquam River in Gloucester, Massachusetts, US). The windows attenuate the IR a little, but most of the 720nm range makes it through.